 John the OFM  | 18 Aug 2009 8:32 p.m. PST |
link Does this mean that the anonymous posters in Napoleonics Discussion will be forced to admit who they REALLY are?
Only if they called Josephine a skank…. |
| kyoteblue | 18 Aug 2009 8:36 p.m. PST |
Must use powers for Good !!!!! |
| Whatisitgood4atwork | 19 Aug 2009 1:13 a.m. PST |
|
| nazrat | 19 Aug 2009 7:03 a.m. PST |
What a sneery, unattractive looking creature she is. I wonder if she can sue me for that? Sheesh. It's sad that she can't take criticism. And that they call somebody a "coward" for being anonymous on the internet. |
| Unrepentant Werewolf | 19 Aug 2009 7:52 a.m. PST |
Add 1 idiotic judge, 1 lawyer and a no doubt rich ex model with no sense of humour, mix well and voila: a totally pointless bullying PC 'harassment' lawsuit! |
| John the OFM | 19 Aug 2009 9:20 a.m. PST |
What a sneery, unattractive looking creature she is. That is an OPINION. Calling her a "skank" is supposed to be a "false" statement of fact. ((I am not a lawyer, but I do give free advice and opinions on TMP.)) |
| Neotacha | 19 Aug 2009 9:27 a.m. PST |
I have never seen the attraction in that just-got-kicked-in-the-mouth fat lip thing. But I don't see how that makes her a 'skank', which suggests a certain lack of morality. |
| Daffy Doug | 19 Aug 2009 9:29 a.m. PST |
Oh CRAP! I better knock off the anonymous slurs fast. Time to take up a different, less dangerous hobby…. |
| Streitax | 19 Aug 2009 12:57 p.m. PST |
Well, she still has to prove damages, but she can make life uncomfortable for her detractor. |
| (Leftee) | 24 Aug 2009 2:42 p.m. PST |
The 'fat lip' may be from reconstructive surgery after having been hit in the face with a broken bottle in 2007. Her argument seems to be that her reputation with present and future agencies and sponsors/advertisers is greatly damaged by such libelous comments. Her road back has, to her mind, been damaged by the above attack and this libel threatens to put a further nail in her career (She's 36 – used to be grandma territory for a model). If a minister (say of a southern conservative church) is 'accused' off-hand on the internet of being gay and that rumor is spread, said minister is probably going to note a drop in attendance – hence income and prestige and chances for future employment. This I believe is a similar case as this could affect her standing and make advertisers skittish. If (male) gamers were accussed of being 'skanks' (however unlikely!) we would not necessarily see a drop in income or prestige. Elicit a few chuckles perhaps. But let's say we're accused of being 'dice cheaters' or god forbid – 'recasters' then all hell would break lose – particularly if we were in the miniature casting or resale business. As much as modeling is considered by many to be frivilous and full of hubris it's still the way some people get their legitimate livelihood. I wouldn't want some anon. 'person' saying that my license to practice had been pulled in another state for elder abuse – patently false and terribly harmful. I hope she wins and that particular poster has to make a public written apology every day on the 'net for a year in lieu of damages. I'm not for censorship (beyond good taste and self-censorship) but people need to learn what is opinion and what is libel/slander. My opinion, at least. |
 Der Alte Fritz | 27 Aug 2009 12:11 p.m. PST |
There are good reasons to use an assumed name or "handle" on the internet. |
| goragrad | 29 Aug 2009 2:22 a.m. PST |
Sorry Fritz, if someone has the authority to access the records, your computer can be traced. It then comes down to be able to prove who was using the computer if there is more than one person with access to it. There were (haven't been by the software rack in about a year) software packages that claimed to be able to mask your computer's id, but I wouldn't bet that they work against law enforcement or the government. |
