Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 54
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,238

    Default Re: Being Banned

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    There are likely billions of false and slanderous comments on U-Tube and posts written on forums by anonymous screen names every day. To say something is possible is not impressive. When has real harm been done to someone using those platforms and when has an anonymous person been tracked down and held liable? There should be thousands of examples. Got a couple?
    A nice job of trying to deflect from the point but it's not going to work. There are many potentially defamatory statements made by people under their own names, too, and very few of them get sued either. Defamation lawsuits are not common because often the potential damages just don't justify the expense and because the lawsuit will potentially air the defamatory statements to even more people, causing more harm than good. But my point remains valid: if I were to defame someone and they wanted to sue, the fact that I made the defaming statement under a screen name rather than my own name is not a defense to the lawsuit. The real person behind that screen name is responsible for that, thus showing the "associative connection" that you claimed did not exist.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    Specifically: If someone here goes off on Kim Kardashian. Would she prevail in showing damages and winning in a slander suit against one of us? If so, show me when that has happened in a similar, truly anonymous platform?
    As a public person she would have an extra hurdle to win a defamation claim because in addition to the other elements of a defamation claim under state law the U.S. Supreme Court has held that public persons have to also show the defamer acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth. But if she did have a good claim, the fact that the defamer made the statement using a screen name would not shield him/her from liability for the defamation. Also, note that defamation made on a post in a forum like this would not be slander. It would be libel since it is written defamation rather than spoken defamation.

    But the reality is that none of this really matters for the issue you raised about getting banned. The site is free to ban you, the person, from ever using this site if it wants, regardless of what screen names you want to use. You seem to have acknowledged that the site has that right, so the distinction you are trying to make really doesn't matter, does it?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    434

    Default Re: Being Banned

    Annie Oakley sued Hearst newspapers and other publications for libel. Her total expenses were greater than her monetary awards. Hearst of course cared little about any judgment against him.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    750

    Default Re: Being Banned

    TM, this is where I used the term "associative connection." It was not used the way you are using it.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    I disagree. There is no legal or associative connection between you as a person or professional and 'Taxing Matters'. I could make whatever slanderous remarks toward TM or your business and you are immune to any harm. Therefore, your screen name is not you. However, if the public could make a definite connection between the two of you, then harm could be made...but they cannot.
    I clearly said that I personally can attack a screen name as much as I want because it is not a real person. But, me or my screen name cannot commit libel against a real person. Then you seem to say that a screen name is a real person. I disagree.

    Hate to break it to you but "TM" is not a real person. It is an alias that nobody can connect back to you. Therefore no harm can be done by excessive libel or slander of it.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,238

    Default Re: Being Banned

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    TM, this is where I used the term "associative connection." It was not used the way you are using it.
    Exactly, you want to use a very narrow definition of it to suit your purposes and I'm not having it. So you can keep beating that same drum, I'm not going to buy it.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,521

    Default Re: Being Banned

    If no one can connect a screen name back to the individual, how is it that ten years ago someone identified who 'cbg' was and posted my real name, address, phone number, husband's name, address, profession and phone number all over the legal boards?

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    750

    Default Re: Being Banned

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    Exactly, you want to use a very narrow definition of it to suit your purposes and I'm not having it. So you can keep beating that same drum, I'm not going to buy it.
    What I said was very specific, accurate and true. Sure, if you change what I said anything might be true.

    It's as if I said "I can speed with impunity on any highway as long as there are no witnesses." And you wrote "no you can't if a cop caught you on radar."

    My quote above stands true until you can show my exact statement is untrue...which you haven't done.

    Quote Quoting cbg
    View Post
    If no one can connect a screen name back to the individual, how is it that ten years ago someone identified who 'cbg' was and posted my real name, address, phone number, husband's name, address, profession and phone number all over the legal boards?
    I was ID'd once too when they started talking about a rust stain on my driveway, but I discovered how they did it. Did you find out how they did it? My guess is that they did not do it through the message board. They connected dots in your posts. Then maybe spent $50 on a background search.

    But back to my point. If I made defamatory remarks about cbg on this board, could you successfully find me and successfully sue me for defamation? I say no! You wouldn't even be able to file a suit to obtain subpoena power to force EL to hand over all of it's data on me. And if you did identify me, then you have to show that the public knows the connection between cbg and you, which they can't. Then you'd have to show that I know who you are and I was defaming you, not your screen name alias...because you and your screen name are two distinctly different identities (people).

    I will say again...defamatory comments can be made against a screen name because there is no public connection between cbg or TM and your real names. Sure, I assume you guys write for those alias', but you are unidentifiable to 99.99999% of the public. Therefore you are immune to harm. BUT, a screen name cannot defame a real person in a very public way, but somehow it is done all day, everyday with near impunity.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,521

    Default Re: Being Banned

    As a matter of fact I do know how they did it and it wasn't connecting dots on messages.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    750

    Default Re: Being Banned

    Quote Quoting cbg
    View Post
    As a matter of fact I do know how they did it and it wasn't connecting dots on messages.
    When they found my home address it was a combination of connecting dots and using info on my profile. But I'm not afraid of 'screen names' on a forum. I'd invite any off them to my front door to satisfy their curiosity.

    In your case, I highly doubt they meant you or your family harm...just an Internet punk jacking with you.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,521

    Default Re: Being Banned

    I think you're right with regards to the person who actually keyed in the information. The person who put him up to it, though; he was definitely looking to do me as much mischief as he could.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,238

    Default Re: Being Banned

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    What I said was very specific, accurate and true. Sure, if you change what I said anything might be true.

    It's as if I said "I can speed with impunity on any highway as long as there are no witnesses." And you wrote "no you can't if a cop caught you on radar."

    My quote above stands true until you can show my exact statement is untrue...which you haven't done.
    You aren't doing a good job with logic here. If you said "I can speed on any highway with impunity as long as there are no witnesses" then for that to be true the only way you could be cited for speeding was if there was a witness. And if I then demonstrated that you could be caught without witnesses by, say, a cop using photo radar, that would prove your statement untrue because I have now shown you an instance where you can be caught without there being a witness to the speeding.

    It's the same thing here. You say there is no association between you and your screen name. I've given you an example of where in fact there is just such an association, thus disproving your statement.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    But back to my point. If I made defamatory remarks about cbg on this board, could you successfully find me and successfully sue me for defamation? I say no! You wouldn't even be able to file a suit to obtain subpoena power to force EL to hand over all of it's data on me.
    Whether she could successfully sue you for defamation would depend on the exact facts and the evidence to support it. But she certainly could file the lawsuit and get the subpoenas needed to identify the person behind that screen name in order to pursue her claim. Again, this illustrates my point: it is the person (you) behind the screen name that would be sued, not your screen name. There is a link between you and your screen name.

    As to your point as to the specifics of defamation law, that has nothing to do with the point you started this thread with, which deals with being banned in this forum, and I think that's already been sufficiently addressed.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Retail Fraud / Shoplifting: If You're Banned from a Store Are You Banned From the Entire Chain
    By caterpuff in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-20-2013, 05:58 AM
  2. Legal Research: We're Banned from Seeing Each Other
    By caitcat1254 in forum Legal Practice
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-22-2010, 01:06 PM
  3. Retail Fraud / Shoplifting: Banned From Wal-Mart
    By darthbane714 in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-08-2008, 05:46 PM
  4. Retail Fraud / Shoplifting: Banned from the Big W
    By cogadh in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-31-2007, 10:25 PM
  5. Retail Fraud / Shoplifting: Suspected and banned
    By Natasha in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-06-2005, 11:26 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources