A Definition One Member Would Be Well Served To Read...

slan·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sl-a-n d-er)
n.

Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.

A false and malicious statement or report about someone.


I am not one to issue threats, and I feel ashamed to have to do this...But I hope that those of you here read this, and understand this...

I would hope that a little more tact went into the accusations being blindly thrown about here, but I will not allow them to be thrown at me any longer...End of Story.

 

What in the helk are you talking about?

 

What is a helk? Tuwho I believe that TE is refering to comments by another member that would very possibly be considered slander if they were publically stated and refered to another person by name. I am not an attorney but I believe that you are. In my non professional interpretation I would say that slanderous public remarks directed toward a named individual would be actionable. Like in the case that TigerEducated's real name is Bob Smith and the slanderous postings mentioned Bob Smith by name. I'm not 100% sure of this but I would think that public remarks that would be slanderous if a specific real person were slandered by name would not be considered slander under the law if directed at a pseudonymn like TigerEducated or Bengal B or Tuwho. Again I'm not familiar with the statues but would an actual case of slander have to be shown to have harmed the reputation of a real person who is identified by name? For example if I were to say "Tuwho is a thief" without proof that you are actually a thief no harm has been done to the person you really are but if your real name is Sid Vicious and I said that Sid Vicious is a thief with no proof that you really are I would have harmed the real life reputation of Sid Vicious and would have committed a legal act of slander.

I would like to hear your opinion as an attorney but please don't send me a bill for a legal consultation.

 

TuWho got his real degree from Lasalle University in Mandeville.

rtr

 

Glory Days--I got that law degree before the FEDs shut them down. My only question is: Is it true and/or did the person who said that reasonably believe that the name calling was true?

I believe that new case law has come down on internet slander recently. This is really a complicated issue--what economic damages did the person in question suffer as a result of the slander?

Hell--I defer to Mr Wonderful the originator of internet slander or for a more balanced & well reasoned scholarly analysis ask JD.

 

Since elsewhere you clearly are referring to me, and in case you don't read it there--Let me just say that I hope someone is around to restrain you during episodes where you might do harm to yourself, TE.

You are a trip. A lot of fun, but a trip. LOL

 

What are you talking about? YOU have made the accusations that I can tell (against a certain state legislator and agricultural commish). I assume you aren't reminding yourself, so what are you talking about. Be direct, if someone said something you think is actionable.

But, as this board is dominated by the right, and, apparently criticizing right wing politicians is slanderous, but permissible for democrats, I'll begin to delete every post I made, except for this one and one other, to make our right wing friends happy.

Oh, and FWIW TE, I don't know a thing about internet slander, but, in general, if it is a politician you are talking about, he must prove actual malice - yep, the way to try to intentionally injur someone is to post a message on an obscure LSU internet message board.
If it is a poster you believe is aggrieved, well, uh, we use PSEUDONYMS, so that dog don't hunt either.

But, I was directly threatened with slander on another board by a poster and I didn't like it - I didn't like it at all (he, like all on his side, had different definition of slander for himself and for the gingriches and other politicians he worshipped, compared to other posters and politicians he didn't like). Your threats were not direct by any means and referred to others - but such threats have appeared on here twice. I didn't like it on that board and I don't like it on this board.

Bye

 

How can you say this board is dominated by the far right JD? I figure between our far rightists, such as Mr. Wonderful and SabanFan, our more moderate conservatives, like myself, Bengal B, and TE, our middle of the roaders like Tuwho and iko3, our moderate leftists, yourself, Biggles and BBT, and our fringe leftist CB66, who is as bombastic as three run-of-the-mill fringe leftists, I think we have a pretty good balance.

And hey, you can waylay on Republicans all ya'll want, as long as I get to waylay on the occassional Democrat. Nobody's stopping you. If you are liberal, or Democrat, or just don't like Republicans or conservatives, just come out and say it (which I think you have on more than one occassion). But to act like Democrats are our salvation while Republicans are evil is kind of ridiculous. Both parties are right about some things, both are wrong on some things. I just think the GOP gets it right more often than the Dems. If you believe the opposite, fine. We balance then.

As for media, there is no such thing as complete impartiality. It is the goal, but like perfection, it is very difficult to achieve. Having watched all kinds of different news outlets for years, here's how I would classify them in their sympathies.

Networks-

Fox- tilts slightly right
CNN- tilts slightly left
CBS- tilts slightly left
NBC- tilts slightly left
ABC- tilts way left

Major national papers-

NYT- tilts way left
Wash. Post- tilts slightly left
WSJ- tilts way right
LA Times- tilts way left
Wash Times- tilts way right
USA Today- tilts way left

Wire services-

Both AP and Reuters tilt leftist almost everywhere, and there anti-Israel bias is absolutely disgusting.

Radio-

Talk radio in America is overwhelmingly right of center almost everywhere you go.

The key is to not rely on one source too much. I like to get a wide variety of news from a wide variety of sources. Here's where I get my daily news when I get up in the morning, in case ya'll are interested.

-My preferred network to watch is Fox News. I like Special Report with Brit Hume in the afternoons. O'Reilly and H&C are okay. I watch CNN occassionally, but I really did not like their war coverage.

-I read the Advocate.

-I read the Washington Times sometimes on the Net, as well as the LA Times.

-My websites are WorldNetDaily and MSN. That's my Net news sources.

-I used to read the Independent and the Guardian to get a feel for European viewpoints. I stopped after some really disgusting anti-American and anti-Semitic articles kept popping up in the two papers. Plus, you now have to register for the Indy. I don't do registration. I registered for the NYT a while back, but I let it expire. It was okay. This was before Jason Blair/Howell Raines, et. al.

-I read the Wall Street Journal for a while, when I got it for free. My source dried up, so now I don't read it.

-I've gotten into weblogs lately. I like Andrew Sullivan and LittleGreenFootballs. Andy Sullivan's cool when he's not beating the "legalize gay marriage" drum.

Now, I'm often busy, so I don't have time to hit all these in a single day. Some of these sources I hit only once every few days. But I figure if I cast a wide net for sources, I can form my own opinions and recognize biases. It works for me. Balance is the key.

 

Sorry, I guess that latter analysis part would be more appropriate for the Fox News thread. My mistake.

 

Jetstorm, you're right, it isn't dominated by the right - it was a good board.
Interesting analysis, btw
I don't like threats, even though they probably weren't directed at me - i have read nothing on this board that is even vaguely slanderous (except accusing politicians of law breaking - but the one scolding is the one accusing)
And then an admin puts some ominous, but ridiculously vague message up top - and when somone (iko) asks for clarification (a reasonable request), that person is threatened with expulsion for so asking.
If they feel a post is out of bounds, identify the post and then we can actually try to conform or behavior one way or the other.
Screw it. I'm sure ill bill misses me.