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.
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.
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!
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 …
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”).
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:
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.
I haven’t quite simmered down following the snobbish tweets put out by certain journalists this evening about people who have tickets for Hamlet.
Which is probably why this will be more of a rant than a measured response.
Journalists of Great Britain (I haven’t included American or worldwide journalists in this because so far they’ve actually shown RESPECT) - get down from your moral high ground, take a huge step back, and look properly at who you’re talking to.
You are offending a large number of people, most of whom will probably not read your paper again. It’s hardly a loss to us, however, if you continue to print the mindless, inane, clickbait garbage you are at the moment.
It doesn’t make you look clever. It makes you look stupid. And frankly, a little bit jealous. Anyone would think you didn’t have a ticket, and were having a little sulk.
Whether or not this is someone’s first trip to the theatre or their 100th, you are belittling the audience of this sell-out production and you are effectively belittling the cast and crew who have worked so hard to make this the best they can. You are insulting them. You are insulting us.
WE ALL KNEW there wasn’t going to be a stage door. You - oh great NCTJ-trained writers - made a story up inventing a response from us as an audience.
So….Let me draw your attention to the legal term for defamation:
“Defamation: Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person’s reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.” (Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Defamation+of+character)
Everything this statement says, sums up how you treat us. You are making us look like fools, in every article you write. You are making a mockery of us.
Yes I am fuming, yes I am probably ranting. But I know I am right.
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.
Help me to get my name cleared, help me bring a defamation suit against the women who persistently spread lies about me. All i want is to be able to go out into the world on my next venture without being attacked. based on false allegations that were never even charged.Please go here to see the indiegogo campaign
ALL IM HOPING TO GET OUT OF ALL OF THIS IS A PIECE OF PAPER SAYING I
WAS RECUSED, A RETRACTION OF THE ALLEGATIONS OR AN APOLOGY. JUST
SOMETHING SO WHEN THIS GETS BROUGHT UP IN WHATEVER I DO NEXT I CAN SAY
IT WAS UNTRUE, HERE’S THE DOCUMENT.
ABSOLUTELY NO DONATIONS WILL GO INTO MY POCKET. ALL PROCEEDS OF THE CASE WILL BE DONATED TO RAINN.ORG (TO HELP ACTUAL SEXUAL HARASSMENT VICTUMS) AND CYBERSMILE.ORG (TO PREVENT FURTHER CYBER BULLYING)
According to Dylan’s infamous LUNATIC RANT he made numerous indirect comments painting Zach as a “sexual predator”, “creepy” and “obsessive” AFTER he unfollowed “loyal fans” (aka KEL) who leaked their DM’s with Zach within 10 seconds of the unfollow in a sign of good faith and allegiance. SEE BELOW:
THIS DYLAN (I LIKE TO REFER TO HIM AS DY-LUNATIC) IS THE SAME GUY WHO INTERPRETS ZACH SINGING A RACIAL SLUR AND BEING IGNORANT AS THIS…..
THIS IS DYLUNATIC BACKTRACKING AFTER BASICALLY PAINTING ZACH AS A PEDOPHILE, PERVERT AND PREDATOR AND TRYING TO DAMAGE HIS REPUTATION. THIS SAME GUY ATTACKED ZACH’S MOTHER OVER THE SUMMER WITH HIS HOSTILE, PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE RANTS.
WAIT WHAT POWER DYLAN? ALL HE DID WASFLIRTWITH GIRLS AND INTERACT? WHAT ABOUT THE POWER YOU’RE TRYING TO WIELD WITH YOUR SANCTIMONIOUS SELF-RIGHTEOUS DAMAGING EMBELLISHED LIES? THE SAME 20-22 YR OLD DYLAN WHO INTERACTS WITH 16 YEAR OLD UNDERAGED GIRLS EVERY DAY TELLING THEM HE LOVES THEM, STANS THEM, ETC.
THIS IS FLORIDA’S LAW ON CONSENT BY THE WAY:
IN DYLAN’S BLOG, HE IDIOTICALLY SUPERIMPOSED TATUM AND TEREN’S CONVO TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE ZACH WS HAVING INAPPROP CONVO W/ A 16 YR OLD. AS SOON AS ZACH FOUND OUT TATUM WAS 16 HE LEFT HER ALONE “CHREW”. HE CONTINUED FLIRTING WITH TEREN WHO IS 18. ACCORDING TO DYLAN, LIGHT SUPER CASUAL FLIRTING BTW A 24 YR OLD MAN AND 18 YR OLD WOMAN= POSSESSIVE, OBSESSIVE, INAPPROPRIATE POWER-DOMINANT BEHAVIOUR. EVEN THOUGH THE FLIRTING WASMUTUAL. EVEN THOUGH ALL HE DID WAS COMPLIMENT HER. WHERE’S THE POWERPLAY HERE? BIG BAD ZACH IS GOING TO KIDNAP HER. HOLY SHXT.
REMEMBER, SHE IS 18 YEARS OLD. THE CONVERSATION AROUND THIS IS STRATEGICALLY CUT OUT TO FIT THE STORYLINE OF “UNDERAGED GIRL CREEPILY ASKED WHERE SHE’S FROM AND WHERE SHE LIVES BY A MUCH OLDER GUY”.
THIS IS THE LEGAL ADULT WOMAN ZACH FACETIMES FROM TIME TO TIME.
THIS IS STACIE, ANOTHER LEGAL GIRL THAT HE FACETIMES. ALSO NOTICE HOW SHE DOESN’T REVEAL THE CONTENT OF THE FACETIMES (I.E LECHEROUS ADVANCES, SEXUAL HARRASSMENT). ALL HE ASKS IS PRIVACY IN RETURN (DUE TO HIS CELEB STATUS) OTHERWISE HE WILL GET MAD AND BLOCK HER. STRAIGHT UP, NO PRETENCES. FOR SOME REASON THAT IS CREEPY (ACCORDING TO DYLUNATIC)TO ASK OF A 20-22 YEAR OLD WOMAN?
ACCORDING TO DYLUNATIC SUDDENLY STACIE TURNED INTO A LEGAL CONSENTING 20-22 ADULT. BUT, WHEN IT SUITED HIS PURPOSE HE LITERALLY CHOPPED OFF HALF HER AGE IN HIS BIASED, POSTURING PEACOCK PRETENTIOUS BLOG. IN THERE SHE IS AN “UNDERAGED TEENAGER” WHO IS BEING SLUT SHAMED.
THIS IS THE GIRL THAT ZACH RANCE, REALITY TV STAR, WHO CAN HAVE ANY GIRL HE WANTS “CALLS EVERY NIGHT”. ALSO, EVEN IF THIS IS TRUE SHE’S LEGAL AND WAS JUST FINE WITH HIM “STALKING HER” RIGHT UP UNTIL HE UNFOLLOWED HER.
AMY BEFORE UNFOLLOW:
AMY AFTER UNFOLLOW:
THIS IS WHAT HER MOM THINKS ABOUT ZACH RANCE.OH BUT WAIT HE’S A PREDATOR RIGHT? HE’S CREEPY, OBSESSIVE AND POSSESSIVE RIGHT? EVEN THOUGH A ”WEDDING” IS BEING OKAY’D BY HER MOTHER? UM?
THIS IS KENZIE ONE OF THE GIRLS ZACH SUPPOSEDLY “MOLESTS” EVEN THO THEY HAVE NEVER MET IRL. SHE WENT AFTER ZACH FOR THE N-WORD AND GOT UNFOLLOWED. THIS WAS HER OPINION ON RACISM LITERALLY 10 MIN AFTERWARDS. GREAT FAN.
THESE “LEGAL CONSENTING WOMEN” LEAKED ZACH’S DM BECAUSE THEY WERE UPSET HE UNFOLLOWED THEM AKA”LOYAL FANS”.
I GET THAT THEY WERE UPSET AS FANS. I FEEL SORRY FOR THEM. BUT HOW DOES THAT MORPH INTO SAYING DAMAGING FALSE LIES ABOUT ZACH’S CHARACTER. IT WAS ALL FUN n LEGAL GAMES RIGHT UP UNTIL HE UNFOLLOWED THEM. THEN HE BECAMESCARY, WEIRD, & CREEPY ACCORDING TO THE ALL KNOWING LORD AND MIGHTYDYLUNATIC. WHEN ALL ALONG IT WAS MUTUAL LIGHT BANTER. HOW DOES THAT COMPUTE? HE WAS USINGTHEM? LITERALLY ALL HE DOES IS TRY TO GET TO KNOW THEM BETTER OR HAVE LIGHT MEANINGLESS CONVO? OK.
TRY TELLING ME DEVIN, CODY, EVEL DICK, JASE AND HECK EVEN FRANKIE ALONG WITH OTHER BB ALUMNI PLAYERS DIDN’T PRIVATELY FLIRT/HOOK UP WITH WOMEN/MEN WHO ENJOYED WATCHING THEM ON THE SHOW. AND AS FAR AS WE KNOW, SINCE THESE WOMEN LITERALLY AIRED EVERY SINGLE “DIRTY, PREDATORY, SICK, PERVERTED” LAUNDRY, THIS WAS THE EXTENT OF ZACH’S “CREEPY, STALKING BEHAVIOUR”. NO NUDES ASKED FOR, NO INAPPROPRIATE SEXUAL REMARKS. JUST CALLING LEGAL 18-22 YEAR OLD WOMEN BABE & BAE ETC.
GEE, DOES ANYONE EVEN WONDER WHY AFTER THIS SCANDALOUS REVEAL NO ONE EVEN BOTHERED CALLING THE POLICE? YOU CAN CLEARLY TELL THE “WOMEN” (AKA UNDERAGED GIRLS) WOULD HAVE GONE FOR IT IF THEY COULD HAVE. EXCEPT GUESS WHAT? IT’S LEGAL.
A PREDATOR CAN BE ARRESTED/AT LEAST INVESTIGATED IF THERE’SINTENT ESPECIALLY AFTER A LEAK OF MULTIPLE UNDERAGED GIRLS AS WAS INSINUATED.
A PERSON (AKA DYLUNATIC) WHO FABRICATES AND EMBELLISHES TO SOLELY RUIN ANOTHER PERSON’S CHARACTER CAN ALSO BE SUED FOR DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER .
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).
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.
asked: This is more something I’m curious about than something I really need to know, but I have heard that, if you mention a musical artist or song in your writing, you have to do it neutrally or positively. Does that apply for businesses, too? Like, if I set a story in Savannah and a scene in the restaurant Corleone’s, am I only allowed to either say “They ate at Corleone’s” or “They ate at Corleone’s, home of the best spaghetti in Savannah”?
It’s definitely best to avoid saying something negative about a real person, place, or business in your story. In a nutshell, it all comes down to defamation, which is when you make an untrue claim about a person, place, or business that that injures their reputation. The main reason defamation is problematic, outside of the obvious emotional implications for a person, is that a damaged reputation can hinder the ability of a person or business to make money. For example, if you write a scene wherein your character has a bad experience at a real restaurant, readers might confuse that experience with reality and it could potentially result in a loss of business for the restaurant. In the real world, most of us fortunately have the right to voice negative opinions without consequence, but if you make a negative claim about a person or business, they have the right to take you to court and prove that what you said is untrue. If they succeed, you could be held responsible for a lot of legal fees and damages.
When you’re a writer, especially one who is young, new, or of limited success, you probably don’t have the lawyers or financial reserve to handle a lawsuit. For that reason, it’s usually best to play it safe and stay far away from doing anything that could potentially land you in legal hot water. Could you get away with saying something negative about a real restaurant in your novel? Probably, but why risk it? The probability of a lawsuit may be low, but the consequences could be devastating–and that makes it a pretty big risk to take for something that ultimately isn’t all that important. If your character needs to have a negative experience with a business, just play it safe and make one up. :)
I just have to emphasize one more time…trolls keep proving every time they comment here and other blogs just how concerned they are. The only reason to troll is fear. When you are strong in your belief this is a non-issue, you just stick with like minded peeps…
With that out of the way, let’s get to it!
Kristen looks quite pregnant in that American Ultra still. I have no doubt she had a stunt double standing in for her during the more complicated scenes. I’ve heard people have been cropping the still, so no one can see the bump. It’s like they don’t want anyone to see what looks to be very true. Kristen was pregnant at the time American Ultra was filming. It’s obvious she was. Anyone who can’t see it must be blind. In the words of Neytiri, no one can teach them to see. - Sharky
LOL…sharky…I love this still. I’ll be really curious to see how long this scene/shot actually lasts in the movie.
Wonderful pic ,full view on AU as an affirmation 2 what I truly believe. The air be be is so firm and we’ll developed, what will the jumpers come up with to discredit now. And the valet pics=just make me happy. Go RK always…cory4rk said:
Hey MN, looking at the 3 new stills from AU, it’s so obvious (to me,anyway) that she is pregnant. I know it’s a moot point, but it just makes me so damn happy every time it’s confirmed! Hope all is well with you, Eraina
I think these pictures are why the shiteaters are so hypersensitive right now.
Even their brains can’t quite process all of this so after a relatively quiet couple of weeks they came slithering out of their rock formations to share this discomfort.
There was some mighty humorous shit they gave me to work with and here’s a smattering.
First, this little tidbit was shared with me from a peep that decided to go for a stroll on a toilet paper sight and she got this rare gem….
All I have to say is “Kristen…where’s my money?”
Sorry for Kristen who has to be paired up in a marriage let alone having two kids with a person like Rob. I can imagine your blog giving benefit for maintaining Rob’s image to his so called fans. He has nothing to complain to be said tied up w the amazing n awesome Kristen. However, poor Kristen, getting no benefit at all though she may not care, she did have something in the past w Rob so helping him in a fantasy world is the least she can do. I see Rob’s career falls, next is Dior not hire him
Bitter…party of one….Bitter?….
Somebody must have peed in your Cheerios!
Dear lord, this little ditty is getting old. Rob and Kristen have now been married for almost 2 years. And if they were looking for this to help Rob’s career wouldn’t they have made this information PUBLIC you sack of shit imbecile? Rob’s career is doing just fine. He represented Dior at The Met Gala this year and his next promo campaign has yet to even come out…so I wouldn’t be crowing about his contract coming to and end if I were you.
I remember when everyone thought Kristen’s relationship with Chanel had ended and yet, her she is with TWO campaigns representing the 11.12 bag and their eyewear collection. Not to mention opening Chanel’s latest Haute Couture fashion show in Paris.
People did their damnedest to write off Kristen two years ago only for her to slap the in the face with her success. I’ve little doubt that Rob’s turn is next!
def·a·ma·tion ˌdefəˈmāSH(ə)n/ noun the action of damaging the good reputation of someone; slander or libel. “she sued him for defamation” synonyms: libel, slander, calumny, character assassination, vilification; More Translate defamation to Use over time for: defamation (They forgot to add your entire blog and the other blogs the spread the same untrue shit u do,as examples) I hope they sue ur ass soon😘😂
First and foremost my darling…you can’t get sued for defamation when you are telling the truth.
But please tell me and the rest of my peeps what exactly is Defamatory/Libelous about my blog?
Please tell me how I’m hurting either Rob or Kristen by stating the truth that they are married and they have two baby girls?
How have I or anyone else that has shared this true information hurt either of their careers. They both seem to be doing just fine if you ask me. Rob’s had some bad luck lately, but not anything that doesn’t happen to actors all the time.
Please my dear…give me a few examples of the grounds under which I could be sued? Feel free to send my exact post numbers that you would use to make your case. Let’s see if you can come up with any, since you were so bound and determined that I know the definition of defamation. What’s funny is that you posted the definition but you STILL DON’T COMPREHEND WHAT IT ACTUALLY MEANS!
For argument’s sake, let’s say they do have kids. Judging from what they’ve been doing since last year, they’re pretty much the WORST parents ever. Do you honestly think their behaviour is normal for a couple of parents of two babies? Is this acceptable behaviour to you? Why don’t you discuss that? Because if this is how they behave as parents, their kids are doomed.
Please, oh please tell me what makes them such bad parents? Do you have 24/7 surveillance on them? Can you back up your claims? This! THIS COMMENT IS THE DEFINITIONS OF DEFAMATION/LIBEL! You have absolutely NOTHING to back up your claim stating that they are the worst parents in the world. Another asshole throwing Rob and Kristen under the bus when you don’t like the truth!
This is a statement with no basis in fact and could effect Rob and Kristen’s careers if anyone ever took your claim seriously. And trust me anon, I’ve kept your message in my email inbox so if RK want to take action against you, they can. Don’t think that just because you sent this message anonymously that you can’t be found!
But can I just say that I love the crack in your armor. The fact that you even came to me with this message tells me that you know deep down that what I say is true. And if I’m right you have to lash out on someone and the only ppl left for you to lash out on are Rob and Kristen.
It’s sad that you can’t just be happy for them…
This is you anon to a fucking T!
I’ve been on Twitter I know not a good place to be but I know that you know a lot about our favorite couple I just don’t get the he’s on drugs and we need to save him deal plus some are saying he was having sex in public with you know who where is all of this crap coming from anyway?! It’s insane to even think can you imagine peeps are buying all of this how sad is that and that one account called [twitter account name redacted] have you read this stuff check it out she’s the 1 who saying he’s on drugs..
Again…this is DEFAMATION/LIBEL. This is information being spread by bitter hags that know nothing and are using pictures to base their accusations on! They have no proof of what they say and yet they keep saying it.
I personally hope, though I know it’s futile, that RK sue this person that runs this account along with anyone following it. If you are following this account you are no better than then person that is running it. You are tacitly promoting it by following it. The accounts you follow on twitter can be seen by your followers and by following it you are telling your followers that this is a legit account and one that they should follow too.
This post is brought to you by:
Shh….stefan…we like the quiet…but it’s so quiet I think I can hear: