108 réponses à ce sujet

[TheClonesLegacy]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Naughty Bear wrote...

android654 wrote...

It's a crime to report the names of suspects on trial in the UK?

Human rights.

Screw their human rights.

They lost their humanity when they raped that girl.

I agree.
They don't DESERVE human rights, I belive they should be locked up for the Next 50 years so they can reflect on what kind of horrible F**king Disgraces they are to the Human Species.

Modifié par TheClonesLegacy, 23 juillet 2012 - 01:18 .

[Milan92]

Tigerblood and MilkShakes wrote...

ah well yes i believe in that and tehn after some time theyre simply killed.using resources to keep them alive to torture them is wastefull but in the end.keeping them locked up uses more.

So they should just be killed? Then you really are no beter then those rapists.

[wsandista]

Logan Cloud wrote...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't slander refer to something that isn't true? Talking crap about something with nothing to back it up?

You are not wrong.

This isn't slander. It's the truth, and people have the right to be warned about it.

I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm just saying that with the bull**** here in Texas she would get convicted of slander. The boys would probably be considered to "just having a good time" or some other bull****.

Honestly, I hope those kids are feeling pretty sh*tty right now. They deserve much worse.

I hope they get cancer and die wasting away into nothing. What they did was really ****ed up and deserves a painful death.

[android654]

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Naughty Bear wrote...

android654 wrote...

It's a crime to report the names of suspects on trial in the UK?

Human rights.

Screw their human rights.

They lost their humanity when they raped that girl.

I agree.
They don't DESERVE human rights, they should be treated like the vicious animals they are,
Locked up for the Next 50 years so they can reflect on what kind of horrible F**king Disgraces they are to the Human Species.

You can't treat criminals like animals. Espexially in a democracy. What happens if you commit a crime of passion, like murder or justifiable homocide, should you be treated like an animal? No. The point of living in a progressive country is the implied gaurantee that we all have equal treatment under the law, no matter our station or circumstance. So everyone deserves to be treated the same by the court system.

Edit: It would be argued under slander because it would present a "skewed or innacurate" portrait of the defendant. So they could sue for slander in this instance.

Modifié par android654, 23 juillet 2012 - 01:12 .

[TheClonesLegacy]

android654 wrote...

TheClonesLegacy wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Naughty Bear wrote...

android654 wrote...

It's a crime to report the names of suspects on trial in the UK?

Human rights.

Screw their human rights.

They lost their humanity when they raped that girl.

I agree.
They don't DESERVE human rights, they should be treated like the vicious animals they are,
Locked up for the Next 50 years so they can reflect on what kind of horrible F**king Disgraces they are to the Human Species.

You can't treat criminals like animals. Espexially in a democracy. What happens if you commit a crime of passion, like murder or justifiable homocide, should you be treated like an animal? No. The point of living in a progressive country is the implied gaurantee that we all have equal treatment under the law, no matter our station or circumstance. So everyone deserves to be treated the same by the court system.

Oh yes, I agree, they are entitled to Court, I should've re-worded what I meant, I wasn't thinking.
My apologies for wasting your time writing that little Tangent of yours.
I have changed my original statement

Modifié par TheClonesLegacy, 23 juillet 2012 - 01:18 .

[ADLegend21]

Are you kidding me? She puts two horrible people on blast and she's going to jail? sexism is alive and well it seems.

[billy the squid]

ADLegend21 wrote...

Are you kidding me? She puts two horrible people on blast and she's going to jail? sexism is alive and well it seems.

I think I facepalmed so hard I just fell off my chair. No, breach of Human Rights Act, Contempt of Court, The fact they were considered juveniles in terms of scentencing.

And this is not slander people, it's libel, slander is spoken word, libel is written.

Modifié par billy the squid, 23 juillet 2012 - 01:53 .

[Rockworm503]

Rockworm503 wrote...

emotinal, knee-jerk reactions does no one any good.

I think this bares reapeting.
Also our legal system should never make exceptions otherwise we become no better than them.

[DarkDragon777]

ADLegend21 wrote...

Are you kidding me? She puts two horrible people on blast and she's going to jail? sexism is alive and well it seems.

She violated a court order. This has nothing to do with sexism.

[android654]

billy the squid wrote...

ADLegend21 wrote...

Are you kidding me? She puts two horrible people on blast and she's going to jail? sexism is alive and well it seems.

I think I facepalmed so hard I just fell off my chair. No, breach of Human Rights Act, Contempt of Court, The fact they were considered juviniles in terms of scentencing.

And this is not slander people, it's libel, slander is spoken word, libel is written.

Since she's not a member of the press, it's not considered libel. Libel must be in print, brodcast or photo journalism. Since she's a random person putting something on twitter, it's merely slander.

libel

1) n. to publish in print (including
pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an
untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her
reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn
or contempt of others.

Modifié par android654, 23 juillet 2012 - 01:55 .

[TheClonesLegacy]

ADLegend21 wrote...

Are you kidding me? She puts two horrible people on blast and she's going to jail? sexism is alive and well it seems.

...Sexism Has nothing to do with this.

[TEWR]

One more reason for me to detest living in the U.S these days.

Every time my faith in humanity goes up just a tiny notch, I see something that makes it fall 10 feet lower then it was before

[billy the squid]

android654 wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

ADLegend21 wrote...

Are you kidding me? She puts two horrible people on blast and she's going to jail? sexism is alive and well it seems.

I think I facepalmed so hard I just fell off my chair. No, breach of Human Rights Act, Contempt of Court, The fact they were considered juviniles in terms of scentencing.

And this is not slander people, it's libel, slander is spoken word, libel is written.

Since she's not a member of the press, it's not considered libel. Libel must be in print, brodcast or photo journalism. Since she's a random person putting something on twitter, it's merely slander.

libel

1) n. to publish in print (including
pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an
untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her
reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn
or contempt of others.

No it doesn't, it simply equates to written word, however it is conveyed, when distributed causes damage to a party, whether she is a journalist is neither here nor there it's completely irrelevant. Slander is always spoken word.

Modifié par billy the squid, 23 juillet 2012 - 02:04 .

[android654]

billy the squid wrote...

android654 wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

ADLegend21 wrote...

Are you kidding me? She puts two horrible people on blast and she's going to jail? sexism is alive and well it seems.

I think I facepalmed so hard I just fell off my chair. No, breach of Human Rights Act, Contempt of Court, The fact they were considered juviniles in terms of scentencing.

And this is not slander people, it's libel, slander is spoken word, libel is written.

Since she's not a member of the press, it's not considered libel. Libel must be in print, brodcast or photo journalism. Since she's a random person putting something on twitter, it's merely slander.

libel

1) n. to publish in print (including
pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an
untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her
reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn
or contempt of others.

No it doesn't, it simply equates to written word, distributed which causes damage to a party, whether she is a journalist is neither here nor there it's completely irrelevant. Slander is always spoken word.

legal defintions =/= common defintions. The definition I provided is the legal one.

"In print" doesn't mean written down, it means in the press. The names weren't revealed through a press outlet so it wouldn't be a libel suit, but a case of slander. In the age of the internet, "spoken word" doesn't simply mean orally spoken. Twitter isn't an arm of the press, and communication on it is speech, not print.

Modifié par android654, 23 juillet 2012 - 02:07 .

[TEWR]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

ADLegend21 wrote...

Are you kidding me? She puts two horrible people on blast and she's going to jail? sexism is alive and well it seems.

She violated a court order. This has nothing to do with sexism.

It's an idiotic court order though, and I personally don't hold it against her for violating it.

[BatmanPWNS]

jollyorigins wrote...

This is why I hate the UK more and more everyday.

How dare you, sir. We brits................ yeah, truth be told, I can't stand the people here. Most of us are complete ignorant ****s.

[billy the squid]

android654 wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

android654 wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

ADLegend21 wrote...

Are you kidding me? She puts two horrible people on blast and she's going to jail? sexism is alive and well it seems.

I think I facepalmed so hard I just fell off my chair. No, breach of Human Rights Act, Contempt of Court, The fact they were considered juviniles in terms of scentencing.

And this is not slander people, it's libel, slander is spoken word, libel is written.

Since she's not a member of the press, it's not considered libel. Libel must be in print, brodcast or photo journalism. Since she's a random person putting something on twitter, it's merely slander.

libel

1) n. to publish in print (including
pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an
untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her
reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn
or contempt of others.

No it doesn't, it simply equates to written word, distributed which causes damage to a party, whether she is a journalist is neither here nor there it's completely irrelevant. Slander is always spoken word.

legal defintions =/= common defintions. The definition I provided is the legal one.

"In print" doesn't mean written down, it means in the press. The names weren't revealed through a press outlet so it wouldn't be a libel suit, but a case of slander.

And the explaination I'm providing is a legal one. I should know. look up the case of McDonalds v Morris&Steel The libel case was based on the circulation of a pamphlet by two individuals. Neither were journalists. The only stipulation is that it must be written word, how that is conveyed or cirrculated, via print, text or internet is not an issue when determining if the case is one of libel or not.

Press outlets are not a determining factor in libel cases, printed word simply means in writing. However it is written.

Slander is always spoken word. Both are seperate aspects to pursue under defamation laws.

Modifié par billy the squid, 23 juillet 2012 - 02:13 .

[android654]

A pamphlet is "propaganda" and circulation of propaganda is considered print. You don't need a case to get the legal definition for a single term. Basic communication has been found to not be considered print, and is treated as common speech in the US.

[TheMufflon]

legion999 wrote...

Yeah it I was suprised they would report on a case from Kentucky. 

Why? Being morally outraged on behalf of white girls is a national passtime in all western countries.

[billy the squid]

So the circulation of a pamphlet is printed ipso facto it is written and therefore subject to libel laws. Journalism is not propaganda and yet is considered subject to libel, this (the case) was not a journalistic piece and is still subject to libel. Propaganda often falls foul of libel laws, not because it's propaganda, but because it's defamation. Huge difference.

This is not basic communication it is the circulation of defamatory details in written word which has caused damage, thus it's libel. Speech equates to slander. Online defamation is always libel in nature, the underlying nature is that it is written. Whether it is considered actual defamation or damaging is not relevant to this discussion.

Neither is print relevant to any determination of libel, only that it is written, typed, printed, etc However one terms it. You don't get round libel laws by using a different word.

[Neo DrKefka]

Ivandra Ceruden wrote...

@Neo DrKefka: Maybe you should try getting raped yourself first. You'd talk differently afterwards for sure. Things like these wouldn't happen if people weren't such friggin' morons.

You mean someone getting emotional and accusing you a crime whether it's murder, or rape? People get falsely convicted and sometimes they have no defense. So were the people of Rosewood idiots because they were black and a woman scorned cried rape and blamed the black people in which the entire town was murdered?

TJPags wrote...

Neo DrKefka wrote...

Here in IL the heart of the Democratic Party where minorities and women have more rights then a straight white man a couple years back a female accused a group of teenage white boys of gang raping her. 

Needless to say the state went on the wire to convict them everyone was convinced these boys were guilty and wanted to see that they went to jail even the media was going after these boys. 

Everyone plead guilty but one because he knew it was B.S even though everyone was against him and he had a tape proving it. Of course in Illinois it doesn't matter if you have a tape your a man and somehow doctored it like those posters on walls all over Chicago that Bush made everything in Chicago go wrong even people cheating on tests!

Rod Blagojevich the guy who whenever I told people stories about him to people out side of this state they claimed I was crazy and a troll and making up stuff until of course him selling Obama's seat made national headlines. But in this case Blagojevich wanted to quickly make a law so the rape video could not be watched. All the media outlets was condemning the Judge for considering to show this video.

Well the jury got to see the video and go figure the girl one night decided to take on three guys willingly in the tape and must of felt like a **** the next day and reported them. 

http://www.foxnews.c...,186456,00.html

Good thing about the case the kid walked because everyone who saw the video looked at her like she was a liar at that point. The bad part is the guy who plead guilty screwed up and since one guy made the video he was charged with cp though it helped everyone else it seemed.

One of the other guys was a European knowing he was screwed fled to Europe only returning when the juries saw the video and released the two defendants. However when he returned the state wanted to make an example of him and they convicted him of assault, not sexual assault because the DA was pissed and of course jumping bail so he went to jail for five years.

http://articles.chic...ild-pornography

Moral of the story is let these men have justice and don't believe a woman screaming rape many have suffered by vile women who use the word rape when scorned. Let's not forget what happened at Rosewood which is a horrible tale and let's not forget the Duke Case.

Things like this happen often . . . go look up the Duke Lacrosse case, for example.

New outlets do more harm then good sometimes, vilifying the alleged perpetrators while doing no investigation.

No alleged victim should be sanctified, and no alleged perpetrator villified, until the facts come out.

Assuming the story linked in the OP is accurate, this seems to be a clear case - emphasis on seems to be.  The perps tweeted photos of their assault.  Which makes them dumb, as well as *ssholes.

I still would like more information. For all we know they had a Bukkake and humiliated her and she was willing like what happened to the case I was speaking of earlier and then afterwards she felt bad and cried rape. Let the jury convict these people not the public.

These witch hunts are not needed.

Tigerblood and MilkShakes wrote...

ah well yes i believe in that and tehn after some time theyre simply killed.using resources to keep them alive to torture them is wastefull but in the end.keeping them locked up uses more.

 


So if some day you're convicted of rape I bet you'd change your tune, especially if you didn't do it and this happens all the time.

ADLegend21 wrote...

Are you kidding me? She puts two horrible people on blast and she's going to jail? sexism is alive and well it seems.

 

And if they didn't do it then what? You have a mob going after these guys, their friends or family or someone who was living around these people..I recommend you read about the Rosewood  tragedy.  

If you can't bother to read about it watch the movie but the moral of the story is more than just race. It's about a woman crying rape because she was scorned and she went and started a mob that killed many people.