Semantics or not. It's the truth.
Semantics or not. It's the truth.
LO Rent lawyer doesn't even know the definition of defamation, lol. He's just butt hurt because his original post came back to bite him in the arse; and now he's babbling to cover it up.
Actually if you new anything about the various codes of law covered under the blanket of Libel/Slander/Defmation you'd probably realize that you don't know anything about how those things are actually prosecuted. And the different ways in which they are interpreted. This below is right out of a media law textbook. Look it up.
"Similar to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy." Also, false light laws protect against statements which are not technically false but misleading.[4]"
And I don't care about backpedalling about this. At the end of the day it's a shame that Tyson Gay doped. But I really don't give a shit. And personally I posted later and showed I had a damn good reason to believe it was bullshit.
"No I don't feel like an idiot. I had perfect grounds to believe it was bullshit. It turned out to be true but I didn't think anyone would be stupid enough, from a legal standpoint, to quote an anonymous source before gay or the U.S. Anti-Doping agency made an official announcement. Considering results are technically confidential you could have gotten sued by both Gay and the Anti-Doping agency by "leaking" such information onto the internet. And if the source is you or someone you know you know, especially a media outlet, you or that person could have easily lost their job by breach of confidentiality. Message boards like these can be grounds for a legal minefield. I just didn't think it was true because I didn't think anyone would do anything that stupid."
Yo Justice Sofy, I'll bet you $5k that no lawsuit is ever filed against the OP.
Be more pacific wrote:
Yo Justice Sofy, I'll bet you $5k that no lawsuit is ever filed against the OP.
Careful, dude. She's gonna turn you in for illegal gambling.
Sophia LoRent wrote:
Also, false light laws protect against statements which are not technically false but misleading.[4]"
So how was the United States protected when Dick Cheney said "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction?"
How do we get back the trillion dollars that was spent invading Iraq?
stop it sprintgeezer, its too much to take right now.
everything is a lie.
and can we cut the legal/ego/ "I have 5 degrees and a gig on CNN" crap about message board posts, and deal with the incredibly sad and devastating situation for Athletics?
Sophia LoRent wrote:
I didn't think anyone would be stupid enough, from a legal standpoint, to quote an anonymous source before gay or the U.S. Anti-Doping agency made an official announcement. Considering results are technically confidential you could have gotten sued by both Gay and the Anti-Doping agency by "leaking" such information onto the internet. And if the source is you or someone you know you know, especially a media outlet, you or that person could have easily lost their job by breach of confidentiality. Message boards like these can be grounds for a legal minefield. I just didn't think it was true because I didn't think anyone would do anything that stupid."
So who was the "anonymous source" you say the OP quoted and where did he quote it? What at the time would have given you the impression the OP was referring to "Gay and the Anti-Doping agency" and what exactly was he "leaking"? He could have heard a rumor down the coffee shop.
All the OP posted was:
"News conference to come but a big US star has tested positive. I know who but not saying"
and
"Male"
and
"Proof will be coming out soon enough. I could break story fully but I want to hear all the facts from the man 1st so as not to slant what I have knowledge of."
If he was a troll or had misinformation and nothing was announced what in the above would leave him open to legal action?
But, according to you based on what the OP posted "Message boards like these can be grounds for a legal minefield."
Only in your mind, I'm glad I'm not paying your salary.
I would LOVE to see a prosecutor try to prove that damages were done to Tyson's reputation by someone releasing information a day before Tyson's statement that a high profile sprinter had failed a drug test. Sign me up for that defense team.
Enouh with this, Sophia. Not only are you wrong, you're selectively and misleadingly quoting from Wikipedia.(!)
Gay is a public figure. He doesn't have the same expectation of privacy as the rest of us. Not only that, news of a positive test would unquestionably pass a "newsworthy" test. I'm pretty sure you're not actually a lawyer, but if you are I despair for your clients.
After reading all the posts on this thread for the first time, my take away is LOL...so many people were calling this guy a troll and it was true. So funny. Bunch of aholes we are.
You're an Idiot wrote:
Sophia LoRent wrote:Believe whatever you like. And yes the plaintiff has, legally, the burden of proof in the case. But in order to counter the plaintiff's case, the defendant would obviously have to prove that the plaintiff's case is unsubstantiated. I.E. that the information he was giving out was not specifically about the plaintiff.
Suggest you check out the word 'semantics'.
Yes you anti-semantic b'st**d!
Everyone is so concerned that the OP is going to get in trouble, but has anyone considered the OP is Gay?
Say what? Yep wrote:
These positive tests were just the wave of sprinters that tested positive. On monday, the wave of distance guys(maybe a girl) is going to come out. Not saying who just yet, but it will be a little more widespread internationally than just the US and jamaica.
I haven't heard any rumblings today on updates to this.
Can Rojo/Wejo verify that this was the OP posting at this point?
be funny if the thread was punked
The guy is 30 years old, has had multiple surgeries, and still managed to run 9.75 this summer. How anyone could believe he was clean is beyond me. Oh, right, because he seems so nice!
Giant Johnson wrote:
The guy is 30 years old, has had multiple surgeries, and still managed to run 9.75 this summer. How anyone could believe he was clean is beyond me. Oh, right, because he seems so nice!
Now that it's happened, what you say makes perfect sense. A few days ago, I would have argued the point.
whats up with kim collins?
just ran a 100m PB at 37