|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
more usenet implications from court case
"Susan Walker" wrote in message
... Please, LEARN (your newsreader) TO GODDAMN QUOTE CORRECTLY! Look at what It's a bug in Outlook Express. When people post with html instead of straight ASCII text it screws up. |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
more usenet implications from court case
William Mattil wrote:
Quit using Outhouse to post with or at least take the time to configure it properly. And while we're at it - quit trying to justify your lame posts. Have you ever added anything to this group? |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
more usenet implications from court case
On Aug 22, 12:51*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
KG wrote: On Aug 21, 8:48*am, Bob Schwartz wrote: GoneBeforeMyTime wrote: liz hatch will soon sue to unmask magilla Longo sued people before for defamation and libel. The ape feels that Hatch isn't that good or attractive. I'm not sure there is libel there. Dumbass - The case isn't about libel. There were no damages. The term "Biggest skank in New York" could be easily interpreted as purely subjective. The judge didn't award money. The judge merely ordered that Google ID the blogger. thanks, Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. The judge based his decision on the fact that the underlying statements were defamatory and injuriour and likely not true. *The content matters.. Educate yourself: http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticl...=1144067964387 Dumbass - That looks like it was written before this latest case. Most of the stuff in the article you reference has to do with bloggers and companies' products. The case referenced in the first post in this thread has a lot more in common with postings on rbr and the rest of usenet than criticisms of a company's product. thanks, Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
more usenet implications from court case
KG wrote:
On Aug 22, 12:51*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote: KG wrote: On Aug 21, 8:48*am, Bob Schwartz wrote: GoneBeforeMyTime wrote: liz hatch will soon sue to unmask magilla Longo sued people before for defamation and libel. The ape feels that Hatch isn't that good or attractive. I'm not sure there is libel there. Dumbass - The case isn't about libel. There were no damages. The term "Biggest skank in New York" could be easily interpreted as purely subjective. The judge didn't award money. The judge merely ordered that Google ID the blogger. thanks, Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. The judge based his decision on the fact that the underlying statements were defamatory and injuriour and likely not true. *The content matters. Educate yourself: http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticl...=1144067964387 Dumbass - That looks like it was written before this latest case. Most of the stuff in the article you reference has to do with bloggers and companies' products. The case referenced in the first post in this thread has a lot more in common with postings on rbr and the rest of usenet than criticisms of a company's product. thanks, Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. Maybe, bitch. Magilla |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
more usenet implications from court case
On Aug 24, 2:00*am, KG wrote:
On Aug 22, 12:51*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote: KG wrote: On Aug 21, 8:48*am, Bob Schwartz wrote: GoneBeforeMyTime wrote: liz hatch will soon sue to unmask magilla Longo sued people before for defamation and libel. The ape feels that Hatch isn't that good or attractive. I'm not sure there is libel there. Dumbass - The case isn't about libel. There were no damages. The term "Biggest skank in New York" could be easily interpreted as purely subjective. The judge didn't award money. The judge merely ordered that Google ID the blogger. thanks, Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. The judge based his decision on the fact that the underlying statements were defamatory and injuriour and likely not true. *The content matters. Educate yourself: http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticl...=1144067964387 Dumbass - That looks like it was written before this latest case. Most of the stuff in the article you reference has to do with bloggers and companies' products. The case referenced in the first post in this thread has a lot more in common with postings on rbr and the rest of usenet than criticisms of a company's product. thanks, Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. Dumbass, I sort of agree with Magilla. I suspect that you can't just sue to reveal a blogger's identity. You probably have to justify it by showing that you have grounds for pursuing a suit against the blogger on some charge. In the Cohen case, she was threatening to bring a defamation suit (but from news articles, I think she's since dropped it). Where I disagree with Magilla is the idea that the judge found the underlying statements to be defamatory or injurious. The judge probably did not make a finding of fact. The judge merely has to agree that the plaintiff has reasonable grounds for a suit. So a completely frivolous case would probably get thrown out. But if a good lawyer can persuade the judge that the plaintiff _might_ win a defamation case, then the judge could let the case go forward, which will generally require compelling the ISP to give up the identity. Disclaimer: After genetic testing, the IAAF has determined that I am not a lawyer. Ben |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
more usenet implications from court case
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
more usenet implications from court case
On Aug 24, 10:48*am, "
wrote: On Aug 24, 2:00*am, KG wrote: On Aug 22, 12:51*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote: KG wrote: On Aug 21, 8:48*am, Bob Schwartz wrote: GoneBeforeMyTime wrote: liz hatch will soon sue to unmask magilla Longo sued people before for defamation and libel. The ape feels that Hatch isn't that good or attractive. I'm not sure there is libel there. Dumbass - The case isn't about libel. There were no damages. The term "Biggest skank in New York" could be easily interpreted as purely subjective. The judge didn't award money. The judge merely ordered that Google ID the blogger. thanks, Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. The judge based his decision on the fact that the underlying statements were defamatory and injuriour and likely not true. *The content matters. Educate yourself: http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticl...=1144067964387 Dumbass - That looks like it was written before this latest case. Most of the stuff in the article you reference has to do with bloggers and companies' products. The case referenced in the first post in this thread has a lot more in common with postings on rbr and the rest of usenet than criticisms of a company's product. thanks, Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. Dumbass, I sort of agree with Magilla. *I suspect that you can't just sue to reveal a blogger's identity. * snip Dumbass - I never wrote that. All I ever said was that case has implications for usenet. I can think of several running threads that are close analogies to that case. thanks, Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
more usenet implications from court case
On Aug 24, 11:58*am, KG wrote:
On Aug 24, 10:48*am, " wrote: On Aug 24, 2:00*am, KG wrote: On Aug 22, 12:51*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote: KG wrote: On Aug 21, 8:48*am, Bob Schwartz wrote: GoneBeforeMyTime wrote: liz hatch will soon sue to unmask magilla Longo sued people before for defamation and libel. The ape feels that Hatch isn't that good or attractive. I'm not sure there is libel there. Dumbass - The case isn't about libel. There were no damages. The term "Biggest skank in New York" could be easily interpreted as purely subjective. The judge didn't award money. The judge merely ordered that Google ID the blogger. thanks, Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. The judge based his decision on the fact that the underlying statements were defamatory and injuriour and likely not true. *The content matters. Educate yourself: http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticl...=1144067964387 Dumbass - That looks like it was written before this latest case. Most of the stuff in the article you reference has to do with bloggers and companies' products. The case referenced in the first post in this thread has a lot more in common with postings on rbr and the rest of usenet than criticisms of a company's product. thanks, Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. Dumbass, I sort of agree with Magilla. *I suspect that you can't just sue to reveal a blogger's identity. * snip Dumbass - I never wrote that. All I ever said was that case has implications for usenet. I can think of several running threads that are close analogies to that case. thanks, Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. Let me rephrase: I can think of several running threads that are close analogies to what was written in the blog in that case. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
more usenet implications from court case
KG wrote:
On Aug 24, 11:58 am, KG wrote: All I ever said was that case has implications for usenet. I can think of several running threads that are close analogies to what was written in the blog in that case. But why would someone sue only to obtain the true identity of Magilla? Wouldn't it be easier to just friend one of us on Facebook and ask? Like Carl or Ryan, because I think they use their real names on here so they would be easy to find on there, plus they seem nice. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
more usenet implications from court case
Susan Walker wrote:
KG wrote: On Aug 24, 11:58 am, KG wrote: All I ever said was that case has implications for usenet. I can think of several running threads that are close analogies to what was written in the blog in that case. But why would someone sue only to obtain the true identity of Magilla? Wouldn't it be easier to just friend one of us on Facebook and ask? Like Carl or Ryan, because I think they use their real names on here so they would be easy to find on there, plus they seem nice. Yeah. And they don't remove hysterically funny posts from their wall like some of the douches on fb. But I've been asking and asking them to give me MG's name so I can contact him and get Hatch's cell # since I'm pretty sure he has it from when she dumped him, and they won't. It isn't clear if they are simply being selfish and keeping Hatch's number for themselves, or protecting Hatch and/or Magilla from me, or me from myself. -- Bill Asher |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Interesting implications for usenet | Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. | Racing | 38 | September 16th 09 07:59 AM |
My Court Case | Tom Crispin | UK | 47 | November 20th 08 03:57 PM |
Two court case outcomes today. | PiledHigher | Australia | 9 | August 6th 07 09:57 AM |
Dun Run Death Court Case Result | Dave Larrington | UK | 8 | January 27th 07 02:30 PM |
EDP: court case about Zak Carr's death | wafflycat | UK | 88 | January 9th 07 04:07 PM |