Reply With QuoteTwinkle twinkle little star, how I wonder what you are. Up above the world so high, like a diamond in the sky! Twinkle twinkle little star, how I wonder what you are!!!!
A solicitor as I said before and in the other thread surrounding legalities of extras in shops vs private.
You can't run a 24/7 massage shop in any old shop
Twinkle twinkle little star, how I wonder what you are. Up above the world so high, like a diamond in the sky! Twinkle twinkle little star, how I wonder what you are!!!!
Spending a lot of time here yourself.Originally Posted by Heisenberg
posting whole day from 12:56pm to 10:25pm
Getting close to Brownwallaby's status.
"There is nothing prohibiting me from pointing this out. Libel and slander law does not apply to pseudonyms. "
This is actually 100% correct.
Also since BW's real name has not been mentioned by anyone previous to this thread being posted, there is no grounds for a complaint either.
Everything is clear here. Heisenberg has stated that all of his posts are fictitious. All of his accusations etc are just word play. Even his profession is not a solicitor. He's actually a prison guard, hence his knowledge of criminals and how their mind works ....
I wish we could stop this thread. This does not increase our chance to get a bj from that lass at Blueballs Massage
If it is fictitious then there is nothing to worry about
If anyone wants to no who is or is not wanking me off at massarge parlors please p.m me...
Ive got a mouth like a crack whore short of cash on a friday night!
Why do they call you oilman?
Actually it isn't
"In order to defame someone it is essential that the statement identifies them. This does not mean that the plaintiff must be personally named. Typically, all that is required is that the details that are published lead a specific class of reader to identify the person as the subject of the defamatory statement."
As I stated, if a pseudonym is sufficiently connected to the person's real identity then the defamation still stands. eg "Baz" Luhrmann is a famous pseudonym for Mark Anthony Luhrmann, any defamation made against "Baz" Luhrmann is in fact against Mark Anthony Luhrmann.
the problem is, brownwallaby doesn't exist. He's a myth. all of his postings are fictitious
Mate for that to work
1. Brown Wallaby would have to be as famous as baz luhrmann, and work in an industry (like film) where your career relies heavily on reputation.
2. The forum where he was defamed would have to be quite public, ie picked up by the media, his lawyers would have to prove that his career was sufficiently tarnished. This is why its usually celebrities that sue. Ordinary people usually do not, since its weighed up against the public good. This a small forum mentioning a non famous person. Tough case.
3. The psuedonym AND his real name has to be mentioned.
4. Most importantly, the allegations have to be proved false.
5. Explain to me how any user here (class of reader) can work out BWs real name from what heisenberg posted ?
6. Explain to me how "Brownwallaby" is as identifiable as "Baz Luhrmann", which appears on Movie Posters and Credits.
Your argument has more flaws than a 60 year old whore.
I am not a lawyer. My previous post does not constitute legal advice.
The comment wasn't whether the claim against BW's ID would constitute defamation. I replied to a generalisation that was incorrect.
1) refer to my previous post
3) Wrong, as per my second last post
4) Wrong, the burden of proof lies with the defendant as the defendant would be the one claiming "truth" as their defence.
5) similar to 1)
6) irrelevant, refer to 1)
Mate, defamation is about lowering a persons public professional reputation to their colleagues so much that it affects their ability to find work. If I were to write a letter to the editor stating that baz lurhmann fiddled with kids (assuming the newspaper was even dumb enough to post it) and it turned out to be incorrect, both the newspaper and I would be liable, since it could be argued that such a lie could harm a famous persons ability to continue to work in their chosen profession.
Now explain to me how that fits with an anonymous person writing under a fake name (no one outside this tiny forum would be even be aware of) being read by other anonymous people who also post under fake made up names. So please explain to me BWs professional rep that is being tarnished here. Does he sell tours to sex tourists ? Or offer a tour bus to brothels ? Your point is useless. No lawyer would touch it. They wouldnt waste their time with such a frivolous case.
Defamation cases usually only go ahead if the person is widely famous, yknow, like a hollywood director.
I dont really care about this. I dont have a dog in this fight, but as someone who has retained a lawyer from time to time, I know what I have written is right.
How many times do you need to have something explained to your before you will listen? The original comment was a generalisation about the law of libel with regards to pseudonyms. I stated it (and subsequently you in your support of the generalisation) were wrong. Your continued references to BW are irrelevant as I am not arguing the case in relation to any specific application of the law, I am only referring to the generalisation that was made.
Unless he is famous and known to others as brownwallaby + his real name, there is no defamation.
You cannot defame a pseudonym.
Your post re Baz Luhrmann is also irrelevant. It relies on the simple test of reasonableness. Would a reasonable person know who I was referring to if I called him Baz?
Yes.
Would a reasonable person know an anonymous Internet user's real identity if I referred to him by his username? No.
There is no caselaw to support your flawed interpretation of the law.
No defamation here so tell it to a judge
"You cannot defame a pseudonym.
Your post re Baz Luhrmann is also irrelevant."
It is relevant since it proves the only point I was making, you can defame a pseudonym. I even quoted actual legal advice which supported that fact. Trying to argue the specifics of this board are irrelevant to the validity of your incorrect generalisation, since they don't meet the qualification I made.
RLP, in a real world situation your point is useless. You can argue generalities until the cows come home but the Law is literal and specific. Just back away from this conversation, you dont have the chops for it.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Posting Permissions
|
|
|
|
