Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster
I think it's a valid comparison.
If someone on here were to make a claim (perhaps saying they had insider information), that a player was injured. Are they open to defamation at that point? I bet if Sureless posted a rumour about a player injury and then got sued, the pitchforks would be out here, despite the fact that in both instances, all someone did is write something on a computer screen.
My point is that the indignant masses here are probably upset because of the titillating nature of the allegation and forget the impact at may have on them. Or at least the impact it may have on free and open discourse.
So no, I don't think these celebrities deserve protection from rumor-mongering if the cost is a reduction in our liberty.
(I'm obviously not making a legal argument. But laws are often wrong from a justice perspective.)
|
You just don't get it.
When sureloss posts a 'rumour' it is presented and pre-qualified as such. And it leaves a margin for error. A rumour is something that may potentially happen, but still may not. There is full disclosure to that fact.
When you say publicly "Jim banged Bob's wife Donna" then you are into the territory of slander. If you said "I heard a rumour that Jim banged Bob's wife Donna." Although it is a very scumbag thing to do, you would probably be able to get off the hook, if you could provide a source to the rumour. If you just made it up for sharts and giggles and that could be proven, it could still be considered slander.
This punk is getting everything he deserves as he presented it as fact, and I hope he gets taken for everything he has, which is probably very little if he gets joy out of tweetering infidelity rumours out of his mom's basement. And no, you cannot say it falls under satire, as it wasn't even remotely funny. There was no context for a joke, which satire generally requires.
You must love TMZ BTW. It seems it's right up your alley with your way of thinking.