Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > The Ridge Creek School / Hidden Lake Academy
Hidden Lake Academy gets new website!
Anonymous:
oh and i forgot to mention.
before, we never had definite proof that johny ringo is an jeff holloway or an hla employee for that matter, even if the ip adress matched up to hla. but now, since you said you are personally going to sue, that you printed out the site, etc.... we have definitive proof of who you really are. all we have to do is bring up some of your past posts up in court and your case will be thrown out of court, even if you do happen to get that far.
by the way...
in your fantasy world we can just as easily sue you for calling all of us "dope smokers".
Anne Bonney:
First off, source please.
:roll:
--- Quote from: ""Johnny Ringo"" ---Is there any kind of hate speech on the Internet that is not protected by the First Amendment?
The U.S. Constitution protects Internet speech that is merely critical, annoying, offensive, or demeaning. However, the First Amendment does not provide a shield for libelous speech or copyright infringement, nor does it protect certain speech that threatens or harasses other people. For example, an e-mail or a posting on a Web site that expresses a clear intention or threat by its author to commit an unlawful act against another specific person is likely to be actionable under criminal law. Persistent or pernicious harassment aimed at a specific individual is not protected if it inflicts or intends to inflict emotional or physical harm. To rise to this level, harassment on the Internet would have to consist of a "course of conduct" rather than a single isolated instance.
--- End quote ---
And where do you see Ginger fitting into any of this? She never threatened anyone. Please point to specific threats (not wishes, i.e. I wish she'd get hit by a car) to which you're referring. At BEST, the AUTHOR of the post MIGHT be held liable, but fat chance.
--- Quote --- There is legal precedent for such a prosecution. In 1998, a former student was sentenced to one year in prison for sending e-mail death threats to 60 Asian-American students at the University of California, Irvine. His e-mail was signed "Asian hater" and threatened that he would "make it my life career [sic] to find and kill everyone one [sic] of you personally." That same year, another California man pled guilty to Federal civil rights charges after he sent racist e-mail threats to dozens of Latinos throughout the country.
Yes. In 1999, a coalition of groups opposed to abortion was ordered to pay over $100 million in damages for providing information for a Web site called "Nuremberg Files," a site which posed a threat to the safety of a number of doctors and clinic workers who perform abortions. The site posted photos of abortion providers, their home addresses, license plate numbers, and the names of their spouses and children. In three instances, after a doctor listed on the site was murdered, a line was drawn through his name. Although the site fell short of explicitly calling for an assault on doctors, the jury found that the information it contained amounted to a real threat of bodily harm.
If a person's use of the Internet rises to the level of criminal conduct, it may subject the perpetrator to an enhanced sentence under a State's hate crime laws. Currently, 40 States and the District of Columbia have such laws in place. The criminal's sentence may be more severe if the prosecution can prove that he or she intentionally selected the victim based on his or her race, nationality, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. However, these laws do not apply to conduct or speech protected by the First Amendment.
--- End quote ---
Again, how are you applying this here?
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=22811[/url]
[/color]
Anne Bonney:
Damn!! Those HLA people sure do cut and run whenever you try to pin them down to something. First SHH did it all the time, then HLA Truth then Who, now Johnny Bravo.
Christ, can't you people answer a damn question????
::bangin:: ::bangin:: ::bangin:: ::bangin:: ::bangin:: ::bangin:: ::bangin::
Anonymous:
--- Quote from: ""Johnny Ringo"" --- libelous speech or copyright infringement, nor does it protect certain speech that threatens or harasses other people[/b]. For example, an e-mail or a posting on a Web site that expresses a clear intention or threat by its author to commit an unlawful act against another specific person is likely to be actionable under criminal law. Persistent or pernicious harassment aimed at a specific individual is not protected if it inflicts or intends to inflict emotional or physical harm. To rise to this level, harassment on the Internet would have to consist of a "course of conduct" rather than a single isolated instance.
--- End quote ---
there is no course of conduct. we do not and have not ever threated or harassed anyone. an email is different, it is directed at an individual. a website is not, you must search for it and then click on it out of your own free will. therefore, legaly, you brought the harrasment upon yourself. we do not intend to inflict any for of physical or emotional harm, although some of us may be somewhat happy that emotional harm may be a colatteral of our actions. we (fornits/fornitswiki) merely intend to EXPOSE what is going on at hidden lake, and allow parents to make more informed dicisions before sending their kids away. of course, the parody site is not necesarily intended to expose, it's a parody and it says so on the front page. it is easily distiguishable which pictures are of hidden lake and which arnt, what is true and what isnt.
also, keep in mind that there are legal loopholes when it comes to other .x's. e.g websites with .com are subject to slightly different rules than website with .org or .net or .info
Anonymous:
Private figures--people who have not carved out a public role for themselves in some context--have more protection as they can bring defamation actions when a defamatory lie is uttered even negligently. This seems only fair and does not threaten basic democratic values.
Gertz v Welch considers three important questions: (1) whether the full protection of the "actual malice" standard should extend to comments about private persons, (2) if not, whether the Constitution might at least limit the sorts of damages a private individual might collect for statements made without actual malice, and (3) if the actual malice standard is not extended to private individuals, how the line should be drawn between "public figures" and "private figures." The Supreme Court concluded that Elmer Gertz, the plaintiff in the defamation action and a leading Chicago civil rights attorney, was not a public figure for constitutional purposes. Moreover, the Court said, as a private person, Gertz need only show that a defamatory falsehood was made negligently, not that it was made with actual malice. Finally--in what turned out to be a major victory for the media--, the Court ruled that in the absence of a showing of actual malice, private plaintiffs are limited by the First Amendment--at least with respect to comments about a matter of public concern-- to recovery only for actual damages, and not for punitive or presumed damages.
Question: What is defamation?
Answer: An attack by speech on the good reputation of a person or business entity. Speech that involves a public figure--such as a corporation--is only defamatory if it is false and said with actual malice. It also must be factual rather than an expression of an opinion. In the United States, because of our strong free speech protections, it is almost impossible to prove defamation of a public figure.
Question: What is the legal definition of defamation?
Answer: The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are: (1) A publication to one other than the person defamed; (2) of a false statement of fact; (3) which is understood as being of and concerning the plaintiff; and (4) which is understood in such a way as to tend to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
Question: How does the First Amendment to the Constitution affect defamation?
Answer: The free speech guarantees under the Constitution protect certain speech and commentary. The degree of protection generally depends on whether the person commented about is a private or public figure and whether the statement is regarding a private or public matter. According to the New York Times rule (from the case New York Times v. Sullivan), when the plaintiff is a public figure and the matter is one of public concern, the plaintiff must prove "malice" or "reckless disregard" on the part of the defendant. If both parties are private individuals, there is less protection for the speech because the plaintiff only needs to prove negligence.
Question: What is the difference between libel and slander?
Answer: Libel is a defamatory statement expressed in a fixed medium such as a writing, picture, sign or electronic broadcast. Slander is a defamatory statement expressed in a transitory form such as speech.
Question: What is libel?
Answer: Libel is a defamatory statement expressed in a fixed medium, usually writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast. See What is the legal definition of defamation?
Question: What is disparagement?
Answer: As defined in Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999), disparagement is "A false and injurious statement that discredits or detracts from the reputation of another's property, product, or business. To recover in tort for disparagement, the plaintiff must prove that the statement caused a third party to take some action resulting in specific pecuniary loss to the plaintiff."
Question: Does it make any difference if I am commenting on a product or company rather than a person?
Answer: Product disparagement law prohibits certain false claims about another's goods or services. While a defamatory statement harms the reputation and character of a person or corporation, a product disparaging statement harms the marketability of the goods being disparaged. Product disparagement is typically harder to prove.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version