AWARD-WINNING

CASINO CRYPTO EXCLUSIVE

CLUBHOUSE 1500+

GAMES 2 MIN

CASH-OUTS 24/7

SUPPORT 100s OF

FREE SPINS PLAY NOW vertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.

Nullu



Offline



Activity: 532

Merit: 500







Hero MemberActivity: 532Merit: 500 Re: Slander online, get sued November 01, 2014, 11:17:22 AM #2 In the same light, if scammers think they can protect themselves by threatening libel, think again.



If you have strong evidence someone is a scammer, don't be afraid to present your evidence. And I mean evidence, not FUD.



Because any scammer threatening with libel would also have every nook and cranny of their crypto affairs scrutinised. Think about that for a second. Don't be afraid to oust scammers, but at the same time, don't discredit people with false libellous claims. BTC - 14kYyhhWZwSJFHAjNTtyhRVSu157nE92gF

jwinterm



Offline



Activity: 2394

Merit: 1070









LegendaryActivity: 2394Merit: 1070 Re: Slander online, get sued November 01, 2014, 11:24:12 AM #5



Quote The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:



- a publication to one other than the person defamed;

- a false statement of fact;

that is understood as

a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and

b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.



If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.

The bolded portion may be especially difficult in light of the following quote also from EFF:



Quote Nobut merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole...

Also look at the bolded portion above. There's no way that people on this forum speculating about evidence presented about other users is going to be treated by a court as libel. There is significant "evidence" floating around here that people are free to speculate whether or not anyone posting here is a scammer. I have to agree with other posters who say that any libel case centering around comments made on this forum would be laughed out of court. Some relevant facts from EFF ( https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation ):The bolded portion may be especially difficult in light of the following quote also from EFF:Also look at the bolded portion above. There's no way that people on this forum speculating about evidence presented about other users is going to be treated by a court as libel. There is significant "evidence" floating around here that people are free to speculate whether or not anyone posting here is a scammer. I have to agree with other posters who say that any libel case centering around comments made on this forum would be laughed out of court.

jwinterm



Offline



Activity: 2394

Merit: 1070









LegendaryActivity: 2394Merit: 1070 Re: Slander online, get sued November 01, 2014, 11:31:28 AM #7 Quote from: CryptoGretzky on November 01, 2014, 11:25:44 AM Quote from: jwinterm on November 01, 2014, 11:24:12 AM

...

Some relevant facts from EFF ( https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation ):...

Calling someone a scammers and causing MILLIONS in XC market cap to evaporate is opinions to you? We will just have to see who's laughing at the end.

Calling someone a scammers and causing MILLIONS in XC market cap to evaporate is opinions to you? We will just have to see who's laughing at the end.

I don't care what happens with XC, I'm just trying to tell you that this court case, if it ever happened, would not proceed. Here is some more info about libel from EFF:



Quote Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures?



Yes. A private figure claiming defamationyour neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shoponly has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would not have published the defamatory statement.



A public figure must show "actual malice"that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.

Dan Metcalf is a public figure. There is a shitload of (possibly doctored) evidence floating around this message board indicating he might be a scammer. People speculating on this evidence, even calling him a scammer based on possibly bullshit evidence, does not meet the standard of "actual malice". Maybe instead of just telling everyone they're wrong you could provide some legal justification for your posts, or maybe you can't, because there is none. I don't care what happens with XC, I'm just trying to tell you that this court case, if it ever happened, would not proceed. Here is some more info about libel from EFF:Dan Metcalf is a public figure. There is a shitload of (possibly doctored) evidence floating around this message board indicating he might be a scammer. People speculating on this evidence, even calling him a scammer based on possibly bullshit evidence, does not meet the standard of "actual malice". Maybe instead of just telling everyone they're wrong you could provide some legal justification for your posts, or maybe you can't, because there is none.

Nullu



Offline



Activity: 532

Merit: 500







Hero MemberActivity: 532Merit: 500 Re: Slander online, get sued November 01, 2014, 11:32:21 AM #8 Quote from: CryptoGretzky on November 01, 2014, 11:18:43 AM Quote from: Nullu on November 01, 2014, 11:17:22 AM In the same light, if scammers think they can protect themselves by threatening libel, think again.



If you have strong evidence someone is a scammer, don't be afraid to present your evidence. And I mean evidence, not FUD.



Because any scammer threatening with libel would also have every nook and cranny of their crypto affairs scrutinised. Think about that for a second. Don't be afraid to oust scammers, but at the same time, don't discredit people with false libellous claims.



Hey, if you have enough evidence and it's a true scam, sure definitely sue away. So, why don't you?

Hey, if you have enough evidence and it's a true scam, sure definitely sue away. So, why don't you?

You speaking generally, or me, specifically? If to me, specifically, the answer is; I have better things to do with my time. These boards are so scam ridden that It'd be like pissing in the ocean.



If you mean generally, then sure, why not? If you have strong evidence someone is a scammer, they're hardly going to sue you, are they? I agree that FUD and trying to destroy someone's character for other reasons is deplorable. You speaking generally, or me, specifically? If to me, specifically, the answer is; I have better things to do with my time. These boards are so scam ridden that It'd be like pissing in the ocean.If you mean generally, then sure, why not? If you have strong evidence someone is a scammer, they're hardly going to sue you, are they? I agree that FUD and trying to destroy someone's character for other reasons is deplorable. BTC - 14kYyhhWZwSJFHAjNTtyhRVSu157nE92gF

jwinterm



Offline



Activity: 2394

Merit: 1070









LegendaryActivity: 2394Merit: 1070 Re: Slander online, get sued November 01, 2014, 11:38:44 AM #10 Quote from: CryptoGretzky on November 01, 2014, 11:33:24 AM Quote from: jwinterm on November 01, 2014, 11:31:28 AM Quote from: CryptoGretzky on November 01, 2014, 11:25:44 AM Quote from: jwinterm on November 01, 2014, 11:24:12 AM

...

Some relevant facts from EFF ( https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation ):...

Calling someone a scammers and causing MILLIONS in XC market cap to evaporate is opinions to you? We will just have to see who's laughing at the end.

Calling someone a scammers and causing MILLIONS in XC market cap to evaporate is opinions to you? We will just have to see who's laughing at the end.

I don't care what happens with XC, I'm just trying to tell you that this court case, if it ever happened, would not proceed. Here is some more info about libel from EFF:



Quote Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures?



Yes. A private figure claiming defamationyour neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shoponly has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would not have published the defamatory statement.



A public figure must show "actual malice"that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.

Dan Metcalf is a public figure. There is a shitload of (possibly doctored) evidence floating around this message board indicating he might be a scammer. People speculating on this evidence, even calling him a scammer based on possibly bullshit evidence, does not meet the standard of "actual malice". Maybe instead of just telling everyone they're wrong you could provide some legal justification for your posts, or maybe you can't, because there is none.

I don't care what happens with XC, I'm just trying to tell you that this court case, if it ever happened, would not proceed. Here is some more info about libel from EFF:Dan Metcalf is a public figure. There is a shitload of (possibly doctored) evidence floating around this message board indicating he might be a scammer. People speculating on this evidence, even calling him a scammer based on possibly bullshit evidence, does not meet the standard of "actual malice". Maybe instead of just telling everyone they're wrong you could provide some legal justification for your posts, or maybe you can't, because there is none.

Shitload of FUDsters posting bullshit AS evidence. There's a huge difference here. I am not even saying who's right and who's wrong here. I am just saying that if you call a public business person a scammer and you don't have proof, then you are definitely slandering.



Now, how sure those "proof" that you think you have are real and you are not joining the paid slandering campaign? Please do tell.

Shitload of FUDsters posting bullshit AS evidence. There's a huge difference here. I am not even saying who's right and who's wrong here. I am just saying that if you call a public business person a scammer and you don't have proof, then you are definitely slandering.Now, how sure those "proof" that you think you have are real and you are not joining the paid slandering campaign? Please do tell.

You keep using that word ("slander"), I don't think you know what it means...



From (



Quote Slander involves the oral "publication" of a defamatory remark that is heard by another, which injures the subject's reputation or character. Slander can occur through the use of a hand gesture or verbal communication that is not recorded. Libel, on the other hand, is the written "publication" of a defamatory remark that has the tendency to injure another's reputation or character. Libel also includes a publication on radio, audio or video. Even though this would be considered oral, or verbal, communication to someone it is actually considered to be libel because it is published in a transfixed form.

It's libel, not slander, and you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. I don't give a fuck about XC or Dan Metcalf, I'm just telling you that you're wrong, and that speculating about public figures based on however flimsy evidence or rumors does not constitute libel of a public figure. You keep using that word ("slander"), I don't think you know what it means...From ( http://defamation.laws.com/defamation-laws/libel-vs-slander ):It's libel, not slander, and you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. I don't give a fuck about XC or Dan Metcalf, I'm just telling you that you're wrong, and that speculating about public figures based on however flimsy evidence or rumors does not constitute libel of a public figure.

jwinterm



Offline



Activity: 2394

Merit: 1070









LegendaryActivity: 2394Merit: 1070 Re: Slander online, get sued November 01, 2014, 11:45:25 AM #12



Neither am I, although I did take several business and criminal law courses in undergrad. Just trying to clear up some misconceptions for you and others posting on this board who may be worried that what they post here could have legal repercussions. In my non-lawerly opinion, there is about a 0.00000001% chance that something you post on this message board would be considered by any court of law as libel. Just my two satoshi, take it for what you will. lol, obviously you're not a lawyerNeither am I, although I did take several business and criminal law courses in undergrad. Just trying to clear up some misconceptions for you and others posting on this board who may be worried that what they post here could have legal repercussions. In my non-lawerly opinion, there is about a 0.00000001% chance that something you post on this message board would be considered by any court of law as libel. Just my two satoshi, take it for what you will.

jwinterm



Offline



Activity: 2394

Merit: 1070









LegendaryActivity: 2394Merit: 1070 Re: Slander online, get sued November 01, 2014, 11:51:07 AM #14 Quote from: CryptoGretzky on November 01, 2014, 11:47:06 AM Quote from: jwinterm on November 01, 2014, 11:45:25 AM



Neither am I, although I did take several business and criminal law courses in undergrad. Just trying to clear up some misconceptions for you and others posting on this board who may be worried that what they post here could have legal repercussions. In my non-lawerly opinion, there is about a 0.00000001% chance that something you post on this message board would be considered by any court of law as libel. Just my two satoshi, take it for what you will.

lol, obviously you're not a lawyerNeither am I, although I did take several business and criminal law courses in undergrad. Just trying to clear up some misconceptions for you and others posting on this board who may be worried that what they post here could have legal repercussions. In my non-lawerly opinion, there is about a 0.00000001% chance that something you post on this message board would be considered by any court of law as libel. Just my two satoshi, take it for what you will.

If you are not a lawyer, then your advice is worth just as much as mine, 2 satoshi like you said. Let the people that want to play with fire continue their ways. They just can no longer claim ignorance now.

If you are not a lawyer, then your advice is worth just as much as mine, 2 satoshi like you said. Let the people that want to play with fire continue their ways. They just can no longer claim ignorance now.

lol you're an idiot. Sue me for libel, bitch lol you're an idiot. Sue me for libel, bitch

adhitthana



Offline



Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000









LegendaryActivity: 1190Merit: 1000 Re: Slander online, get sued November 01, 2014, 12:24:48 PM #18 Quote from: jwinterm on November 01, 2014, 11:24:12 AM



Also look at the bolded portion above. There's no way that people on this forum speculating about evidence presented about other users is going to be treated by a court as libel. True, but if you read all the threads you will see plenty more than people speculating on evidence.

Quote There is significant "evidence" floating around here

There is nothing significant. Seriously. Have a good look at it. True, but if you read all the threads you will see plenty more than people speculating on evidence.There is nothing significant. Seriously. Have a good look at it.