I Went to Law School at Google.com, Listen to Me!

If it doesn't go somewhere else, it goes here.

Moderator: Grapevine

Guest

Re: Texans jump on the bandwagon

Post by Guest » Tue Dec 17, 2013 11:27 am

Guest wrote:And you got your law degree from where...Barbados School of Law? You hallway lawyers crack me up every time you threaten litigation on this board. Do the math. Even if you have standing to file in the first place, do you have the $5k to put down on a retainer as starters, or the next 12 months waiting to even get on the docket? And to prove what...that someone else was a jerk? News flash! You can't litigate bad manners.
WELL DUH! Law School for Dummiees, where else!

Guest

Re: Texans jump on the bandwagon

Post by Guest » Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:13 pm

Mr. Admin

I did not "threaten" your users. I simply pointed out facts. It is factual that many courts have allowed the prosecution of anonymous users for posting libel on sites such as these.

Your statement that a single trial court has no "precendential value" is as false as your statement that the judge "misinterpreted the law." The judge interpreted the law as he saw it as do all judges in every case. It is up to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to determine if he misinterpreted it. The trial court's ruling is binding on the parties involved AND could set a precedent if the appellate courts uphold it. In fact, the point of the entire article was that many groups are very concerned that the Supreme Court may change the interpretation of the law entirely - thus they are writing amicus briefs to try and sway the court. So, the entire issue of precedent has yet to be decided. In fact, there is a fairly strong push to pass a law requiring all comments in forums such as these to be done in a person's real name.

It is also a fact that many of the statements on this site are either blatantly libelous or very close to it. If your users feel it is necessary to defame a person in order to promote their agenda they should be ashamed of themselves. At what point will you stop allowing unsubstantiated attacks to continue?

Tango

Re: Texans jump on the bandwagon

Post by Tango » Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:32 pm

Guest wrote:Mr. Admin

I did not "threaten" your users. I simply pointed out facts. It is factual that many courts have allowed the prosecution of anonymous users for posting libel on sites such as these.

Your statement that a single trial court has no "precendential value" is as false as your statement that the judge "misinterpreted the law." The judge interpreted the law as he saw it as do all judges in every case. It is up to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to determine if he misinterpreted it. The trial court's ruling is binding on the parties involved AND could set a precedent if the appellate courts uphold it. In fact, the point of the entire article was that many groups are very concerned that the Supreme Court may change the interpretation of the law entirely - thus they are writing amicus briefs to try and sway the court. So, the entire issue of precedent has yet to be decided. In fact, there is a fairly strong push to pass a law requiring all comments in forums such as these to be done in a person's real name.

It is also a fact that many of the statements on this site are either blatantly libelous or very close to it. If your users feel it is necessary to defame a person in order to promote their agenda they should be ashamed of themselves. At what point will you stop allowing unsubstantiated attacks to continue?
Maybe when you register and stop posting anonymously, while in the same breath accusing others of doing the same thing as you and denying their god given right to free speech. All you have done is complain and whine, and cited no real evidence. Yeah...people can be jerks here, but for the most part debate is good. It is you who is belaboring this topic, and threatening as a guest. You might get a better response to grow a pair, register, and earn respect. Otherwise, you appear to be nothing more than a narcissistic lawyer wannabe with too much time on your hands.

Guest

Re: Texans jump on the bandwagon

Post by Guest » Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:44 pm

Tango wrote:
Guest wrote:Mr. Admin

I did not "threaten" your users. I simply pointed out facts. It is factual that many courts have allowed the prosecution of anonymous users for posting libel on sites such as these.

Your statement that a single trial court has no "precendential value" is as false as your statement that the judge "misinterpreted the law." The judge interpreted the law as he saw it as do all judges in every case. It is up to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to determine if he misinterpreted it. The trial court's ruling is binding on the parties involved AND could set a precedent if the appellate courts uphold it. In fact, the point of the entire article was that many groups are very concerned that the Supreme Court may change the interpretation of the law entirely - thus they are writing amicus briefs to try and sway the court. So, the entire issue of precedent has yet to be decided. In fact, there is a fairly strong push to pass a law requiring all comments in forums such as these to be done in a person's real name.

It is also a fact that many of the statements on this site are either blatantly libelous or very close to it. If your users feel it is necessary to defame a person in order to promote their agenda they should be ashamed of themselves. At what point will you stop allowing unsubstantiated attacks to continue?
Maybe when you register and stop posting anonymously, while in the same breath accusing others of doing the same thing as you and denying their god given right to free speech. All you have done is complain and whine, and cited no real evidence. Yeah...people can be jerks here, but for the most part debate is good. It is you who is belaboring this topic, and threatening as a guest. You might get a better response to grow a pair, register, and earn respect. Otherwise, you appear to be nothing more than a narcissistic lawyer wannabe with too much time on your hands.
Yes, because your real name is Tango and Tango is not a pseudonym at all. It's very "ballsy" of you to post your anonymous quotes under a pseudonym. Who cares about a response? I don't know you or care what you think.

Well done though on editing your original comment to sound less idiotic.

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:32 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Re: Texans jump on the bandwagon

Post by admin » Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:50 pm

Guest wrote:Mr. Admin


Your statement that a single trial court has no "precendential value" is as false as your statement that the judge "misinterpreted the law."

The judge interpreted the law as he saw it as do all judges in every case. It is up to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to determine if he misinterpreted it. The trial court's ruling is binding on the parties involved AND could set a precedent if the appellate courts uphold it. In fact, the point of the entire article was that many groups are very concerned that the Supreme Court may change the interpretation of the law entirely - thus they are writing amicus briefs to try and sway the court.

So, the entire issue of precedent has yet to be decided.

In fact, there is a fairly strong push to pass a law requiring all comments in forums such as these to be done in a person's real name.

At what point will you stop allowing unsubstantiated attacks to continue?
Let me take this one at a time. You aren't a lawyer. Stop pretending that you understand the law.

First, the word is precedential, as in precedent. And my statement is 100% accurate. Trial court decisions of individual causes of action have no precedential value, even within the district of the court that decides them. Period. Go to law school or shut up.

Second, appellate courts set precedent within their circuit. The Supreme Court would only get involved if there were a constitutional issue, or a split in the circuits. So far there isn't one and there is nothing to suggest that the 6th Circuit will not follow every other circuit that has decided the issue. Further, as I mentioned, there is a fact specific issue in this case that could make any 6th circuit affirmation of the case readily distinguishable. You don't discuss it, so you either haven't read about it, or read about it and are too ignorant to understand its impact. Again, go to law school or shut up.

Third, please cite your authority for the proposition that there is a strong push for a law to require internet forum users to use their real names. Once you do that, please explain how such a law could possibly survive review in light of the Supreme Court's decision in McIntyre.
The Supreme Court wrote: "Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."
Again, please do not try to come on here and talk about law when you spout such ridiculous nonsense. It is apparent that what you are trying to do is scare people into not posting - -- so let's get to the last thing you said:
Somebody's Protector wrote: At what point will you stop allowing unsubstantiated attacks to continue?
IF there is a demonstrably false, post that you believe constitutes libel, you should report it to me via e-mail to webmaster@stxsoccer.com I notice you say unsubstantiated, though, and not false. There is a difference between something being unsubstantiated, and something being false. If you can demonstrate a post is false, and that falsity rises to the level of libel (or really is even close to that), I will remove it as being a TOS violation.

The fact that you have not asked for it to be removed indicates to me that either you believe the post is true, or false but not libelous. If you believe there is libel here, email me and let's investigate it. If not, again, shut up and stop trying to intimidate people. It isn't working and will only make the discussion continue because people will see it as trying to shut them up.
Thanks for visiting STXSoccer.com

Please review our Terms of Service: www.stxsoccer.com/terms.html

Tango

Re: Texans jump on the bandwagon

Post by Tango » Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:50 pm

Guest wrote:
Tango wrote:
Guest wrote:Mr. Admin

I did not "threaten" your users. I simply pointed out facts. It is factual that many courts have allowed the prosecution of anonymous users for posting libel on sites such as these.

Your statement that a single trial court has no "precendential value" is as false as your statement that the judge "misinterpreted the law." The judge interpreted the law as he saw it as do all judges in every case. It is up to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to determine if he misinterpreted it. The trial court's ruling is binding on the parties involved AND could set a precedent if the appellate courts uphold it. In fact, the point of the entire article was that many groups are very concerned that the Supreme Court may change the interpretation of the law entirely - thus they are writing amicus briefs to try and sway the court. So, the entire issue of precedent has yet to be decided. In fact, there is a fairly strong push to pass a law requiring all comments in forums such as these to be done in a person's real name.

It is also a fact that many of the statements on this site are either blatantly libelous or very close to it. If your users feel it is necessary to defame a person in order to promote their agenda they should be ashamed of themselves. At what point will you stop allowing unsubstantiated attacks to continue?
Maybe when you register and stop posting anonymously, while in the same breath accusing others of doing the same thing as you and denying their god given right to free speech. All you have done is complain and whine, and cited no real evidence. Yeah...people can be jerks here, but for the most part debate is good. It is you who is belaboring this topic, and threatening as a guest. You might get a better response to grow a pair, register, and earn respect. Otherwise, you appear to be nothing more than a narcissistic lawyer wannabe with too much time on your hands.
Yes, because your real name is Tango and Tango is not a pseudonym at all. It's very "ballsy" of you to post your anonymous quotes under a pseudonym. Who cares about a response? I don't know you or care what you think.

Well done though on editing your original comment to sound less idiotic.
Can I sue for you calling me an idiot? ADMIN...since I am registered and you already have my email and IP on record, can you please send me his IP address? I so much want to sue this guy because he called me an idiot and that really makes me upset. So much so I will probably lose sleep at night and become a hermit. That should be worth at least a couple $100k to a jury. What do you say? I'll split the settlement with you! ;)

Just kidding, of course.

Notice

Re: Texans jump on the bandwagon

Post by Notice » Tue Dec 17, 2013 3:41 pm

admin wrote:
Welcome wrote:
ADMIN, this is an outright lie. Wes has no history anywhere near what this person alleges and cannot write this crap in an open forum. You are liable for what is written here and anything can be subpoenaed.
Dear Anonymous Internet Lawyer:

1. You need to read your federal law a little bit better, particularly 47 USC sec. 230. It provides that the owner of a computer service, such as message boards, shall not "be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." In plain English, the person who makes the post is liable. The person who runs the website is not.

2. If you have some personal interest in this and want to discuss it with me, e-mail me. Take your "outrage" off the forum.

Thanks,
Admin
http://m.thestar.com/#!/gta/redirect/30 ... e59dcb6193

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/onl ... ibel-cases

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:32 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Re: Texans jump on the bandwagon

Post by admin » Tue Dec 17, 2013 7:30 pm

Notice wrote:
admin wrote:
Welcome wrote:
ADMIN, this is an outright lie. Wes has no history anywhere near what this person alleges and cannot write this crap in an open forum. You are liable for what is written here and anything can be subpoenaed.
Dear Anonymous Internet Lawyer:

1. You need to read your federal law a little bit better, particularly 47 USC sec. 230. It provides that the owner of a computer service, such as message boards, shall not "be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." In plain English, the person who makes the post is liable. The person who runs the website is not.

2. If you have some personal interest in this and want to discuss it with me, e-mail me. Take your "outrage" off the forum.

Thanks,
Admin


http://m.thestar.com/#!/gta/redirect/30 ... e59dcb6193

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/onl ... ibel-cases
Nobody disputes that individual posters can be liable. That is a different proposition than whether an internet site like stxsoccer.com can be liable for things that its users post. The answer to that is unequivocally no. So making this as a reply to my post is off topic.

Also, I note that despite my open invitation, not a single person has e-mailed me to identify any false statements they contend are libel. I will remove defamatory postings if someone e-mails me with information showing they are defamatory. Even if someone wanted to sue an individual poster, it seems strange they would not request that something defamatory be removed if it was causing them injury. Oh well . . .
Thanks for visiting STXSoccer.com

Please review our Terms of Service: www.stxsoccer.com/terms.html

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:32 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

I Think I'm an Internet Lawyer, Watch me say something dumb

Post by admin » Tue Dec 17, 2013 8:08 pm

This thread will collect all the genius insight provided by our internet legal experts, along with all commentary, both supportive and derogatory, that said ridiculous posts generate. Two good pieces of advice:

1. If you are not a lawyer, please do not try to explain the law to me on this forum. If I need legal advice, I know who to call.

2. Do not ever follow the advice of internet lawyers unless they can actually show their credentials. Some of the stupidest legal opinions ever uttered have been posted to this forum. Enjoy. If you find older one, please feel free to PM me the link so I can move them.
Thanks for visiting STXSoccer.com

Please review our Terms of Service: www.stxsoccer.com/terms.html

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:32 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Re: I Went to Law School at Google.com, Listen to Me!

Post by admin » Thu Dec 18, 2014 2:38 pm

Just for a nice FYI, as I predicted, the case which the anonymous internet law expert cited as heralding the end of protection for websites under the CDA was reversed by the 6th Circuit.

See here
Thanks for visiting STXSoccer.com

Please review our Terms of Service: www.stxsoccer.com/terms.html

Locked