|
Title: Slander online, get sued Post by: CryptoGretzky on November 01, 2014, 11:14:07 AM If you think you can hide anonymously, think again. Dan and XC, Inc. is US based.
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/defamation-and-the-internet/sections/precedent/cases.html You are playing with fire if you think slandering is something you can do to a public figure. FAQ: isn't crypto not regulated? A: Yes, but we are not talking about crypto. We are talking about Dan's business reputation. Damaging his reputation online is slandering IF it's NOT true. If you have absolutely 100% proof that he is, then of course it's not slandering. How sure you are of these proofs that is up to you. You can't claim ignorance that you didn't know you can get sued for online slander because you have just read this thread. Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: 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. Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: CryptoGretzky on November 01, 2014, 11:18:43 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? Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: CryptoGretzky on November 01, 2014, 11:22:00 AM Uh wait, i though Cryptocurrency are not regulated ? So you can Pump&Dump / scam people with false/misinformation but you can't use your free speech ? So do we have facebook rules all over Internet nowadays ? Get real, the judges will laugh at you like this. https://i.imgur.com/YZHYbh.jpg Slandering and defamation is free speech to you? You obviously have no idea how the legal system work. As I said above, if you have enough evidence that Dan is scamming, then why don't you sue him too? If not, then you are slandering, simple as that. Which part of the precedence I linked you do you not understand? It's happened before. It's reality. Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: jwinterm on November 01, 2014, 11:24:12 AM Some relevant facts from EFF ( https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation ):
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. Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: CryptoGretzky on November 01, 2014, 11:25:44 AM Some relevant facts from EFF ( https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation ): 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. 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. Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: jwinterm on November 01, 2014, 11:31:28 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. 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. Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: Nullu on November 01, 2014, 11:32:21 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? 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. Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: CryptoGretzky on November 01, 2014, 11:33:24 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. 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. 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. Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: jwinterm on November 01, 2014, 11:38:44 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. 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. 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 ( http://defamation.laws.com/defamation-laws/libel-vs-slander ): 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. Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: CryptoGretzky on November 01, 2014, 11:41:34 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. 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. 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 ( http://defamation.laws.com/defamation-laws/libel-vs-slander ): 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. Hey, I am not a lawyer and not claiming to be. I am just telling you that people have been sued before for shit like this. Since you seems to be a lawyer or working to be one, are you giving us LEGAL OPINIONS/ADVICE now? Please state it in this thread. Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: jwinterm on November 01, 2014, 11:45:25 AM lol, obviously you're not a lawyer ::)
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. Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: CryptoGretzky on November 01, 2014, 11:47:06 AM lol, obviously you're not a lawyer ::) 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. 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. Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: jwinterm on November 01, 2014, 11:51:07 AM lol, obviously you're not a lawyer ::) 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. 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 :P Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: CryptoGretzky on November 01, 2014, 11:54:15 AM lol, obviously you're not a lawyer ::) 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. 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 :P Look in the mirror you lawyer wannabe. Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: CryptoGretzky on November 01, 2014, 11:57:07 AM lol, obviously you're not a lawyer ::) 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. 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 :P Look in the mirror you lawyer wannabe. Knowing your rights don't mean you have to be a lawyer to use them. Knowing your rights also doesn't mean you can abuse it. Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: qawzsx on November 01, 2014, 12:18:47 PM Uh wait, i though Cryptocurrency are not regulated ? So you can Pump&Dump / scam people with false/misinformation but you can't use your free speech ? So do we have facebook rules all over Internet nowadays ? Get real, the judges will laugh at you like this. Are you that stupid and retarded? Cryptocurrency has nothing to do with that... :))) The most stupid fudder Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: adhitthana on November 01, 2014, 12:24:48 PM 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. Quote There is significant "evidence" floating around here There is nothing significant. Seriously. Have a good look at it.Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: qawzsx on November 01, 2014, 12:28:30 PM I know know ... scamming is legit and Criticism is always bad. Just like in the real world you are trying to silence the whistleblower.. so how dose it feel to be a criminal ? Are you stupid? That is not criticism what you're doing there. You have any proof that there is any scam besides your fabricated "proofs" Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: adhitthana on November 01, 2014, 12:31:40 PM I know know ... scamming is legit and Criticism is always bad. Just like in the real world you are trying to silence the whistleblower.. so how dose it feel to be a criminal ? Whisteblowers have evidence. They have been on the inside and seen what really went on. That is not the case here. Not even close.What we have seen here has gone way beyond criticism Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: PhattyBanks on November 01, 2014, 12:34:48 PM LOL @ fabricated Prometheus didn't even deny what was in those logs then he confirmed some of them, then they ddos'd 00smurf
who the fuck would even make up a conversation like that at those exact dates and times? the writing is on the wall demand a blocknet refund from bittrex now Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: qawzsx on November 01, 2014, 12:45:30 PM LOL @ fabricated Prometheus didn't even deny what was in those logs then he confirmed some of them, then they ddos'd 00smurf who the fuck would even make up a conversation like that at those exact dates and times? the writing is on the wall demand a blocknet refund from bittrex now Dude? are you an idiot? He is talking with X, about Y. He is not talking with any member of BlockNet on the skype. Yeah, I can go and talk with somebody about how I am CIA and everything. If that somebody gonna post that log, will you believe it? Well, there is a chance for you to believe it since you are that stupid and ignorant. Dude, Prometheus is a known pumper already, it's easy to have a group and start this BS campaign to manipulate this market too. Use your fucking brain. I see no direct connection between Prometheus and Dan or BlockNet on that chat log, besides the fact that Prometheus saying so. So, I can do that to, I can be CIA, FBI, NSA, anybody I want in a chat log. Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: snake.in.the.blanket on November 01, 2014, 01:32:03 PM http://mashable.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/crying-waterfalls.gif http://www.elle.com/cm/elle/images/3r/Cryinggifs_01_1.gif Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: Zer0Sum on November 01, 2014, 01:37:04 PM Uh wait, i though Cryptocurrency are not regulated ? So you can Pump&Dump / scam people with false/misinformation but you can't use your free speech ? So do we have facebook rules all over Internet nowadays ? Get real, the judges will laugh at you like this. Are you that stupid and retarded? Cryptocurrency has nothing to do with that... :))) The most stupid fudder No, this will never get to a judge. But about 50% of lawyers are pathological bill-padders... And even though these guys know it's all a complete waste of time... They will milk you for $5,000 to $10,000 just to talk to you like the psychiatrist you desperately need. Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: cryptico on November 01, 2014, 01:39:04 PM LOL @ fabricated Prometheus didn't even deny what was in those logs then he confirmed some of them, then they ddos'd 00smurf who the fuck would even make up a conversation like that at those exact dates and times? the writing is on the wall demand a blocknet refund from bittrex now Dude? are you an idiot? He is talking with X, about Y. He is not talking with any member of BlockNet on the skype. Yeah, I can go and talk with somebody about how I am CIA and everything. If that somebody gonna post that log, will you believe it? Well, there is a chance for you to believe it since you are that stupid and ignorant. Dude, Prometheus is a known pumper already, it's easy to have a group and start this BS campaign to manipulate this market too. Use your fucking brain. I see no direct connection between Prometheus and Dan or BlockNet on that chat log, besides the fact that Prometheus saying so. So, I can do that to, I can be CIA, FBI, NSA, anybody I want in a chat log. Well said Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: Spoetnik on November 01, 2014, 02:02:07 PM ..You can't claim ignorance that you didn't know you can get sued for online slander because you have just read this thread. http://i59.tinypic.com/jg2l2f.jpg Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: MisO69 on November 01, 2014, 02:02:12 PM OP is correct, it is slander. However, Dan would have to first serve you with the lawsuit itself. That is going to be kind of hard when everyone here is just a nickname. Secondly, Dan will have to prove financial loss to a judge or jury in order to sue you for that amount. Its going to be interesting trying to explain his actions of pumping and dumping coins to a judge/jury. Then convincing them that its all on the up and up and that you evil slanderers cost him x amount of money.
Think about this for a second. What are the chances of this being successful? ZERO. As for him getting butt raped here on the forums, well thats they way crypto is, has been and will continue to be. What I suggest is you Blockhead guys come out with good working software and make the naysayers eat their words. Otherwise its just a scam like they claim. Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: slapper on November 01, 2014, 02:10:08 PM Normally I'd just laugh this out when empty threats of suing comes up, but I couldn't resist and I wanted to slander some. I think OP sucks dick for a living ROFL. So sue me cocksucker.
Where is the millions evaporating? The XC scumbags dumped the last of their XC while announcing their shit scam a week or so ago, just like they do with all of their announcements. Instead of question them back about the premine audit, open source code, whitepaper etc, they just want to cheer away and dump crap on newbies. And when their scam begins to show up, they threaten with empty shit. Sue me scumbag. Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: kelsey on November 01, 2014, 02:50:53 PM Damaging his reputation online is slandering IF it's NOT true. If you have absolutely 100% proof that he is, then of course it's not slandering. Well that's not entirely correct, you can get done for defamation even if what you say about a person is correct if it can be proven that your statements where about defaming the person rather then say a public service ann warning people. Its all about intent laws which is over an above most pseudo keyboard legal advice on this forum. Leaves a bad taste in ones mouth though hearing legal threats on this forum, cryptos are anti establishment so turning to the establishment when someone says some stuff online about you is a tad weak.....just sayin. and yeah good luck suing someone for defaming you for scaming when you're into creating cryptos.....again just sayin ::) Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: Spoetnik on November 01, 2014, 02:53:42 PM What I suggest is you Blockhead guys come out with good working software and make the naysayers eat their words. Otherwise its just a scam like they claim. if he posts the project working has nothing to do with it.. he launched a million dollar ITO ! ..and much much more LOL edit: yeah Kelsey it's funny the Free Market scam chanters are crying i will sue you.. ahhaha Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: DreamSpace on November 01, 2014, 03:01:34 PM Normally I'd just laugh this out when empty threats of suing comes up, but I couldn't resist and I wanted to slander some. I think OP sucks dick for a living ROFL. So sue me cocksucker. Where is the millions evaporating? The XC scumbags dumped the last of their XC while announcing their shit scam a week or so ago, just like they do with all of their announcements. Instead of question them back about the premine audit, open source code, whitepaper etc, they just want to cheer away and dump crap on newbies. And when their scam begins to show up, they threaten with empty shit. Sue me scumbag. So XC had a premine and they dumped it before BlockNet ITO ? How big was the premine, can't find it in the ANN ? I assume XC is not really full closed-source, where can i find the open-sourced code from XC ? Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: oblox on November 01, 2014, 05:58:22 PM lol, obviously you're not a lawyer ::) 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. The right answer should have been that you stayed at a holiday inn express last night. ;) Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: oblox on November 01, 2014, 05:59:39 PM Normally I'd just laugh this out when empty threats of suing comes up, but I couldn't resist and I wanted to slander some. I think OP sucks dick for a living ROFL. So sue me cocksucker. Where is the millions evaporating? The XC scumbags dumped the last of their XC while announcing their shit scam a week or so ago, just like they do with all of their announcements. Instead of question them back about the premine audit, open source code, whitepaper etc, they just want to cheer away and dump crap on newbies. And when their scam begins to show up, they threaten with empty shit. Sue me scumbag. So XC had a premine and they dumped it before BlockNet ITO ? How big was the premine, can't find it in the ANN ? I assume XC is not really full closed-source, where can i find the open-sourced code from XC ? 2% iirc with the last of it at this address: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/address.dws?XS4QLi6VpQQo79HLkoFBj5YZkn6p6TuLKG.htm You can see it wound down. XC as it is currently isn't open source, but their old mixer is. Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: DreamSpace on November 01, 2014, 06:14:49 PM Normally I'd just laugh this out when empty threats of suing comes up, but I couldn't resist and I wanted to slander some. I think OP sucks dick for a living ROFL. So sue me cocksucker. Where is the millions evaporating? The XC scumbags dumped the last of their XC while announcing their shit scam a week or so ago, just like they do with all of their announcements. Instead of question them back about the premine audit, open source code, whitepaper etc, they just want to cheer away and dump crap on newbies. And when their scam begins to show up, they threaten with empty shit. Sue me scumbag. So XC had a premine and they dumped it before BlockNet ITO ? How big was the premine, can't find it in the ANN ? I assume XC is not really full closed-source, where can i find the open-sourced code from XC ? 2% iirc with the last of it at this address: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/xc/address.dws?XS4QLi6VpQQo79HLkoFBj5YZkn6p6TuLKG.htm You can see it wound down. XC as it is currently isn't open source, but their old mixer is. thanks for the answer Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: Nxtblg on November 02, 2014, 01:30:08 AM 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. Congratulations...you just made the OP's threat nothing more than digital hot air. Even I, a non-lawyer, could see what would (if the judge is reasonable) be a slam-dunk strategy to get ol' Spoet skating like a hockey team: 1) As you pointed out, show the judge a random sample of 'FUD' in this forum from other posters while making it plain that the very term 'FUD' is a potent indicator that the criticisms in question are hyperbolic and not to be taken seriously by any reasonable person. 2) A random sample of Spoetnik being Spoetnik...all from posts that he made before the Blocknet was even announced. Granted that the judge would probably call ol' Spoet a 'crank' and/or a 'crackpot', but only in the context of saying that no reasonable person would conclude that Spoetnik's postings should be taken seriously enough to constitute injury to anyone's reputation. It's a real irony, really...the fact that Spoetnik being somewhat of an acquired taste is the best chance he has of having the judge throw the lawsuit right into /dev/null. Title: Everyone shut up.. i am the smart one here ! Post by: Spoetnik on November 02, 2014, 07:06:37 AM 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. Congratulations...you just made the OP's threat nothing more than digital hot air. Even I, a non-lawyer, could see what would (if the judge is reasonable) be a slam-dunk strategy to get ol' Spoet skating like a hockey team: 1) As you pointed out, show the judge a random sample of 'FUD' in this forum from other posters while making it plain that the very term 'FUD' is a potent indicator that the criticisms in question are hyperbolic and not to be taken seriously by any reasonable person. 2) A random sample of Spoetnik being Spoetnik...all from posts that he made before the Blocknet was even announced. Granted that the judge would probably call ol' Spoet a 'crank' and/or a 'crackpot', but only in the context of saying that no reasonable person would conclude that Spoetnik's postings should be taken seriously enough to constitute injury to anyone's reputation. It's a real irony, really...the fact that Spoetnik being somewhat of an acquired taste is the best chance he has of having the judge throw the lawsuit right into /dev/null. Nope, the judge would see i am the only sensible one here your all scammers.. or scam defenders. What does FUD mean ? for the 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000 million'th time it is warranted within the context and confines of the situation.. FACT. Quote “The seeker after truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them," the first scientist wrote, "but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration and not the sayings of human beings whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of of its content, attack it from every side. he should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.” ― Ibn al-Haytham http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhazen AKA: that means crystal clear.. FUD first and ask questions later. and ALL of humanities science is based on that very concept from that man in history ! Quote the judge would probably call ol' Spoet a 'crank' and/or a 'crackpot' FUCK NO ! He would see your all fucking morons defending ponzi schemes and i am one of the only ones with a shred of intelligence around here.. not very many of us. i get a kick out of you back-yard mechanic lawyers and your verbal diarrhea (while chanting no regulations/laws free market fucktard bullshit) LOL With crap like, "You can be sued if you read this topic" hahhhahah ::) Title: Re: Slander online, get sued Post by: UnicornFarts on November 02, 2014, 07:09:20 AM i don't understand why dan doesn't have a bad trade rating.
|
