On the nature of ranting and gossip

[Paul]

The more outlandish the claims, the more skeptical people are going to be. Usually for good reason.

[NorthernMantis]

You guys know what's funny?When Steve used to own the place everyone,including myself, thought kung lek was cool and so mellow.

Then you guys appoint him as moderator and now you think he is trash I still think he's cool.

Go kung lek!

[rogue]

The only think wrong with KL is that he's Canadian. What would you expect from a guy who calls a slice of ham, bacon.

It's important to remember that KFM owns this place and if something legal came down Gene would be up to his ears in poop. If this place shut down the alternative would be cyberkwoon, which while an ok place, it's lacking on the stimpilating conversation that we love over here.

[Paul]

stimpilating???

[Water Dragon]

Just wondering, does any of this have to do with my little invitation to have a member of this forum prove the validity of his studies? If so, my intentions were strictly for the good of the arts.

[SanHeChuan]

yeah i was just talking out my ase for the fun of it, i got a laugh out of it...i'm cool

i still think people should be put to the test...fire, fire

[Ryu]

Must be hard to be moderator
How I envy that power....




Hey, on a completely off topic note, Kung Lek, did you know my ex-girlfriend was a Japanese Canadian? Toronto is a beautiful city. Nice girl......well except the whole "break my heart" thing.




(no there's no point to that story. It's late, and I have been training a little, and I want to write more of my script....but I should study for finals. Priorities...priorities...

.......... think I'll get something to drink

Ryu

Keep flaming, keep hating. Don't stop.

Make me more eager to meet you.

[Merryprankster]

Hmmm...

I thought in order to be libelous, a statement not only had to be false, but also had to damage a person's reputation in a demonstrable way (ie, enough people have to really BELIEVE the false statement... there's a demonstrable loss of sales after the statement, etc).

At least that's what my lawyer girlfriend says But I've been wrong before so I will leave it to finer minds than my own.

[Robbie]

Originally posted by Kung Lek


p.s - qeysus, ip -ranges- are fixed, individual machines may be dynamic or fixed. but a range is a range and it is not a great task to determine who owns a fixed range and which ip's are natted out from it.

Then why couldn't you get rid of Ralek?

[Chang Style Novice]

Okay, I believe Merry Prankster's girlfriend, too. Last thing I want to do is disagree with a lawyer on a point of law, y'know. I can see why the statement would have to cause demonstrable damage to be legally actionable, that makes perfect sense. Such a requirement would protect freedom of speech for those who make negative comments, but aren't taken seriously by anyone due to either their own poor reputation or the self-evident falseness of their speech. Like, if I was a morbidly obese, legally blind guy with MS and went around saying 'don't train with Merry Prankster, he sucks! I slap him around all the time in underground bare-fist fighting matches!' He wouldn't be able to sue me for it, since no-one would buy such nonsense.

Anyway, upon further reflection 'liable' has a technical legal meaning, too, something to do with responsibility under the law, as in "The owner of a kungfu school is legally liable for the safety of his students, and must have insurance in order to operate."

Not saying that's true or false, just giving an example of how the word might be used.

[Merryprankster]

Chang, if you claimed such thing you probably would be right

[rubthebuddha]

(digging out cobwebbed memories from press law classes at college)

most of you are hitting the important elements, but let's organize this. since we're all worried about how this would affect gene (cause he's a swell fellow and all that, and we don't want to bring him any harm his training isn't bringing already), let's look at this from a legal standpoint:

libel, legally speaking, is based on harm done to a reputation. character has no play in this, because no one can harm your character. your reputation can be harmed, but who you are and why the libel was committed is where things can get confusing. so, like mc hammer back in the old days, let's break it down:

libel is libel, but to have a case against anyone, it's important to know who you are. the legal nomenclature is private figure, public figure and limited-purpose public figure. private figure is any standard schmoe. public figure is any well-known politician, celebrity, etc. a limited purpose public figure is anyone who would be considered a public figure, but only for a certain aspect of their life. a good example? me. i'm a state worker. i deal with public resources. anything i do at work is considered state business, but anything i do at home is my own business.

let's break this down further into terms applicable to this forum. much of this seems to have stemmed from the discussion of mr. mooney's claims. so leave us apply ...

for mr. mooney to claim libel and win in this case:

1. if he was a private figure, he'd have to prove simple negligence in the printed (or submitted, as online would be considered) material. the burden of proof (whose job it is to prove who's right) falls upon the person who made the allegedly libelous claim to show that they weren't negligent -- that they bothered to take general steps in information gathering.

2. if he was a public figure (either limited-purpose in this instance or a full-purpose), he would be obligated himself to prove that the claims made against him were demonstrated either knowledge of falsity or malicious intent -- both of which demonstrate reckless disregard for the truth.

now the plot thickens. in this instance, he would be considered a limited-purpose public figure at the minimum, because he intentionally and willingly submits himself before the public eye with his business, with his claims and with his participation in this forum. because of this, he enjoys no true privacy in this topic. so we come to more examples:

a. if i post a message that says, "the guy shags sheep and chickens in his free time," there's no libel there, because i'm not making any legitimate claims that anyone will listen to, especially considering that i'm an anonymous poster who has no clue as to what the guy shags, and you all know this.

b. if i post a message that says, "the guy is a crappy teacher," there's no libel, because i'm simply stating personal opinion.

c. if i post a message that says, "the guy is a fraud. he uses wires and mirrors and smoke and swamp gas and nothing else," then we're into libel territory. to demonstrate libel, the requirements would be proving that either i knew that he was, in fact, telling the truth in his claims, and i still said those things in a public medium; or that my sole or primary intent in saying them was to cause my target damage to his reputation. again, it would be the responsibility of the person claiming their reputation was damaged by libelous statements to demonstrate that it indeed is libel.

phew. i think that's it. pardon me for being longwinded, but that hopefully sheds some light on this.

please note: what i just did was NOT giving you an opportunity to dance around the rules and push the limits without actually going beyond them. i just wanted to clear some things up. remember, this is still gene's forum, and kung lek wields gene's hammer with authority, so be careful.

if you have questions, feel free to ask.

-rubthejournalismdegree