Miller Newton's protege JERRY VAUSE touched my junk liberally. He strapped me in to his AARCmobile and he
couldnt keep his offensive hands off of me.
Thank you AARC supporter for slandering your role model on a public forum. If we're ever served papers for a defamation suit ( :roflmao: ), we'll make sure you're included as well.
:agree:
How many times are you going to bring up your friend who accused his teacher of molestation to 'get back at him'? You know, ever since the AARC gala was protested, it seems like a particular AARC supporter(s) has been copying and pasting relentlessly on fornits. I'm not quite sure why - maybe to drive people away from fornits. Or maybe to help us prove how maladjusted AARC supporters are, being that they would spend their entire waking moments copying and pasting posts on a forum in order to dissuade people from learning the truth about your cult. Here's a tip... if you
must copy and paste something for all eternity, try to make it something that will actually open people's eyes and make them see your point of view. (Your 'friend' who tried to get back at his teacher doesn't do that for me at all.)
And in case you're wondering why I find the idea of a defamation suit so amusing...
If someone sues for defamation, the most common defenses are:
Truth (known in law as "justification")
Absolute privilege
Qualified privilege
Fair comment
1. Truth or justification
A statement may hurt your reputation, but if it is true, anyone who says it has a valid defence if you sue them for defamation.
2. Absolute privilege
There are two main examples of this defence: statements made as evidence at a trial, and statements made in Parliament. This defence also allows the fair and accurate reporting of those statements in the media, such as newspaper reports of a trial. People must be able to speak freely in our justice and political systems without worrying about being sued.
3. Qualified privilege
Say a former employee of yours gave your name to an employer as a reference and that employer calls you for a reference. You say, "Well, frankly, I found that that employee caused morale problems." As long as you act in good faith and without malice, the defense of qualified privilege protects you if the former employee sues you for defamation. You gave your honest opinion and the caller had a legitimate interest in hearing it.
4. Fair comment
We all are free to comment – even harshly – about issues of public interest, as long as our comments are honest,
based on fact, and not malicious. For example, a newspaper columnist may write that a Member of Parliament (an MP) says he supports equality and equal rights, but he opposes same-sex marriages. The columnist writes that the MP is hypocritical. If the MP sues the columnist for defamation, the columnist has the defence of fair comment.
From what I've seen, the only comments about AARC that have been slanderous and NOT based on fact have been, without a doubt, written by AARC affiliates/supporters. Good luck with that lawsuit. Just the thought of it makes me :roflmao:
