Gamers go after Jack Thompson...

Good idea but the disclaimer is not accurate. Slander is for spoken word defamation. It should be changed to libel. Plus, there is a typo in the second to last line ("header" should be "headed" and there should be a hyphen). I know it's trivial but something like this should look as professional as possible if you want to be taken seriously.
 
Would be funny if they got a proper web desinger to do it and it ended up looking more professional then JT's site. As it is, it still looks a bit better then his.
 
[quote name='javeryh']Good idea but the disclaimer is not accurate. Slander is for spoken word defamation. It should be changed to libel. Plus, there is a typo in the second to last line ("header" should be "headed" and there should be a hyphen). I know it's trivial but something like this should look as professional as possible if you want to be taken seriously.[/QUOTE]
Well, it's a moot point because slander and libel laws don't protect "public figures".

It's very clearly stated.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Well, it's a moot point because slander and libel laws don't protect "public figures".

It's very clearly stated.[/QUOTE]

First of all, the disclaimer never mentions public figures - just slander in general - so I think it should still be changed. Second, you are wrong about slander and libel law - public figures are definitely protected but it is just harder to prove their case. In addition to proving the statement is false and caused damages, they must also prove that it was made with "actual malice" meaning the speaker/publisher knew the statement was false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. Celebrities win suits like these against tabloids all the time.
 
[quote name='javeryh']First of all, the disclaimer never mentions public figures - just slander in general - so I think it should still be changed. Second, you are wrong about slander and libel law - public figures are definitely protected but it is just harder to prove their case. In addition to proving the statement is false and caused damages, they must also prove that it was made with "actual malice" meaning the speaker/publisher knew the statement was false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. Celebrities win suits like these against tabloids all the time.[/QUOTE]
No, you are absolutely wrong.

Celebrities win cases where tabloids violate their privacy, which is a whole different ballpark.

But a public figure can not take someone to court and win a slander or libel case.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']No, you are absolutely wrong.

Celebrities win cases where tabloids violate their privacy, which is a whole different ballpark.

But a public figure can not take someone to court and win a slander or libel case.[/QUOTE]

*sigh* Go read New York Times v. Sullivan and get back to me. I am 100% right.
 
There is a difference between defamation of character and maliciously lying to defame ones character.

You seemed to have missed that point.

George Bush is an asshole. Now,even if he wanted o he could not sue me for that. I posted my opinion, and even though it was an attempt to defame his character it doesn't matter.

On the other hand, if I made up a detailed report that described how he stole money from orphanages for his campaign, which is untrue, he COULD sue me and would win.

If I take out a newspaper add that says Joe Public is a retard, he could sue me, and have a good chance of being awarded minor damages.

I hope that helps you understand it.

Btw, studying supreme court cases in school gives you a better understanding than googling and skimming articles.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']There is a difference between defamation of character and maliciously lying to defame ones character.

You seemed to have missed that point.

George Bush is an asshole. Now,even if he wanted o he could not sue me for that. I posted my opinion, and even though it was an attempt to defame his character it doesn't matter.

On the other hand, if I made up a detailed report that described how he stole money from orphanages for his campaign, which is untrue, he COULD sue me and would win.

If I take out a newspaper add that says Joe Public is a retard, he could sue me, and have a good chance of being awarded minor damages.

I hope that helps you understand it.

Btw, studying supreme court cases in school gives you a better understanding than googling and skimming articles.[/QUOTE]

OK, I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you because you clearly do not get it. Also, your last sentence is priceless because until you graduate law school (which I did, with honors) and pass the Bar (which I also did, in two states) and practice out in the real world (which I do, every day) then maybe - just maybe - I'd be willing to argue a bit more over this. Until then, I'm done.
 
[quote name='javeryh']OK, I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you because you clearly do not get it. Also, your last sentence is priceless because until you graduate law school (which I did, with honors) and pass the Bar (which I also did, in two states) and practice out in the real world (which I do, every day) then maybe - just maybe - I'd be willing to argue a bit more over this. Until then, I'm done.[/QUOTE]

javeryh'd!
 
[quote name='javeryh']OK, I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you because you clearly do not get it. Also, your last sentence is priceless because until you graduate law school (which I did, with honors) and pass the Bar (which I also did, in two states) and practice out in the real world (which I do, every day) then maybe - just maybe - I'd be willing to argue a bit more over this. Until then, I'm done.[/QUOTE]
Which is conveniently unverifiable either way...

:roll:
 
The site has good intentions, but unless you can get the message out, in force, to the non-gaming public it won't accomplish much.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']He's a lawyer and I'm a Harvard professor.

Seriously, do you believe EVERYTHING that is posted on the internet?

My statement was correct, but because he says he is a lawyer that makes me wrong?[/QUOTE]

Says the man named Quackzilla with a conspiracy theorist in his avatar....
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Says the man named Quackzilla with a conspiracy theorist in his avatar....[/QUOTE]
Question everything, the search for the truth is the most noble of quests.
 
Ok, you are confusing me with your argument. First you said:

[quote name='Quackzilla']Well, it's a moot point because slander and libel laws don't protect "public figures".

It's very clearly stated.[/QUOTE]

While this is not true, we'll move to your next statement.

[quote name='Quackzilla']But a public figure can not take someone to court and win a slander or libel case.[/QUOTE]

Ok, your line of reasoning, while wrong, is at least consistent at this point. Until...

[quote name='Quackzilla']George Bush is an asshole. Now,even if he wanted o he could not sue me for that. I posted my opinion, and even though it was an attempt to defame his character it doesn't matter.

On the other hand, if I made up a detailed report that described how he stole money from orphanages for his campaign, which is untrue, he COULD sue me and would win.[/QUOTE]

Ok, so if a public figure cannot take someone to court and win a libel or slander case, then how could George Bush, arguably the most public of figures, win a lawsuit in that scenario?

As of your last quote, you are agreeing with exactly what javeryh said. It is harder for a public figure to prove libel since they have to prove falsity and malice.
 
Hi everyone. First off, just wanted to say thanks for checking out the site. I came on here to answer a couple questions/comments I saw. If anyone has any other questions or wants to contribute anything, go ahead and send me an email.


For the footer, I'm well aware it should be libel instead of slander. The guy who made our images happened to make the footer himself, and he's been gone at a soccer tournament the last few days (we've only been up 2.5 days...). He has a few emails telling him to make a new one, and I've left him a voice mail on his cell phone.

For the typos, there's an email at the website in the contact section to submit any typos you find in any articles. I TRY to proof them all myself, but a lot of the time if I get one from a trusted souce or a well published one, I spend more time on checking the facts and making sure the article is accurate rather than spellchecking and going over it with a red pen. As it is right now, I'm the only one on the site doing that. The other two people helping me are helping clean up any HTML errors I can't find, and a fellow freelance journalist who will be helping write articles.

As for getting the message out, I'd say so far it's a HUGE success--much more so than I ever imagined. I've already had to upgrade hosts once. In two days of full uptime (we were down half a day upgrading), with limited content at the time, we've gotten over 24,000 hits from 22 countries. I've also gotten emails from well known figures such as Dr. Henry Jenkins from MIT willing to help contribute with future research.

Once again, I'd like to thank everyone here who visited the site and has brought any errors to my attention. I'm trying to make it look as professional as possible. Since the other day there has been a huge update in content (about 15 articles total now) as well as a completely revamped layout for the JT section. If anyone has any questions/comments, or wants to get in touch with me for any reason, you can reach me at [email protected]

Thanks again.
Yours truly,
Brendon Lindsey
Editor of StopStopkill.com
 
Remember, no matter how far the site goes, never lose your cool. Calm and cool vs. Jack's raving and insulting will make a nice contrast.

one other thing, since posted emails by Thompson have been less than courteous, I would expect a possible legal attack from him for using his website name in your own URL name, so before the site gets to popular, you might see if you can find a person with legal training for advice.

Best of luck Brendon.
 
It's about time someone spoke up against Jack and Billary Clinton. I'm tired of hearing their crap and the crap of a certain CAG (he posted in this thread) about the upcoming game Bully as well as current games. If you don't like it, don't play it. Why no uproar over movies? Parents are expected to keep their own kids from watching R movies, games should be no different at all. The store clerk in the video game section is akin to the movie theater usher. He/she is there to keep children from watching/purchasing/renting mature material. Shut up and get over it. Are we all supposed to play Pokemon and Mario just because of your politics? Who made you king (hint as to the CAG person's name)? I'm 28; who are you or Thompson or Clinton or any other bleeding heart liberal to tell me what I can and can't play on my home console?
 
Heh.

I enjoy the fact that your layout looks like it was done by someone with eyes, not just slapping their cock at they keybaord like stopkill.com.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top