I presume you are agreeing with what I said?lowing wrote:
freedom to express yourself or anonymity, does not give you the right to trash someone elses good name without proof that you are speaking the truth.nukchebi0 wrote:
The ruling doesn't infringe on free speech - it infringes on anonymity. The right to express yourself is not congruent with an imagined right to remain anonymous. It is debatable that a right to anonymity exists (except, naturally, in a criminal investigation), but at any rate, limiting anonymity (in general use, forcing people to be accountable for their statements) does much less to undermine a democracy or republic than does limiting free expression.Turquoise wrote:
All this proves is that money + stupid Judge = infringement against personal rights.
Hopefully, the bitch gets disbarred.
With that said, she was kind of inviting it on herself with those pictures, so I hope the defamation lawsuit is dismissed or ruled in favor of the defendant, naturally with her covering the entirety of the court expenses for her attempt at atoning for past stupidity through frivolous litigation.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Vogue model Liskula Cohen wins right to unmask offensive blogger
I would say that speech is truely free if you don't have to worry about people finding or tracking you down. Some things that have to be said can only be said when you don't have to fear about getting sued, killed, etc.
I would have to say no to that because the internet is such a informal method of speech. Like for example, anyone can create a blog and start talking shit. Whereas not just anyone can start a newspaper, and while ill get where your coming from, don't you see what this will lead to ? Before you know it, someone's gone start a "HOW TO GET RICH IN AMERICA" thread .lowing wrote:
I gotta disagree, there are laws against slander and libel. I do not see why the internet should be protected from those laws. If she is to be called a "skank" and a "whore", whoever says it should be obligated to back up their accusations. just like if it were written in the newspaper or spoken into a microphone.mafia996630 wrote:
this has nothing to do with calling anyone out. Its the fuking internet and dum shit gets said about everyone, live with it. You can't start suing everyone.Ilocano wrote:
If you are going to call-out someone, have the balls and don't go anonymous.
Edit: Also ftr, i would like to state that bitch is a skank and a whore. US courts might be full of shit but i still have some hope for UK courts.
She invited being called a whore and a skank because she had some pictures made? I doubt that is gunna hold up in court, so no, I do not agree with younukchebi0 wrote:
I presume you are agreeing with what I said?lowing wrote:
freedom to express yourself or anonymity, does not give you the right to trash someone elses good name without proof that you are speaking the truth.nukchebi0 wrote:
The ruling doesn't infringe on free speech - it infringes on anonymity. The right to express yourself is not congruent with an imagined right to remain anonymous. It is debatable that a right to anonymity exists (except, naturally, in a criminal investigation), but at any rate, limiting anonymity (in general use, forcing people to be accountable for their statements) does much less to undermine a democracy or republic than does limiting free expression.
With that said, she was kind of inviting it on herself with those pictures, so I hope the defamation lawsuit is dismissed or ruled in favor of the defendant, naturally with her covering the entirety of the court expenses for her attempt at atoning for past stupidity through frivolous litigation.
I'm not sure what you are saying. Her case has to hold up in court, not the blogger's. And note, I was saying that I don't think the blogger deserved to remain anonymous - I don't really see how that contradicts what you said.lowing wrote:
She invited being called a whore and a skank because she had some pictures made? I doubt that is gunna hold up in court, so no, I do not agree with younukchebi0 wrote:
I presume you are agreeing with what I said?lowing wrote:
freedom to express yourself or anonymity, does not give you the right to trash someone elses good name without proof that you are speaking the truth.
Thing is if I called lowing a goat-fucking frog-sodomizer, he'd either counter it or just shrug. I don't get why this vogue model can't just shrug it off. The fact that she's being so defensive about it just makes her seem like more of a skank.
I think the collective internet should all create their own blogs and call this woman a skank. Let's see her sue the entire internet
I think the collective internet should all create their own blogs and call this woman a skank. Let's see her sue the entire internet
WTF is this? Has the internet created cowards, who hide behind the anonymity of their hotmail account or some stupid blog to trash people they know, or even might not know?Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Thing is if I called lowing a goat-fucking frog-sodomizer, he'd either counter it or just shrug. I don't get why this vogue model can't just shrug it off. The fact that she's being so defensive about it just makes her seem like more of a skank.
I think the collective internet should all create their own blogs and call this woman a skank. Let's see her sue the entire internet
Whatever happened to personnel responsibility? If you have a problem with someone, just tell it in the face, and don't hide behind an anonymous blogsite.
@ all the people who object the judgement: I hope one day you'll be the victim of such behaviour. Let us see how you would react, also taken into consideration she's a hot model and you're nobodies.
I haven't read your Constitution but I'm pretty sure it doesn't mention the right to anonymously trash another person and get away with it Freedom of speech does not come with hiding behind a hotmail account.Turquoise wrote:
All this proves is that money + stupid Judge = infringement against personal rights.
Hopefully, the bitch gets disbarred.
Now that is a great angle for an argument, and it I gotta tell ya it gave me pause, but here is the thing, that thread was started using a link that backed up my opinion. I had facts and sources to do so. Is there not a difference between that and arbitrarily posting a pic of a person and writting shitty captions about it? I disagreed with a persons actions and wrote about it, can that not be different from personally attacking a person?mafia996630 wrote:
I would have to say no to that because the internet is such a informal method of speech. Like for example, anyone can create a blog and start talking shit. Whereas not just anyone can start a newspaper, and while ill get where your coming from, don't you see what this will lead to ? Before you know it, someone's gone start a "HOW TO GET RICH IN AMERICA" thread .lowing wrote:
I gotta disagree, there are laws against slander and libel. I do not see why the internet should be protected from those laws. If she is to be called a "skank" and a "whore", whoever says it should be obligated to back up their accusations. just like if it were written in the newspaper or spoken into a microphone.mafia996630 wrote:
this has nothing to do with calling anyone out. Its the fuking internet and dum shit gets said about everyone, live with it. You can't start suing everyone.
Edit: Also ftr, i would like to state that bitch is a skank and a whore. US courts might be full of shit but i still have some hope for UK courts.
Anyway plus 1 for a great argument because I am not sure that I have myself convinced that my argument holds up. Gotta do some thinking about that one.
Because I might take it a bit more personally if my reputation played a part in my livelihood and you posted a picture of me and used my real name while you trashed me with nothing to back it up.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Thing is if I called lowing a goat-fucking frog-sodomizer, he'd either counter it or just shrug. I don't get why this vogue model can't just shrug it off. The fact that she's being so defensive about it just makes her seem like more of a skank.
I think the collective internet should all create their own blogs and call this woman a skank. Let's see her sue the entire internet
I mis-read sorrynukchebi0 wrote:
I'm not sure what you are saying. Her case has to hold up in court, not the blogger's. And note, I was saying that I don't think the blogger deserved to remain anonymous - I don't really see how that contradicts what you said.lowing wrote:
She invited being called a whore and a skank because she had some pictures made? I doubt that is gunna hold up in court, so no, I do not agree with younukchebi0 wrote:
I presume you are agreeing with what I said?
True... the right to privacy doesn't really exist. It's the least enforced right we have, and it's so worthless at this point that we might as well remove it from the Constitution.nukchebi0 wrote:
The ruling doesn't infringe on free speech - it infringes on anonymity. The right to express yourself is not congruent with an imagined right to remain anonymous. It is debatable that a right to anonymity exists (except, naturally, in a criminal investigation), but at any rate, limiting anonymity (in general use, forcing people to be accountable for their statements) does much less to undermine a democracy or republic than does limiting free expression.Turquoise wrote:
All this proves is that money + stupid Judge = infringement against personal rights.
Hopefully, the bitch gets disbarred.
With that said, she was kind of inviting it on herself with those pictures, so I hope the defamation lawsuit is dismissed or ruled in favor of the defendant, naturally with her covering the entirety of the court expenses for her attempt at atoning for past stupidity through frivolous litigation.
Honestly, I'm not sure what rights I have, because the more I try to research them, the more I realize how they slowly dwindle over time.lowing wrote:
So you really believe you have a personal right to discredit someone in the media without proof? Sorry you feel that way.Turquoise wrote:
All this proves is that money + stupid Judge = infringement against personal rights.
Hopefully, the bitch gets disbarred.
and before any of you say it, is your mom or adult sister a skank and a whore, cuz I guarantee this women has done no worse than they have.
Yep...if you're 'famous' you are a public figure. If you're not then you could sue for slander IMHO.Macbeth wrote:
I heard about this lawsuit awhile back and never thought any judge will be dumb enough to let her win. IMHO if you are a famous celebrity making millions for being famous you should expect this kind of stuff to happen.
The question is who makes that decision? In this case its the judge. The blogger should appeal that decision...
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Vogue model Liskula Cohen wins right to unmask offensive blogger