Y'know, (as Ginger-Antigen-Cassandra-Scarlett-C. likes to say) it's what one might call getting "pretty deep", you fornit's types who have slandered people who happen to have a difference of opinion with you for so, so long.
Have a look at what recent internet law says about some of your ravings and rantings(materials that are linked on post to this board, by the way):
[For bloggers, all Defamation legal rules apply to their posts. But there are many complications in applying them. First, many people who post online comments, and probably those tending to make the most inflammatory and false statements, will do so anonymously, for obvious reasons. So the first threshold is identifying the blogger making Defamatory claims. Several things make this difficult, as well. Since the blogger probably will not identify themselves when the issue comes to light, there needs to be a legal process that allows identification. They can be traced by high-tech means, but a court must agree via summary judgment that all the elements of Defamation have been met
Well I would imagine that this threshold could be met in terms of posts here on many counts, wouldn't you think?
Let's have a look at what constitutes libel on the internet or on paper, taken from the same document:
There are also four subjects that if falsely dispersed as a fact about another person, are actionable on their face: Attacking a person's professional character /standing; Alleging an unmarried person is unchaste; Claims a person is infected with a sexually transmitted, or loathsome disease; Claims a person has committed a crime of moral turpitude (my highlighting of section
Now, just from my own point of view, I'd say that most if not all of those who have ever disagreed with the fornit's party line have been subjected to at least one of these false attacks (myself included).
So what's your defense, those of you who've taken part in these antics?
Or is it only a matter of some court giving the go-ahead to use extraordinary cyber-measures to track you down?