Internet Law Suits

[MustangSally]

This is for those who do not know anything about Internet Law suits for defamation/ Slandering on the internet. There are cases inside this url for you to read and try to understand. Please people you need to understand that no one can go on the internet and say things about another person without concrete proof to back up the statements.


http://www.medialaw.org/Content/Navigat ... oggers.htm (http://www.medialaw.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Member_Resources/Litigation_Resources/Materials_by_Issue/Lawsuits_Against_Bloggers/Lawsuits_Against_Bloggers.htm)



The internet has came along way in the making, but it also has Internet Laws to go with it.

As a Student of Law........... which is what I AM , I have taken almost 2 yrs of college for this and use what I know to benefit myself , my children, family,in everyway with the knowledge that I have on this subject. So unless you have gone to college for Law, or if you are a lawyer or paralegal,..... Please do not try to tell me about Law,ok :biggrin:

[allgo]

You know I should stay out of this but I cant, you ripped on logans dad for trash talking george and then you get on here and trash talk ashly, tell me whats the difference, ashlys 19 goerge is 18. And for someone that wants to be a lawyer I dont really get it. Not wanting a flame war with you but just want to understand what is right for others is not right for you?

[warchild145]

i beleive the correct term is libel not slander

[MustangSally]

You know I should stay out of this but I cant, you ripped on logans dad for trash talking george and then you get on here and trash talk ashly, tell me whats the difference, ashlys 19 goerge is 18. And for someone that wants to be a lawyer I dont really get it. Not wanting a flame war with you but just want to understand what is right for others is not right for you?


allgo,
If it's any of your business which it's not, Ashley knows what she said and I'm sure she understands why I said what I said,... I know Zac understood why, and that's all I'm going to say on that matter because it is NONE of YOUR BUSINESS. It's been handled .





Not wanting a flame war with you but just want to understand what is right for others is not right for you?

I made sure that "what goes around,.... came around ",... if it was right or wrong that's a different story, besides I do not make a habit out of saying things to Ashley to get into a flaming match with her.

[69gt4speed]

Hmmm, some things can push your button...ya know? I try to stay away from that sh-t.... best I can, coexist all that good stuff... but I get totally ticked off sometimes even being old. Mostly at myself. I missed a fukn gear.... ya that's it.... that's my button.

[MustangSally]

i beleive the correct term is libel not slander


Your somewhat right but just so people know the correct definations and meanings.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel

Slander and libel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Tort law I
Part of the common law series
Intentional torts
Assault · Battery
False arrest · False imprisonment
Intentional infliction of emotional distress
Property torts
Trespass to chattels
Trespass to land · Conversion
Detinue · Replevin · Trover
Dignitary and economic torts
Slander and libel · Invasion of privacy
Fraud · Tortious interference
Alienation of affections
Breach of confidence · Abuse of process
Malicious prosecution · Conspiracy
Defenses to intentional torts
Consent · Necessity
Self defense and defense of others
Fair comment (as to slander/libel)
Other areas of the common law
Contract law · Property law
Wills and trusts
Criminal law · Evidence
"Libel" redirects here. For other uses, see Libel (disambiguation).
For "liable", see Liability.
"Defamation" redirects here: did you mean deformation?
In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes an express or implied factual claim that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions provide legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to punish various kinds of defamation.

The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action.

"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication. The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc and the like, then it is considered libel.

Contents [hide]
1 Vocabulary and general concepts
1.1 Truth
1.2 Privilege and malice
1.3 Similar but different delicts and torts
1.4 Criminal libel
2 Origins of defamation law
3 English law
3.1 Development of English defamation law
3.2 English admiralty law
3.3 Modern law
3.4 Burden of proof on the defendant
4 United States law
5 Singapore law
6 Defenses
7 Defamation per se
7.1 History
8 Australian law
9 Canadian law
9.1 Criminal defamation
10 See also
11 References
12 External links



[edit] Vocabulary and general concepts
"Libel" comes from Latin : libellus ("little book")[1][2]
Even if a statement is derogatory, there are circumstances in which such statements are permissible in law.

[edit] Truth
Libel is studied in forensics. In many, though not all, legal systems, statements presented as fact must be false to be defamatory. Proving a defamatory statement to be true is often the best defense against a prosecution for libel. Statements of opinion that cannot be proven true or false will likely need to apply some other kind of defense. The use of the defense of justification has dangers, however. If the defendant libels the plaintiff and then runs the defense of truth and fails, he may be said to have aggravated the harm.

In some systems, however, truth alone is not a defense.[3] It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well-founded public interest in the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for public figures.

Public interest is not "that which the public is interested in," but rather that which is in the interest of the public. [4]

See also: Substantial truth

[edit] Privilege and malice
Privilege provides a complete bar and answer to a defamation suit, though conditions may have to be met before this protection is granted.

There are two types of privilege:

"Absolute privilege" has the effect that a statement cannot be sued on as defamatory, even if it was made maliciously; a typical example is evidence given in court (although this may give rise to different claims, such as an action for malicious prosecution or perjury) or statements made in a session of the legislature (known as 'Parliamentary privilege' in Commonwealth countries).
"Qualified privilege" may be available to the journalist as a defense in circumstances where it is considered important that the facts be known in the public interest; an example would be public meetings, local government documents, and information relating to public bodies such as the police and fire departments. Qualified privilege has the same effect as absolute privilege, though it is subject to more complicated conditions.

[edit] Similar but different delicts and torts
Some jurisdictions have a separate tort or delict of "verbal injury," "intentional infliction of emotional distress," or "convicium," involving the making of a statement, even if truthful, intended to harm the claimant out of malice; some have a separate tort or delict of "invasion of privacy" in which the making of a true statement may give rise to liability: but neither of these comes under the general heading of "defamation". Some jurisdictions also have the tort of "false light", in which a statement may be technically true, but so misleading as to be defamatory. There is also, in almost all jurisdictions, a tort or delict of "misrepresentation", involving the making of a statement which is untrue even though not defamatory; thus if a surveyor states that a house is free from the risk of flooding, he or she has not defamed anyone, but may still be liable to someone who purchases the house in reliance on this statement.


[edit] Criminal libel
Many nations have criminal penalties for defamation in some situations, and different conditions for determining whether an offense has occurred. For example, in Zimbabwe, "insulting the President" is, by statute, (Public Order and Security Act 2001) a criminal offense. In European systems, criminal liability for defamation is virtually obsolete by reason of the freedom of expression provisions of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[5] An important example is Lingens v. Austria (1986) 8 E.H.R.R. 407. Lingens was fined for publishing in a Vienna magazine comments about the behavior of the Austrian Chancellor, such as 'basest opportunism', 'immoral' and 'undignified'. Under the Austrian criminal code the only defense was proof of the truth of these statements. Lingens could not prove the truth of these value judgments. The European Court of Human Rights stated that a careful distinction needed to be made between facts and value judgments/opinions. The existence of facts can be demonstrated, whereas the truth of value judgments is not susceptible of proof. The facts on which Lingens founded his value judgments were not disputed; nor was his good faith. Since it was impossible to prove the truth of value judgments, the requirement of the relevant provisions of the Austrian criminal code was impossible of fulfilment and infringed article 10 of the Convention.


[edit] Origins of defamation law
In most early systems of law, verbal defamations were treated as a criminal or quasi-criminal offense, its essence lying not in pecuniary loss, which may be compensated by damages, but in the personal insult which must be atoned for: a vindictive penalty coming in the place of personal revenge. By the law of the Twelve Tables, the composition of scurrilous songs and gross noisy public affronts were punished by death. Minor offenses of the same class seem to have found their place under the general conception of injuria, which included ultimately every form of direct personal aggression which involved abuse or insult.

In the later Roman jurisprudence, from which many of modern laws descend, verbal defamations are dealt with in the edict under two heads. The first comprehended defamatory and injurious statements made in a public manner (convicium contra bonos mores). In this case the essence of the offense lay in the unwarrantable public proclamation. In such a case the truth of the statements was no justification for the unnecessarily public and insulting manner in which they had been made. The second head included defamatory statements made in private, and in this case the offense lay in the imputation itself, not in the manner of its publication. The truth was therefore a sufficient defense, for no man had a right to demand legal protection for a false reputation. Even belief in the truth was enough, because it took away the intention which was essential to the notion of injuria.

The law thus aimed at giving sufficient scope for the discussion of a man's character, while it protected him from needless insult and pain. The remedy for verbal defamation was long confined to a civil action for a monetary penalty, which was estimated according to the significance of the case, and which, although vindictive in its character, doubtless included practically the element of compensation. But a new remedy was introduced with the extension of the criminal law, under which many kinds of defamation were punished with great severity. At the same time increased importance attached to the publication of defamatory books and writings, the libri or libelli famosi, from which we derive our modern use of the word libel; and under the later emperors the latter term came to be specially applied to anonymous accusations or pasquils, the dissemination of which was regarded as particularly dangerous, and visited with very severe punishment, whether the matter contained in them were true or false.


[edit] English law

[edit] Development of English defamation law
Modern libel and slander laws as implemented in many but not all Commonwealth nations, in the United States, and in the Republic of Ireland, are originally descended from English defamation law.

The earlier history of the English law of defamation is somewhat obscure. Civil actions for damages seem to have been tolerably frequent so far back as the reign of Edward I (1272–1307). There was no distinction drawn between words written and spoken. When no pecuniary penalty was involved such cases fell within the old jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts, which were only finally abolished in the eighteenth century. It seems, to say the least, uncertain whether any generally applicable criminal process was in use.

The crime of scandalum magnatum, spreading false reports about the magnates of the realm, was established by statutes, but the first fully reported case in which libel is affirmed generally to be punishable at common law is one tried in the Star Chamber in the reign of James I. In that case no English authorities are cited except a previous case of the same nature before the same tribunal; the law and terminology appear to be taken directly from Roman sources, with the insertion that libels tended to a breach of the peace; and it seems probable that not very scrupulous tribunal had simply found it convenient to adopt the very stringent Roman provisions regarding the libelli famosi without paying any regard to the Roman limitations. From that time we find both the criminal and civil remedies in full operation.


[edit] English admiralty law
In admiralty law, a libel was the equivalent of a civil lawsuit. The plaintiff was referred to as the "libellant". The verb "to libel" means "to sue [in admiralty]". Similar terminology was used in the United States legal system. The term has been rendered obsolete by the merger of the admiralty courts with tribunals of general jurisdiction and the adoption of simplified rules of civil procedure that specify "one form of action" for all claims.


[edit] Modern law
English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.

A statement can include an implication. A large photograph of Tony Blair above a headline saying "Corrupt Politicians" might be held to be an allegation that Tony Blair was personally corrupt.

The allowable defenses against libel are:

Justification: the defendant proves that the statement was true. If the defense fails, a court may treat any material produced by the defense to substantiate it, and any ensuing media coverage, as factors aggravating the libel and increasing the damages.
Fair Comment: the defendant shows that the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held, even if they were motivated by dislike or hatred of the plaintiff.
Privilege: the defendant's comments were made in Parliament or under oath in court of law or were an accurate and neutral report of such comments. There is also a defense of 'qualified privilege' under which people, who are not acting out of malice, may claim privilege for fair reporting of allegations which if true were in the public interest to be published. The leading modern English case on qualified privilege in the context of newspaper articles which are claimed to defame a public figure is now Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd and Others, 1999 UKHL 45,[6] and the privilege has been widened by Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe 2006 UKHL 44, which has been described as giving British newspapers protections similar to the US First Amendment.[7]
An offer of amends - typically a combination of correction, apology and/or financial compensation - is a barrier to litigation in the courts.

The 2006 case of Keith-Smith v Williams confirmed that discussions on the internet were public enough for libel to take place.[8]


[edit] Burden of proof on the defendant
In most legal systems the courts give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant. In criminal law, he or she is presumed innocent until the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; whereas in civil law, he or she is presumed innocent until the plaintiff can show liability on a balance of probabilities. However, in defamation tort, this burden of proof is reversed: the defendant has the burden to prove the truth of the defamatory communication. The plaintiff only has the burden of proving that the publisher made the statement and that the statement was defamatory, the untruth of that statement is then presumed.

The English laws on libel have traditionally favored the plaintiffs. A recent decision by the European Court of Human Rights (in the so-called "McLibel case") held that, on the (exceptional) facts of that case, the burden on the defendants in the English courts was too high. However, it is unlikely that the case will provoke any considerable change in substantive English law, despite strong academic criticism of the current position.[9]

In 1990, McDonald's Restaurants sued Morris & Steel (called the McLibel case) for libel. The original case lasted seven years, making it the longest-running court action in English history. Beginning in 1986, London Greenpeace, a small environmental campaigning group, distributed a pamphlet entitled What’s wrong with McDonald’s: Everything they don’t want you to know. The pamphlet claimed that the McDonald's corporation sells unhealthy food, exploits its work force, practices unethical marketing of its products towards children, is cruel to animals, needlessly uses up resources and creates pollution with its packaging and is responsible for destroying the South American rain forests. Although McDonald's won two hearings, the widespread public opinion against them turned the case into a matter of embarrassment for the company. McDonald's announced that it has no plans to collect the £40,000 it was awarded by the courts, and offered to pay the defendants to drop the case. Since then, certain aspects of the trial have been declared by the European Court of Human Rights to be in violation of the Convention on Human Rights.


[edit] United States law
Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries.

This is because the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives strong protection to freedom of expression, which arose from the tradition of dissent in the American Revolution. For most of the history of the United States, constitutional protections of freedom of speech were considered fully compatible with state defamation law. This changed with the landmark 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan, in which the Supreme Court of the United States announced constitutional restrictions to state defamation law. The court held that where a public official was defamed, the plaintiff had to prove not just that an untruthful statement was made, but also that it was made with "actual malice" - that is, with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. The "actual malice" standard was subsequently extended to public figures in general, and even to private figure plaintiffs seeking punitive or presumptive damages.

One very important distinction today is that European and Commonwealth jurisdictions adhere to a theory that every publication of a defamation gives rise to a separate claim, so that a defamation on the Internet could be sued on in any country in which it was read, while American law only allows one claim for the primary publication.

In the United States, about 75 percent of defamation lawsuits are filed in state courts, and the remaining 25 percent in federal courts.[citation needed] A comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because each state's definition differs. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Some states have criminal libel laws on the books, though these are old laws which are very infrequently prosecuted.

Most defendants in defamation lawsuits are newspapers or publishers, which are involved in about twice as many lawsuits as are television stations. Most plaintiffs are corporations, businesspeople, entertainers and other public figures, and people involved in criminal cases, usually defendants or convicts but sometimes victims as well. Almost all states do not allow defamation lawsuits to be filed if the allegedly defamed person is deceased. No state allows the plaintiff to be a group of people.

In the various states, whether by case law or actual legislation, there are generally several "privileges" that can get a defamation case dismissed without proceeding to trial. These include the allegedly defamatory statement being one of opinion rather than fact; or being "fair comment and criticism", as it is important to society that everyone be able to comment on matters of public interest. The Supreme Court, however, has rejected the opinion privilege outright and has declined to hold that the "fair comment" privilege is a Constitutional imperative.

[After Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy, 1995 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 229 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995), applied the standard publisher/distributor test to a find a bulletin board liable for post by a third party, congress specifically enacted 47 USC § 230 (1996) to reverse the Prodigy findings and to provide for private blocking and screening of offensive material. §230(c) states that “that no provider or user of an interactive computer shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider,” thereby providing forums immunity for statements provided by third parties. Thereafter, cases such as Zeran v American Online, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), and Blumenthal v Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998), have demonstrated that although courts are expressly uneasy with applying §230, they are bound to find providers like AOL immune from defamatory postings. This immunity applies even if the providers are notified of defamatory material and neglect to remove it, due to the fact that provider liability upon notice would likely cause a flood of complaints to providers, would be a large burden on providers, and would have a chilling effect on freedom of speech on the internet.]

In November of 2006 the California Supreme Court ruled that web sites cannot be sued for libel that was written by other parties.[10]


[edit] Singapore law
Singapore has perhaps the world's strongest libel laws. The country's leaders have clearly indicated to the public that libel on the Internet will not be tolerated and abusers will be severely punished. On March 6, 1996, the government made providers and publishers liable for the content placed on the Internet. Even the owners of cybercafes may be held liable for libelous statements posted or possibly viewed in their establishments.[11]

In 2001, a Singapore bank was fined $2 million for accidentally publishing a mildly libelous statement during the heated discussion of a takeover bid. The mistake was corrected very quickly, and there was no intent to do harm. In fact, it was reported that no harm seems to have been done. Nevertheless, the offended parties were awarded $1 million each. Confirming the stringency of Singapore’s defamation law, Business Times declined to report on the matter because one of the libeled parties objected.[12]


[edit] Defenses
Defenses to claims of defamation include:

Truth is an absolute defense in the United States as well as Canada. In some other countries it is also necessary to show a benefit to the public good in having the information brought to light.
Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.
Privilege is a defense when witness testimony, attorneys' arguments, and judges' decisions, rulings, and statements made in court, or statements by legislators on the floor of the legislature, or statements made by a person to their spouse, are the cause for the claim. These statements are said to be privileged and cannot be cause for a defamation claim.
Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.
Fair comment on a matter of public interest, statements made with an honest belief in their truth on a matter of public interest (official acts) are defenses to a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound; if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected.
Consent is an uncommon defense and makes the claim that the claimant consented to the dissemination of the statement.
Innocent dissemination is a defense available when a defendant had no actual knowledge of the defamatory statement or no reason to believe the statement was defamatory. The defense can be defeated if the lack of knowledge was due to negligence. Thus, a delivery service cannot be held liable for delivering a sealed defamatory letter.
Claimant is incapable of further defamation–e.g., the claimant's position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff. Such a claimant could be said to be "libel-proof," since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an essential element for a libel claim.
In addition to the above, the defendant may claim that the allegedly defamatory statement is not actually capable of being defamatory—an insulting statement that does not actually harm someone's reputation is prima facie not libelous.

Special rules apply in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures. A series of court rulings led by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established that for public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth, (also known as actual malice).

Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the defendant was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault.

The Associated Press estimates that 95% of libel cases involving news stories do not arise from high-profile news stories, but "run of the mill" local stories like news coverage of local criminal investigations or trials, or business profiles. Media liability insurance is available to newspapers to cover potential damage awards from libel lawsuits.


[edit] Defamation per se
All states except Arizona, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oregon, and Tennessee recognize some categories of statements are considered to be defamatory per se, such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory. Traditionally, these per se defamatory statements include:

Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"
Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
Allegations or imputations of "unchastity" (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude)[13]

[edit] History
Laws regulating slander and libel in the United States began to develop even before the American Revolution. In one of the most famous cases, New York publisher John Peter Zenger was imprisoned for 8 months in 1734 for printing attacks on the governor of the colony. Zenger won his case and was acquitted by jury in 1735 under the counsel of Andrew Hamilton. The case established some precedent that the truth should be an absolute defense against libel charges. Previous English defamation law had not provided this guarantee. This impacted the later formers of the U.S. constitution, including Gouverneur Morris, who said

The trial of Zenger in 1735 was the germ of American freedom, the morning star of that liberty which subsequently revolutionized America.
Zenger's case also established that libel cases, though they were civil rather than criminal cases, could be heard by a jury, which would have the authority to rule on the allegations and to set the amount of monetary damages awarded.[citation needed]

Although the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed specifically to protect freedom of the press, the Supreme Court long neglected to use it to rule on libel cases, leaving libel laws mixed across the states. In 1964, however, the court issued an opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, dramatically changing the nature of libel law in the United States. In that case, the court determined that public officials could only win a suit for libel if they could demonstrate "actual malice" on the part of reporters or publishers. In that case, "actual malice" was defined as "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." This decision was later extended to cover "public figures", although the standard is still considerably lower in the case of private individuals.

In 1974, in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., (418 U.S. 323), the Supreme Court suggested that a plaintiff could not win a defamation suit when the statements in question were expressions of opinion rather than fact. In the words of the court, "under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea". However, the Court subsequently rejected the notion of a First Amendment opinion privilege, in Lorain Journal Co. v. Milkovich. In Gertz, the Supreme Court also established a mens rea or culpability requirement for defamation; states cannot impose strict liability because that would run afoul of the First Amendment. This holding differs significantly from most other common law jurisdictions, which still have strict liability for defamation.

In 1988, in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, (485 U.S. 46), the Supreme Court ruled that a parody advertisement claiming Jerry Falwell had engaged in an incestuous act with his mother in an outhouse, while false, could not allow Falwell to win damages for emotional distress because the statement was so obviously ridiculous that it was clearly not true; an allegation believed by nobody, it was ruled, brought no liability upon the author. The court thus overturned a lower court's upholding of an award where the jury had decided against the claim of libel but had awarded damages for emotional distress.

In 2006, a video was released by a group entitled "Slander Media," (headed by filmer Dennis Wiliford), the short film shows the evolution of the act over specific years with video representation. The group is based in Richmond, VA and is currently working on a "Slander 2."


[edit] Australian law
Australian law tends to follow English law on defamation issues, although there are differences introduced by statute, and by an implied constitutional limitation on governmental powers to limit speech of a political nature.

A recent judgment of the High Court of Australia has significant consequences on interpretation of the law. On 10 December 2002, the High Court of Australia handed down its judgment in the Internet defamation dispute in the case of Gutnick v Dow Jones. The judgment, which established that Internet-published foreign publications which defamed an Australian in his Australian reputation could be held accountable under Australian libel law, has gained worldwide attention and is often (although inaccurately, see for example Berezovsky v Forbes in England[14]) said to be the first of its kind; the case was subsequently settled.

Among the various common law jurisdictions, some Americans have presented a visceral and vocal reaction to the Gutnick decision.[15] On the other hand, the decision mirrors similar decisions in many other jurisdictions such as England, Scotland, France, Canada and Italy.


[edit] Canadian law
As with most Commonwealth jurisdictions, Canada also follows English law on defamation issues (although the law in the province of Quebec has different roots). At common law, defamation covers any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of the ordinary members of the public.[16] The perspective measuring the esteem is highly contextual, and depends on the view of the potential audience of the communication.

Since the tort is one of strict liability, the defendant does not have to intend to have made the statement. In the Supreme Court of Canada decision of Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995) the Court reviewed the relationship of the common law of defamation and the Charter. The Court rejected the actual malice test in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan citing criticism of it, not only in the United States, but in other countries as well. They held that the guarantee of freedom of expression in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not require any significant changes to the common law of libel.

Where a communication is expressing a fact, it can still be found defamatory through innuendo suggested by the juxtoposition of the text or picture next to other pictures and words.[17]

Once a claim has been made out the statement the defendant may avail him or herself to a defense of justification (the truth), fair comment, or privilege. Publishers of defamatory comments may also use the defense of innocent dissemination where they had no knowledge of the nature of the statement, it was not brought to their attention, and they were not negligent.

In Quebec, defamation was originally grounded in the law inherited from France. After Quebec, then called New France, became part of the British Empire, the French civil law was preserved. However, by the mid-nineteenth century, judges in what by then had come to be called Lower Canada held that certain aspects of the unwritten British Constitution over-rode French civil law in matters concerning liberty of expression on matters of public interest, and incorporated various defenses of the English common law, such as the defense of fair comment, into the local law. Such references to British law became more problematic in the Twentieth Century, with many judges and most academics arguing that the basic principles of the civil law gave rise to the similar defenses without need to refer to English case law or principle.[18]

Most recently, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that defamation in Quebec must be governed by a reasonableness standard, as opposed to the strict liability standard that is applicable in the English common law. Although this seemed at first to be a standard more tolerant of freedom of expression, it seems to have had the opposite effect, and defendants have been found liable for strictly truthful statements that could be considered unreasonable because they do not, for example, provide a full and fair context for the statements.


[edit] Criminal defamation
Defamation as a tort does not infringe the freedom of expression guarantee under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, according to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court in Coates v. The Citizen (1988), 44 C.C.L.T. 286 (N.S.S.C.). Defamatory libel is equally valid as a criminal offense under the Criminal Code, according to the Supreme Court of Canada: R. v. Lucas, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 439.

Dom Martin v. The Times of India

[edit] See also
Chilling effect
International Freedom of Expression eXchange
Lashon hara
Prior restraint
Food libel laws
Strategic lawsuit against public participation
detraction
censorship
Doctrine of substantial truth
Media Transparency

[edit] References
^ Webster's 1828 Dictionary, Electronic Version. Christian Technologies, Inc. (1828). Retrieved on 2006-12-31.
^ Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved on 2006-12-31.
^ Republic of the Philippines. The Revised Penal Code. Chan Robles law Firm. Retrieved on 2006-11-24. “Art. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.”
^ Legal dictionary. findlaw.com. Retrieved on 2006-11-24.
^ Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
^ Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd and Others, 1999 UKHL 45
^ Gibb, Frances. "Landmark ruling heralds US-style libel laws in Britain", The Times, Times Newspapers Ltd, 2006-10-11. Retrieved on 2006-10-11. (in English)
^ Warning to chatroom users after libel award for man labelled a Nazi, Owen Gibson, March 23, 2006, The Guardian
^ FOURTH SECTION - CASE OF STEEL AND MORRIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM. European Court of Human Rights Portal (15 February 2005). Retrieved on 2006-10-20.
^ Court OKs broad Web libel immunity. Associated Press (2006-11-21). Retrieved on 2006-11-21.
^ http://www.law.buffalo.edu/Academics/co ... olland.htm (http://www.law.buffalo.edu/Academics/courses/629/computer_law_policy_articles/CompLawPapers/holland.htm)
^ http://www.medialaw.com.sg/DBSBankandlibel.htm
^ http://www.dancingwithlawyers.com/freei ... r-se.shtml (http://www.dancingwithlawyers.com/freeinfo/libel-slander-per-se.shtml)
^ http://www.parliament.the-stationery-of ... bere-1.htm (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd000511/bere-1.htm)
^ http://online.barrons.com/public/articl ... 53629.html (http://online.barrons.com/public/article/SB109848511439553629.html)
^ Murphy v. LaMarsh (1970), 73 W.W.R. 114
^ Brown, The Law of Defamation in Canada, 2nd ed. (Scarborough, Ont.: Carswell, 1994) vol. 1 at 201
^ Joseph Kary, "The Constitutionalization of Libel Law in Quebec", Osgoode Hall Law Journal, volume 42.

[edit] External links
Resources on defamation and freedom of expression - ARTICLE 19
Defamation and intellectual property jurisdiction A Scottish site, dealing with jurisdiction in international defamation cases, with copious references to caselaw in many countries.
Newsdesk Introduction to English defamation law.
Human Rights Update English site, with notes of recent cases in which the Human Rights Convention has affected defamation law in Europe.
Richard Kostelanetz article on libel and chilling effects
Defining Defamation: Principles on Freedom of Expression and Protection of Reputation - ARTICLE 19
A Defamation ABC - ARTICLE 19
World Press Freedom Committee campaign against insult laws
Criminal defamation cases documented by the Committee to Protect Journalists
Electronic Frontiers Foundation's Bloggers' FAQ - Student Blogging
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel"
Categories: Articles with unsourced statements | Communication of falsehoods | Copy editing | Criminology topics | Defamation | Journalism ethics | Tort law

[warchild145]

ok no way am i reading that, just to plain lazy.

but what do you mean somewhat right?

libel is written and slander is spoken otherwise they are the samething.

Not trying to get some who is smarter or whatever just trying to see if i misunderstood what i learned in school or if you are talking about more then written words on the net which i thought you were.

School me but PLEASE keep it to two paragraphs MAX ;)

[SaNdMaNsSi]

What happened to the good old days where people showed they actually had a pair and settled things like mature adults instead of needing mommy and daddy (lawyer and judge) to do it for them?

[MustangSally]

ok no way am i reading that, just to plain lazy.

but what do you mean somewhat right?

libel is written and slander is spoken otherwise they are the same thing.

Not trying to get some who is smarter or whatever just trying to see if i misunderstood what i learned in school or if you are talking about more then written words on the net which i thought you were.

School me but PLEASE keep it to two paragraphs MAX ;)


You stated this first.





i believe the correct term is libel not slander


and I replied with this in part ; Your somewhat right

Then you Stated this



libel is written and slander is spoken otherwise they are the same thing.



They are one in the same, the only true difference between Libel and slander is " libel is written and slander is spoken " which you were right, BUT they mean the same thing so actually it really doesn't matter which term you use, it's means the same thing.
but written is easier to prove then spoken unless there are witnesses to hear what is said.

That is why I said "somewhat right,", two different words, two different ways to cause damage to some one's reputation but it all does the same thing in the end.

[DragonUSMC]

because now if you knock someone's teeth out for being an ass to you, you have to pay for their mental problems they will later on develop in life, the social outcast they will become from the fat lip, the doctor bills (cause God knows an Ice Pack just wasnt going to be enough), etc. etc. oh and $$$ can forget that... its what makes the world go round.

[MustangSally]

Man, I did not explain that to well, I'm more tired than I thought. I'll try again tomorrow but warchild you pretty much got it right.

[MustangSally]

because now if you knock someone's teeth out for being an a$$ to you, you have to pay for their mental problems they will later on develop in life, the social outcast they will become from the fat lip, the doctor bills (cause God knows an Ice Pack just wasnt going to be enough), etc. etc. oh and $$$ can forget that... its what makes the world go round.

LOL, that's a Liability tort suit.

[warchild145]

They are one in the same, the only true difference between Libel and slander is " libel is written and slander is spoken " which you were right, BUT they mean the same thing so actually it really doesn't matter which term you use, it's means the same thing.
but written is easier to prove then spoken unless there are witnesses to hear what is said.

That is why I said "somewhat right,", two different words, two different ways to cause damage to some one's reputation but it all does the same thing in the end.

Wrong, i cant be somewhat right, if the defamation is written the correct term is libel, period. Their is no ifs, ands, or buts. Yes they do both claim defamation of character but they originated from diifferent souces.

[DragonUSMC]

[quote="DragonUSMC";p="118673":37698]because now if you knock someone's teeth out for being an a$$ to you, you have to pay for their mental problems they will later on develop in life, the social outcast they will become from the fat lip, the doctor bills (cause God knows an Ice Pack just wasnt going to be enough), etc. etc. oh and $$$ can forget that... its what makes the world go round.

LOL, that's a Liability tort suit.[/quote:37698]

my point is that is shouldnt be... just like if someone breaks into my house and I bring my wrath of hate and discontent down upon them... their family doesnt have any right to sue me because of what i did to that individual.

Too many rights for these people that are breaking the law... LAW BREAKERS DO NOT HAVE FUKING RIGHTS. Tiny rooms, no bed, no toilet, just a bucket, not outside time, no gym time, no reading, no TV, nothing... locked in a room all day, all night. Think that is bad? wait till i tell you about what we should do to drug dealers and the worse criminals.

[SaNdMaNsSi]

I'm in complete agreement. The US is gay on laws protecting dumbasses. Thats why I'm considering applying for citizenship of another country before I come back to the US. Sure I'll have to use a passport from then on even though I was born here, but at least I can put a baseball bat through someone's skull for doing something dumb and the worst they can do is deport me. I think we should have laws against people that are sue-happy. For instance, the judge should say, okay, you will be awarded 200,000 for spilling hot coffee on yourself you dumbass- but to get that 200,000 you have to let 200,000 people kick you in the nuts. If they want the money that bad, more power to them. But at least that retard won't have children that are as sue happy as they are.

[MustangSally]

I'm in complete agreement. The US is g@y on laws protecting dumbasses. Thats why I'm considering applying for citizenship of another country before I come back to the US. Sure I'll have to use a passport from then on even though I was born here, but at least I can put a baseball bat through someone's skull for doing something dumb and the worst they can do is deport me. I think we should have laws against people that are sue-happy. For instance, the judge should say, okay, you will be awarded 200,000 for spilling hot coffee on yourself you dumbass- but to get that 200,000 you have to let 200,000 people kick you in the nuts. If they want the money that bad, more power to them. But at least that retard won't have children that are as sue happy as they are.


So what you are saying is that I should not have threaten a law suit against the guy and his company in order to get them to pay for damages , when this guy driving a company truck, not paying attention to the speed limit or traffic conditions, rear-ended a car that was behind me waiting for me to turn onto my street (with my turning signal on ) and shoving that car into the rear-end of my car totalling out the whole ass-end of my car and causing me to go to the hospital because of his carelessness, and HIS company not wanting to pay for the damages to my car, my hospital bills and the permanent damage to my upper back that gives me nothing but constant pain now.

So your saying that I'm "sue" happy ?

Sorry dude, but any time a person does something that causes damage to property or person, should be held accountable for his/her's actions.

There are legit., reasons for lawsuits to happen in most cases, but there a some that happen because a person is trying to get something for nothing not caring if it raises the insurance premiums for everyone else in the long run, but the legit., cases need the protection of the Law.

[MustangSally]

because now if you knock someone's teeth out for being an a$$ to you, you have to pay for their mental problems they will later on develop in life, the social outcast they will become from the fat lip, the doctor bills (cause God knows an Ice Pack just wasnt going to be enough), etc. etc. oh and $$$ can forget that... its what makes the world go round.

Each of us as adults, are responsible for our own actions and choices and our children's actions that are under-aged,.... by law.

Just because someone is rude to you or is an ass to you does not give you or anyone else the right to cause physical harm to that person in the eyes of the law and courts, I'm sorry but that's just how it is.

If a person does physical harm to another that could cause repercussion later on for that person that was harmed later in life, the court looks at all of that and decides whats fair for the injured party to receive in $$$ from the person that assaulted the victim.

The Law and Courts are there to make sure that a person is accountable for their own actions.

[SaNdMaNsSi]

Your instance had absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. And just because the courts say something is right or wrong doesnt make them right or wrong. Just because they were given a position of authority doesnt mean they are correct. Society holds people accountable much better than any court system ever could. Not to mention gay ass lawsuits against people for high $ amounts just hurts everyone else in the long run. A hundred years ago people were giving each other the beatdown for doing stupid things, and you managed to be born, so obviously the system worked just fine back then.

[MustangSally]

Note to myself:

Place a note sticky on screen to remind that there are " Children On Board cru "

[SaNdMaNsSi]

Gee, I wonder if that was directed towards me. Well if the statements I place on a message board are an indicator of my "childhood" then I take it as a compliment, especially since you are quite lacking in persuasiveness yourself. Therefore if a 23 year old has more intelligent things to say than a 48 year old, I guess I should remind myself "baby on board CRU." If this is a battle of wits, you obviously came unarmed. I thought this was a post about lawsuits? If you have nothing to say about the post, then you should just keep your comments to yourself.

[s13kid]

mustangsally why are you still continuing on with this thread? is your goal to try and win as many arguments you can? what sandman said had absolutly nothing to do with your little story....

and people are sue happy, almost anybody that has a chance to make easy money is going to do it even if its at sombody elses expense

[SaNdMaNsSi]

Agreed. Thanks s13.

[RandomHero]

i believe in getting even. if someone breaks into my car. im going to throw a cinder block through their windsheild. if someone breaks into my place, im going to burn theirs down. if they hurt me, im going to send them to the hospital. if they hurt a loved one, or someone close to me, ill send them to hell.

[Ricky]

there is no way you thought of that. what movie you quoting matt? :)

[SaNdMaNsSi]

Randomhero, we think alike. I agree in the utmost.

I would also like to take this time to mention something that has been brought to my attention in a PM from another CRundergrounder. MustangSally is not in fact a lawyer, or anything of the kind. In fact, she has never even completed her AA degree from Kirkwood. Funny, a wannabe lawyer misrepresenting themselves. Apparently MustangSally went to school with another user on here and dropped out long before she even completed her AA degree. Therefore, you can't really say you are studying law. If by reading and quoting others by Googling you are then a lawyer, I now dub all CRundergrounders certified paralegals. If you had an AA and were working on your BA, maybe I could overlook your overstatement. But not having a BA, let alone an AA, and therefore having no snowballs chance in hell of getting into a law school, don't misrepresent yourself. If you were in fact a lawyer or anything of the kind, you'd know that by lying the real truth will always surface to bite you in the ass, and one of your fellow K-wooders just clamped down. Better put some ice on that.

[allgo]

Randomhero, we think alike. I agree in the utmost.

I would also like to take this time to mention something that has been brought to my attention in a PM from another CRundergrounder. MustangSally is not in fact a lawyer, or anything of the kind. In fact, she has never even completed her AA degree from Kirkwood. Funny, a wannabe lawyer misrepresenting themselves. Apparently MustangSally went to school with another user on here and dropped out long before she even completed her AA degree. Therefore, you can't really say you are studying law. If by reading and quoting others by Googling you are then a lawyer, I now dub all CRundergrounders certified paralegals. If you had an AA and were working on your BA, maybe I could overlook your overstatement. But not having a BA, let alone an AA, and therefore having no snowballs chance in hell of getting into a law school, don't misrepresent yourself. If you were in fact a lawyer or anything of the kind, you'd know that by lying the real truth will always surface to bite you in the a$$, and one of your fellow K-wooders just clamped down. Better put some ice on that.

HAHAHAHA that is some of the funniest shit ever!! What kind of person gets on here and lies??? Wow good PI work to.

[69gt4speed]

Hmmm, maybe Allgo,etc. getting ovarian cancer had something to do with that. And dealing with all that bs. Yea she is legally disabled as I knew that from the start, from the back bs from yrs ago too and made worse. And basically we have gave all that up thanks to being married now because of the law. No one should be above the law, if we don't like it, get it changed. Not me, her, you, the president or your kid when he/she gets older and maybe does something dumb. Got any other questions pm or call her all I can say.

The others, I have seen the papers she is 12 credit hours short and the internship. She never said she is a lawyer instead said she was a student of law still has the books here. All she was doing is like offering some help as a citizen with a lil knowledge for the youngers that might want to beat the sh-t out of someone and get locked up or get sued or any of that. If someone should ask her something she might give her opinion and tell them to get a lawyer if it is serious. She has opinions and some advice I find it pretty damn accurate. The wild west is over where we gun down or duke it out without penalties, get over that idea, all she is saying. She cares about kids in general a lot. I know that for fact.

[MustangSally]

I would also like to take this time to mention something that has been brought to my attention in a PM from another CRundergrounder. MustangSally is not in fact a lawyer, or anything of the kind. In fact, she has never even completed her AA degree from Kirkwood. Funny, a wannabe lawyer misrepresenting themselves. Apparently MustangSally went to school with another user on here and dropped out long before she even completed her AA degree. Therefore, you can't really say you are studying law. If by reading and quoting others by Googling you are then a lawyer, I now dub all CRundergrounders certified paralegals. If you had an AA and were working on your BA, maybe I could overlook your overstatement. But not having a BA, let alone an AA, and therefore having no snowballs chance in hell of getting into a law school, don't misrepresent yourself. If you were in fact a lawyer or anything of the kind, you'd know that by lying the real truth will always surface to bite you in the a$$, and one of your fellow K-wooders just clamped down. Better put some ice on that.





SaNdMaNsS,


First, I never claimed to be a Lawyer, not one time have I EVER claimed that.

Second, I did not say I "study Law" . I said I am a "student of Law",................ which I am. I am very careful as to HOW I WORD IT, and just because I have not bothered to return to college to finish,......... that does not mean I am not a student of Law

Third, If I was to return to college and put up with that Instructor from hell,.... I would need ONLY 12 Credit Hours and to do my internship to receive my AA and BA.

If I so choose to return to college to finish my 12 credits, I have already been offered the chance to do my internship under a lawyer right here in Cedar Rapids, IF it is any business of yours or anyone elses here on cru.

Finally,

allgo,
not to make you and SaNdMaNsS look like dumbass BUT




Wow good PI work to



anyone that has read any or all of the threads that I have posted on, would have found this on the thread titled; Yahoooooo, LOL.




So I guess a person could say that "abovetopsecret" and the people there are my "sounding board" and release,.. so to speak, along with the interesting topics they have in there and if someone has a legal problem or question, I try to educate them on the legal system (at least what I know of it from my college days), or try to help them by looking up the law for them in their state and explaining it to them, along with telling them that I am not a lawyer, I do not have my degrees, that they need to seek a good laywer that is willing to speak to them for free ....the first time in their office then go from there. This way I can not get into legal trouble as long as I state the fact that I am not a lawyer and they do need to seek one,....... thats if they need one. 12 Credit hours and doing my apprenticeship is whats left for me to do to receive all my degrees,....... maybe some day I'll go back and finish. Law and Politics has always been my biggest passion in life before I mealt Rob and he is my




and again here






I've been giving a lot of thought to going back and finishing, 12 credit hours really isn't much considering I started out needing 60-something credits when I first started college, the only catch though is this one particular Instructor who is also incharge of the programs for what I was going to college for,............ she doesn't like me to much therefore she gives me a hard time and grades me by her like/dislike of me and not by how well I do,... I guess it's because I didn't suck-up to her like others do, I didn't chew gum and whisper to the person next to me......... while she was talking, and because I dressed as a business-woman for class and that must of intimidated her somewhat as she dressed casual (slacks & blouse ).
Can you imagine studying hard,passing all tests given with A's B's and C's and then the b*tch giving you a failing grade at finals !!!!

Well, that's what happened to me with this instructor. I went to see my college counselor with all my graded tests from that instructor in hand,......... he couldn't get over it when I showed him my final grade vs my graded tests papers. The most he said that could be done is I needed to re-take her class and if came away with the same grading of tests and final grade like the one's he was looking at, again........... then He would go with me infront of the board and Dean of the college to have something done........

Yea right, like I have hundreds of dollars to just piss away because of this one b*tch.

She is the reason I haven't returned to that college or any of the other colleges here in Cedar Rapids as she is the head-instructor for the other colleges here in CR for what I was going for............ can't get around the b*tch , so I'm f*cked .

That's one thing anyone deciding to go to college should keep in mind,....... it takes only one instructor to knock-down your house of cards, if the instructor doesn't like you for whatever reason.


One other thing,.............. if I had finished-out what I had left to do,.......... I would have earned my " Associates of Art ...... and my Bachelors degrees".




Oh yea,........really good "PI" work there :rolleyes: ROFLMAO

[SaNdMaNsSi]

Actually, the only person that looks like a dumbass on here is you. You might as well stop while you are behind. Its obvious to all of us that you were trying to deceive us about how much knowledge you actually had.

Also, even if you were to go back for your AA, being 12 credits behind would only get you your AA, not your BA. A BA is a 4 year degree, or did you not learn that during your year and a half at K-wood? Secondly, being offered an internship is not the same as being accepted into law school. I've had more than one internship for hospitals and I've conducted drug research. Does that make me a doctor yet? No. The degree in hand would make me a doctor. Sitting in a chair spitting out Google research and claiming that someday sometime somewhere something might happen does not make it a reality, sorry.

And I know that you just did such a good job of persuading everyone that I am in fact wrong and Allgo and I are dumbasses, but in your own words from the very beginning of this thread:

"So unless you have gone to college for Law, or if you are a lawyer or paralegal,..... Please do not try to tell me about Law,ok"

That statement alone obviously shows you were trying to get people to think you were much more educated on the subject than you actually were. I'm sorry but anyone who doesn't even have an AA in any subject knows just as much or less than most everyone else about it. In actuality, you should probably present yourself as the lawyer with a high school degree. You do actually have that one, right? You're not 12 credits short or anything?

"Second, I did not say I "study Law" . I said I am a "student of Law",................ which I am. I am very careful as to HOW I WORD IT, and just because I have not bothered to return to college to finish,......... that does not mean I am not a student of Law "

That statement also shows that you were trying to mislead us into thinking you were more than you are. Technically, no, you aren't a student of law. Sorry. Wish you were, but you aren't. If we use your analogy of what a "student of something is" I guess then I'm a student of rocket science because I watch NASA launch rockets every once in awhile, I'm a student of law enforcement because I watch CSI, I'm a student of plastic surgery as of now because I flipped past doctor 90210 last night, and I MUST be living tissue over metal endoskeleton because I watched Terminator 3 the other night too. If hopes and dreams were money, you'd be a billionaire.

[MustangSally]

What kind of person gets on here and lies???

allgo,

Please do tell me WHAT I have lied about on this Thread ???

This thread is about Internet Laws, so what if I used the term Slander instead of the correct term Libel when speaking about Internet Laws, big deal............ so sue me why don't you.

As I stated in my last post, ANYONE could go back and look-up the threads that I have posted on and see that "I" even said that "I WAS NOT A LAWYER", I talked about college, I talked about the 12 credit hours and the apprenticeship that I needed to complete in order to receive the Degrees that I had been studing for to receive , to complete my college education, it's all there for everyone here to see,..... I hide NOTHING, and I DID NOT LIE about it, oh and YES I can receive a BA along with the AA that I was studing for.

Check it out, LOL.




Other Qualifications Required of Paralegals
1) There are several ways to become a paralegal. The most common is through a community college paralegal program that leads to an associate’s degree.

2) The other common method of entry, mainly for those who have a college degree, is through a certification program that leads to a certification in paralegal studies.

3) A small number of schools also offer bachelor’s and master’s degrees in paralegal studies.



Numbers (1) and (3) were OFFERED at the college that I attended and was what "I" was working to earn for my degrees.
It just so happened that somethings happened that was beyond my control at that time, that had to be taken care of.

Since my cancer surgery, I have been having memory problems that seem to be getting worse with each passing year,............ so YES, I may not use the correct Terms when I speak of law, but that doesn't mean I do not know what I'm talking about. Rob found that out for his self when I tried to advise him on something ,when we were only dating at the time and later his attorney told him the same EXACT thing that I had already told him. People that I know that live all over the United States and Canada, have brought their problems to me because they knew I had some college and my major was in Paralegal Studies (Law), the most I have ever done for any of them is look up the Code and Case Laws for their State and told them when speaking with an Attorney about their legal problem, to bring up the codes and what is said in them and the case law pertaining to them, so that they would not walk into an Attorneys office not knowing anything about their problem in the legal form when bringing it to the Attorney for answers or help.

My Instructor, who happens to have a Juris Doctorate Degree also made it clear that if a paralegal did give any type of advise which they should not do but if they did , to make it clear that they are NOT an Attorney and that the person should seek legal counsel.


That is one thing I have ALWAYS told anyone that has asked a legal question of me, I am NOT a Lawyer, that you (whoever ) should seek an Attorney to speak with but also bring up USWEST Sub Section code (whatever the legal question is about ) yada yada yada .

I am posting this to you "allgo" just to let you know that I DO KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT and I DID "NOT LIE" ABOUT ANYTHING.

[SaNdMaNsSi]

In the spirit of Pulp Fiction, allow me to retort:



YOU ARE NOT A STUDENT OF LAW. If you were, you'd be in a classroom. Thats a student of law. A couch potato is not a student. If you're 48 and don't even have your AA, chances are quite high that you will never have any type of degree in law. Therefore, you are not a student of anything except possibly deception, and even then, you're receiving failing grades. I will once again state that you have no AA, and you are in no way close to a BA no matter what you say. An AA is a 2 year degree. Most people get it by the time they are 20. You've taken twice the average lifetime to even attempt that degree and still don't have it. A BA is a 4 year degree. Don't try to tell me it isn't or that you're close to getting it, because it is a 4 year degree no matter how you cut it. You don't even have your AA, so stop talking about the BA you will never have. This supposed internship that you will also never have does not put you even 1 credit closer to your BA. BECAUSE YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE YOUR AA! When you admit that you are nothing more than a high school graduate living off of Google, I'll stop responding and making you look like a 48 year old fool. And you might as well stop with the sob stories that really have nothing to with our arguments against you. The sympathy vote won't win you an AA or a BA, so you might as well stop. Sure bad things happen to people. Believe me, I know firsthand. But I don't use that to get a sympathy vote, and even if I did, this world could care less. So stick to objectivity, not subjectivity.

[MustangSally]

Sandman,
I believe your full of shit, dude. Your what only 23 yrs old,.... you were just coming out of your diapers when I was in college so you personally have no clue as to what you are talking about pertaining to my college education kid, except for what you had already read on this board that I put there myself and I doubt that anyone from cru went to college with me and would have any kind of knowledge of me except for what they have read here on cru about my education and I wrote that myself.

If you think you know so much about me and my college education, that you have first hand knowledge of my education then show me the proof ! Post MY college transcripts on here kid, if you think you know so much about me and my college education.

Oh,.... one more thing, if and that's a big IF there was a cru member here that did go to college with me,.... that person would also know Who I was dating at that time because it was well known at the college .

[s13kid]

why dont both of you stop posting... who cares who gets the last word your both stubborn...

[SaNdMaNsSi]

If by repeatedly calling me "kid" you think that somehow places you above me, thne by all means, keep fooling yourself that way. I often overlook an insult sent my way by someone far older than me who can't even use the correct instance of "your" which in this case would not be "your" it would be "you're." So until you can correct your grammar and usage of American English, you will continue to be schooled by people half your age. Also, I don't see how my age is really an issue. Basically all you're saying is that someone half your age knows more than you and can put together a much more intelligent argument. So once again you might as well just say you only have a high school education.

In actuality I do know about your college education because people have been PMing me, in particular someone who went to school with you, all of which dislike you at an apparently great degree. Also, believe it or not, the education process hasn't changed since I was in diapers. An AA is still a 2 year degree, a BA is still a 4 year degree, exactly as it was back in the stone age when you were a "student of law." I haven't read a single thing on CRU about your education. In fact, it was the person who went to K-wood with you that directed me to quotes from other conversations on this site. I didn't know a thing about you until that was brought to my attention.

I also don't need to post your transcript as it is quite evident you have no college education for an institution to waste even the most miniscule part of a tree to place the ink on. In any case, even if I were to be able to see your transcript it would be illegal for me to have that information, or didn't you learn that as a student of law? In any case, I'd laugh at your taking of "how to walk into a college and sit quietly 101" courses. When you have your BA from a 4 year institution, then maybe we can talk. But this 23 year old in diapers is on their third degree, so keep the insults coming.

Also, I don't see why anyone would care who you were dating at the time you were at Kirkwood. Its well known that J Edgar Hoover died awhile ago, so you can let go now.

Would someone please add up the score here?

[ZacFields]

It's a tie!

While I love a good argument that I'm not involved in, I must end this one due to the fact that it's getting a little deep. I think everyone in this topic has made their point.

You guys remember Mr. Locky, right?

:misterlock: :misterlock: :misterlock: :misterlock: :misterlock: :misterlock: :misterlock: :misterlock: :misterlock: :misterlock: :misterlock: :misterlock: :misterlock: :misterlock: :misterlock: :misterlock: