defamation

HERE WE GO PEOPLE. Y’all thought I was joking didn’t you. So I had the idea to start the S.A.D League a while back, half ironically, half un-ironically, idk make of it what you will. BUT IN ANY CASE I have a lot of feelings about Starscream and the way he’s treated by certain writers (including but not restricted to John Barber, Nich Roche, and the TFP writing team). So this is just me getting my feelings out there. I had a lot of fun making this. 

anonymous asked:

How did you file a police report on a fake page? My husband is a cop and any cop will tell you if you don't want people taking your pictures do not post them to the Internet because the Internet is public property. How old is this girl? You could be ruining her life through embarrassment and playing off her insecurities and if she's under 18, that's illegal and bullying.

1. She’s using pictures of my child and put my real location on the page, which can be considered endangerment of a child and can also be considered defamation of my character because she is interacting with people as me.

2. Just because your husband is a cop doesn’t mean he’s a law professional. It took 4 different local cops to figure out what could actually be done, every single one learning as they went. Cyber laws are always forming and changing.

3. I didn’t ruin her life. Are you forgetting that she is the one that is doing things? I did nothing about it when she took it down the first time. I gave her chance after chance, and she kept putting it back up after I warned her of the laws and what it could do to her. Sometimes people have to pay for the mistakes they made, and she is lucky she had a few chances in the first place.

This Is How The Media Chooses To Profile A Female Activist

Cecily McMillan, the 25-year-old Occupy Wall Street activist who was jailed for elbowing a police officer during a protest, returned to court on Thursday, where a cadre of hard-hitting journalists greeted her with questions about her courtroom attire.

My editor told me to ask who you’re wearing, a photographer was spotted eagerly asking McMillan, according to The Village Voice.

McMillan, who was earlier this month released from Rikers Island — one of the country’s most notoriously violent jails — explained that although she was free, she no longer felt safe in New York “because I was sexually assaulted and then put in jail for it," according to the Voice. McMillan has alleged from the start that the officer involved in her assault case forcibly grabbed her breast from behind during the protest; after elbowing him, she was promptly arrested and put in jail.

Upon hearing her explanation Thursday, a Post reporter responded, Well, you look fabulous! But you should eat more.

The interactions resulted in a blatantly sexist portrayal of McMillan sprinkled with mocking details about her fashion choices — all of which fail to mention that she was asked such questions by the press.

The Daily News went straight to the sartorial details with the headline, “Occupy Wall Street protester wears Calvin Klein to court.

The Post’s own coverage included a previously dated photo of an emotional McMillan with the caption, “McMillan cries in court in May after being given an outfit she had already worn." The paper led with the headline "Rikers Island: The new way to lose weight.

Rikers is currently at the center of damning allegations of officer abuse, contraband smuggling by officers, regular beatings of the mentally ill, and corruption.

McMillan has been using her newfound freedom to speak out against the treatment of inmates at Rikers — a cause that is essentially being buried for more important notes on her outfit choices. Well done, New York media!

2

Fracking Victim Sued for Defamation After Proving Drinking Water Flammable

In 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that Range Resource’s drilling activities at a nearby fracking project had contaminated Lipsky’s well. Lipsky can light thewater coming out of his well on fire.

On Oct. 10, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals ruled that Range Resources could move forward with their defamation suit against Lipsky, based in part on accusations that Lipsky is misleading the public about being able to set his water on fire.

Range Resources spent millions of dollars putting on a one-sided case for the Railroad Commission, attacking all of the EPA’s findings.

The EPA’s move hurt the Lipskys since it gave the appearance that the EPA had made a mistake. Why else would a regulatory agency back down when lives are at risk? However the EPA has never retracted their findings that proved Range Resources had contaminated Lipsky’s well.

Lipsky is saddled with legal bills and the expense of trucking in drinking water from a nearby town. He worries about his future, since his dream house has been devalued. He also worries about his neighbors living under the threat of a catastrophic gas explosion …

Read the full story:

http://ecowatch.com/2013/11/07/fracking-victim-sued-defamation-prove-water-flammable/

by Mark Fowler

Writers frequently ask whether they can mention brand name products and services in their fiction.  The answer is “yes,” provided that you take some common sense precautions.  Indeed, if it were unlawful to include brand names in fiction, countless product references in Bret Easton Ellis’s novel Glamorama would have been expurgated, and David Foster Wallace could never have described in Infinite Jest an alternative present where large corporations purchase naming rights to the calendar years (e.g., “Year of the Whopper,” “Year of the Trial-Size Dove Bar,” “Year of the Perdue Wonderchicken,” “Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment,” and “Year of Glad”).

Read More →

Eight Things You Should Know About Tolkien's Thranduil

Okay, you’ve seen the Hobbit movies but you just can’t get into the book.  Or, you read the book years ago and you don’t remember every detail.  I’m here to help.

1. Thranduil did not refuse to help the Dwarves when Smaug attacked.  We don’t know what he did - Tolkien never wrote anything about it.  Jackson’s preamble is complete fabrication.

2. Thranduil did not consider the Silvan Elves to be ‘lesser’ Elves:

Oropher [his father] had come among them with only a handful of Sindar, and they were soon merged with the Silvan Elves, adopting their language and taking names of Silvan form and style… . They wished indeed to become Silvan folk and to return, as they said, to the simple life natural to the Elves before the invitation of the Valar had disturbed it. (Unfinished Tales, ‘The History of Galadriel and Celeborn’ p 249)

3. Thranduil did not aid the Men of Esgaroth out of self-interest:

But the king, when he received the prayers of Bard, had pity, for he was the lord of a good and kindly people; so turning his march, which had at first been direct towards the Mountain, he hastened now down the river to the Long Lake. (The Hobbit, ‘Fire and Water’ p 255)

Keep reading

NEVER EVER host fansites on FanFusion: What happened to us

This is probably gonna be a long post, but I NEED you to read it and spread the word. Everybody needs to know how low FanFusion plays and what they’re capable of when you refuse to give them what they want - and what belongs to you, simply because you bought it.

It all started on Dec 30th, 2011. My friend is the owner of 2 really popular websites, both hosted by FanFusion. I was a co-web in one fo them. On that day, we tried to log in in our WordPress dashboards, and we couldn’t. So they sent her an e-mail asking her to transfer her domains to them:

Unlocking the domains mean they would be able to keep the domains, and they would belong to FanFusion. Something WE paid for, would belong to them.

When she asked what they meant, that’s what she got in reply:

"Nothing has changed, it just means that the site would be hosted here forever." FOREVER. That basically means that if we decide to close the website, we wouldn’t be able to. It would be open forever and would just be passed to someone else.

And we didn’t want it. They never said the websites hosted with them HAD to be transferred to them, and when we refused to give them the domains, both websites were simply DELETED. They didn’t give us a chance to change hosts or anything - remember we couldn’t log in to make a backup of our files. They deleted everything. Everything.

The funny thing is… There wasn’t a single line on the rules stating that tranferring the domain was mandatory - we have caps to prove it. They made it up and expect us to accept it. And when we didn’t, they deleted our sites.

But… alright. I mean, we were mad, but we got new hosts and we are working on the websites again. That would have been alright if it had stopped there.

But it didn’t.

About 5 days ago, FanFusion deleted my website, WITHOUT LETTING ME KNOW ANYTHING, and put up an OFFENSIVE website on my domain. It contained pictures of me, my friend and other people, as well as her address and phone number. I immediately deleted the DNS information, so it would be down.

They were also threatening me, saying that if I removed the DNS from the offensive site, other websites would be used. And so they used my literary blog, also hosted with them.

Again, I put it down, but obviously they wouldn’t stop.

So FanFusion started spamming us and our contact lists with new websites and offensive pictures:

Also, they made twitter accounts:

As you can see, that’s number 5. There were 4 before that one, and other 2 followed after.

We quickly reported all of them as spams, and the pages got suspended.

Then we got a new one and we were threatened again!

And they actually made an offensive Tumblr:

Now, let me show you how the e-mails looked like:

And so on…

As you can see, they used different e-mail accounts to send the spams, trying to hide their asses. Well, the thing is: in one of the e-mails, they forgot to change the sender address:

See? FanFusion.

Now, would you trust a host who commits the CRIME of defamation, just because you don’t wanna give them a domain you paid for?

After that, we decided to further investigate the e-mails, checking the original message, just to make sure we had more proofs. And guess what we got?

YES, you were right! Fanfusion again!

So, you see… the thing here isn’t about deleting a fansite anymore. It’s about violating the law that states defamation as a CRIME. They post offensive pictures, post her address, phone number, pics of her house… They actually SPEND THEIR TIME to hurt people. What kind of people are those?

Now, if you have a fansite hosted by FanFusion, I suggest you to move away as soon as possible.

It happened to us. It can happen to you too.

Sometimes in life you get a second chance for mistakes you make. When Don Surber, editorial columnist for Charleston’s Daily Mail, called Mike Brown an “animal” who deserved to “be put down,” and referred to protestors as “packs of racists,” he crossed a line where second chances are much harder to come by. Today Surber was fired by the Daily Mail for his incendiary comments Mike Brown and protestors and the following statement, titled “Regrets and a Change,” was issued:

The point of view of The Charleston Daily Mail’s editorial page is conservative. It was so disheartening to see the careless words of one of our own editorial writers describing a young man whose life ended tragically too soon. Writing on his own personal blog, Don Surber discussed the tense race-related situation in Ferguson Missouri. He selected words that were unfortunate, inflammatory and, in our view, inexcusable. [….] As of this week, Mr. Surber is no longer employed by the Daily Mail. While his sometimes controversial and caustic columns were noted by many readers, few readers realize the in-depth institutional knowledge and substantial contributions he made during his 30 year career here.

Sadly, referring to African Americans with animal adjectives has a deep and ugly history in this country. Thankfully, the Daily Mail understands that one can be fully and staunchly conservative without advancing that ugly history into 2014. Mike Brown was not an animal, but rather a son, a brother, a friend, a teenager who died a tragic death.

4

#RespectYourElders is a poster series from The 519, an LGBTQ community center in Toronto, and its anti-defamation campaign Hear It Stop It. The 519 is working to create more safe spaces for LGBTQ elders, who are less likely to seek healthcare, and more likely to experience negative health outcomes and social isolation, than their straight and cisgender peers. 

From the program page:

The 519 Education and Training Team offer workshops and resources that support safe, welcoming and inclusive care environments for LGBTQ older people. The training supports organizations and individuals to understand the needs of LGBTQ adults. Workshops will help participants to:

- identify and discuss reasons an older LGBTQ person may be distrustful of the health or social care systems and/or reluctant to seek the care they need

- demonstrate and share an empathetic understanding of the barriers faced by older LGBTQ people

- make appropriate use of pronouns

- propose ways to foster a safe and LGBTQ-inclusive care environment for older people, their friends and chosen families

Learn more about the program here. This is so great. 

4

Harry sat down hard on the bed. The broken bit of mirror danced away from him; he picked it up and turned it over in his fingers, thinking, thinking of Dumbledore and the lies with which Rita Skeeter was defaming him…

A flash of brightest blue. Harry froze, his cut finger slipping on the jagged edge of the mirror again. He had imagined it, he must have done. He glanced over his shoulder, but the wall was a sickly peach color of Aunt Petunia’s choosing: There was nothing blue there for the mirror to reflect. He peered into the mirror fragment again, and saw nothing but his own bright green eye looking back at him.

He had imagined it, there was no other explanation; imagined it, because he had been thinking of his dead headmaster. If anything was certain, it was that the bright blue eyes of Albus Dumbledore would never pierce him again.

Over 40 states have shield laws that protect journalists from revealing information about the sources used during their reporting.

This is all well and good until you get into the tricky business of actually defining who a journalist is. Someone reporting for CNN? No brainer. Except for jaded, we all agree he or she is a journalist. 

But what about someone reporting for a new startup with a part time staff of three? Or the lone blogger who digs deep into one particular subject?

In Oregon, a judge has decided that shield laws only apply to those who are officially part of an established media organization (again, defining what that might mean leaves us scratching our heads).

Via the Seattle Weekly:

A U.S. District Court judge in Portland has drawn a line in the sand between “journalist” and “blogger.” And for Crystal Cox, a woman on the latter end of that comparison, the distinction has cost her $2.5 million…

…Cox runs several law-centric blogs, like industrywhistleblower.com, judicialhellhole.com, and obsidianfinancesucks.com, and was sued by investment firm Obsidian Finance Group in January for defamation, to the tune of $10 million, for writing several blog posts that were highly critical of the firm and its co-founder Kevin Padrick.

Representing herself in court, Cox had argued that her writing was a mixture of facts, commentary and opinion (like a million other blogs on the web) and moved to have the case dismissed. Dismissed it wasn’t, however, and after throwing out all but one of the blog posts cited by Obsidian Financial, the judge ruled that this single post was indeed defamatory because it was presented, essentially, as more factual in tone than her other posts, and therefore a reasonable person could conclude it was factual.

The judge ruled against Cox on that post and awarded $2.5 million to the investment firm.

Now here’s where the case gets more important: Cox argued in court that the reason her post was more factual was because she had an inside source that was leaking her information. And since Oregon is one of 40 U.S. states including Washington with media shield laws, Cox refused to divulge who her source was.

But without revealing her source Cox couldn’t prove that the statements she’d made in her post were true and therefore not defamation, or attribute them to her source and transfer the liability…

…The judge in Cox’s case, however, ruled that the woman did not qualify for shield-law protection not because of anything she wrote, but because she wasn’t employed by an official media establishment.

From the opinion by U.S. District Judge Marco A. Hernandez:

… although defendant is a self-proclaimed “investigative blogger” and defines herself as “media,” the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law.