It appears we are going there, apparently judges can ask for e-mail addresses from the forum, This would only apply to cases were harm was recorded based on the defaming comments. If the person defamed lets say the facts were against him or her then telling the truth should not be actionable.
If all the parties involved are anonymous.
I post in Facebook and Myspace using my real name and my real picture.
You mean your name really isn't Bar Sinister and you really aren't a blue alien hybrid thingy?
I would have no problem doing that here.
Speaking of damn the torpedo's full speed ahead. So you would open yourself and other people up to privacy violations? Threats of violence that can actually be acted upon? Or giving small malicious people the ability to cause real financial and physical problems for people in the real world?
You are kidding right?
The question JLM is, can a person be sued for speaking on a forum about something that is true, and not gossip?
Yes is the answer. And DaSleeper and I have been down this road, as well as a friend of ours. To the point where we have involved the authorities Soc.
if it is public knowledge and true fact, the judge is not going to disagree with real fact, living it to the judges discretion is a good thing, the sad part would be that you spoke about something of public knowledge and that is not a crime and should not be pursued in court.
Agreed. But if who you are was public knowledge, and somebody were to say you beat your wife, that is defamation. But we don't know who you are and therefore there is no damage. Defamation can not be applied.
So where does freedom of speech begin and where does it stop, when we must consider the element of public knowledge and the right to that knowledge as free citizens.
When you start making stuff up to smear a real, provable, identifiable entity, you open yourself up to the law.
Just to expend further on freedom of speech, when one is discussing true facts with in a group of forum members, lets say about a politician, who has made many people upset, freedom of speech should be left alone and not bullied.
Agreed, unless we're talking about nonsensical posts that are at best drivel, meant to do nothing but inflame an identifiable group. Then it's just harassment. That makes you a troll.
Let the guy speak his mind sort of speack, as long as the rules of cevilety are respected.
I'm going to use you as an example, and by no means am I specifically singling you out. I just thought it might help you understand better. Your posts, the ones people have a problem with, are just this side of Dennis the red menaces. They oft lack structure, cohesion, fact, merit, substance or relevance as well as being rude, uncivil, impolite, repetitious and so on. That isn't to say that you shouldn't be allowed to post them. But if you do, expect to be hounded for them. If you report others for similar offenses, be prepared to be pointed out as a hypocrite and called on it.
we should be able to talk freely………….I don’t know, understanding for one another is what the problem is……when one can speak and when can not.
I agree, so why do you and the cadre you follow try and silence others, or shout them down because they disagree with you?
A speed limit is imposed on the roads and highways, I suppose a speed limit on the trolls would help social calibration and still respect the rights of a troll.
We still respect you Soc, don't worry.
Well, how about "Jim Smith of 1431B Main Street West, Youngstown Ohio, telephone 555-3838, is a lying, cheating scumbag who likes to have sex with goats and mushrooms."
I do not!!!
Rights and privileges are quite different and very specific things in the eyes of the law. A right is something you have just by virtue of existing as a citizen of a particular nation whose social contract specifies that you have it. You have the right to legal counsel, for instance, if the judicial system decides it needs to chat with you. A privilege is something you have to qualify for and prove you can handle, like driving, or setting yourself up as a doctor. You have to pass a test and get a license, you don't have a right to those things. I dunno that it's ever been tested in the courts, but I'm pretty sure that your defined rights to privacy would be interpreted as meaning you have a right to anonymity.
How about privacy, for the sake of safety. Not so as to be able to slander or defame at will, but to disallow those small little people whom you may best on line, from coming after you in the real world. Having been there, several times. I take that very seriously.
And I'm still wondering how you could have sex with mushrooms.
You know what puff balls are? ;-)
