MS Update for the Week Ending January 28, 2004

That's just sad. Maybe I should tell my Mom and my sisters about this. I wouldn't want them to end up victims too.

 

I don't know where you live and I don't know your mom or your sisters so I won't make any judgments, but I do know that around here, there are women who allow themselves to be victims by buying into the argument that sexual discrimination is perfectly OK and that sexism is nothing to be outraged about.

I think we should probably get back on topic before a mod comes in here though. PM me if you want to discuss it further.

 

The updates to the PM system will take place Saturday, January 31st.

eh? i haven't noticed any changes.

 

I don't know where you live and I don't know your mom or your sisters so I won't make any judgments, but I do know that around here, there are women who allow themselves to be victims by buying into the argument that sexual discrimination is perfectly OK and that sexism is nothing to be outraged about.


I had thought that Tennesse was quite a lot more progressive than North Carolina.

Out of line.

 

I think my point is that on this internet message board you are being descriminated against more because your constant whining and complaining than your gender.

Even if that were true, that's not a basis for discrimination.

 

won't try again--because that's why I dress that way, and you have no business telling me any differently.


I haven't. Stop playing the victim.

 

Ouch. I just got owned by my own learner.

 

Alright, enough of that. Please stay on topic.

 

User to celeb. is okay.

But why? Are celebrities not people? Do they cease to have feelings because they are famous?

I understand your point, but a person's legal status is different when they're a celebrity. A tabloid can publish nude photos of celebrities and print almost any gossip about them they like, but they'd be sued for libel if they planted a camera in a random guy's house and took pictures of him cheating on his wife. Is it fair to celebrities? No, but you could say they've accepted the burden of having hurtful things said about them sometimes by thrusting themselves into the limelight.

I'm aware of a situation on these boards where a member posted negative comments about a semi-celebrity in Star Wars fandom, who wasn't a member of the JC at the time, and the person later saw the remarks, registered here, and answered the post. So a situation that had originally been bashing, which is not necessarily a good thing to do and not something I would encourage, but isn't yet ban-worthy either, was re-classified as a flame war. I believe it resulted in at least one ban.

The bottom line is, the rules aren't here because the administration is mean and wants to restrict members from doing things for its own amusement. The rules are meant to be a balance between the desire of some JCers to do what they want and the desire of other JCers to not be insulted, offended, and otherwise made miserable by coming here. That's why flaming another user is punished while flaming someone who doesn't post here isn't. The former situation is hurtful to the person if they see it. Stopping people from doing the latter would be unnecessarily restrictive because what the celebrity doesn't see doesn't hurt them.

 

I understand your point, but a person's legal status is different when they're a celebrity. A tabloid can publish nude photos of celebrities and print almost any gossip about them they like, but they'd be sued for libel if they planted a camera in a random guy's house and took pictures of him cheating on his wife. Is it fair to celebrities?

Actually, there is no difference under the law. If a celebrity wanted to take tabloids to court, they could (and have). It's just a case that an equilibrium has been reached between them since while they lose some privacy, it is the same tabloids that keep them in the forefront of the public eye and help promote whatever it is that they want to promote.

 

Interesting. I was once told by a lawyer in my state that there was a difference between celebrities and others, but I guess it depends on your location.

 

There is nothing in any legislation (that I know of, I have to admit there are always funky things in some US states) that differentiates "celebrity status" (think of the poor sap who would have to legally define that). There are common law precendents that can be used to say that there is an expectation of different standards, but at the same time, there are just as many precendents that counter-act that.

 

Dingo...
"Actually, there is no difference under the law."

This is not true for the United States of America, which has the legal distinction of "public figure," and various relatives such as "involuntary public figure," "voluntary public figure," and "limited purpose public figure."

The "public figure status" carries with it an elevated burden of proof for the plaintiff. Public figures (government officials, celebrities, well-known individuals, and people involved in specific public controversies) are required to prove actual malice, a legal term which means the defendant knew his statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of his statement.

In general, in most jurisdictions of the USA, private individuals must show only that the defendant was negligent, that he failed to act with due care in the situation.

The burdens of proof for mere negligence and actual intent are substantially different.

Furthermore, the core issue of libel (permanent source such as print) and slander (verbal) claims are contingent upon the statement actually being false. And furthermore, for libel, the false statement must also be defamatory, again a legal term meaning that it must actually cause harm as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive.

So, a post that Carrie Fisher's "boobs are saggy," if Carrie Fisher's boobs are in fact saggy (and presumably a Judge or jury would have to make that determination of "fact"), would not even pass the initial requirement of libel.

 

The difference Beth is thinking of, Ding, is that celebrities have been ruled to have less fo a "right to privacy" than a normal citizen, as they intentionally waive that right by taking part in events and activities that expose themselves to the public (no, not in that way!)

However, the reason that this is all subjective is that there IS no "right to privacy" -- it's a fallacy and a construct created entirely by the courts, so they can interpret it however they wish.

But celebrities have the same protections on libel (this is all in print) as the rest of us.

EDIT: See above for Genghis' comments on requirements for libel.

 

The origins of "public figure" status generally can be traced to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1964 opinion on New York Times Company v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254:

"Raising as it does the possibility that a good-faith critic of government will be penalized for his criticism, the proposition relied on by the Alabama courts strikes at the very center of the constitutionally protected area of free expression. 30 We hold that such a proposition may not constitutionally be utilized to establish that an otherwise impersonal attack on governmental operations was a libel of an official responsible for those operations. Since it was relied on exclusively here, and there was no other evidence to connect the statements with respondent, the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support a finding that the statements referred to respondent."

Essentially suggesting that because there is a national commitment to uninhibited debate on public issues which may include ?vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials,? a libel law by placing the burden of truth on the speaker would hamper the rights of individuals to participate in uninhibited debate. Erroneous statements about public figures are thus constitutionally protected.

Since that time, "public figure" status has been extended beyond mere publically-elected officials to include all manner of celebrities and other people who may fall under the public eye.

An injury resulting from an erroneous statement does not cause the statement to lose its constitutional protection.

 

DarthOlsenTwins, can you not state an opinion, even a negative opinion, without bashing?

Yes, and I do quite often, but I still think people should be able to post their opinions as long as it is done in a non-threatening manner. If its a harsh critique, then deal with it as you deal with any other harsh critique in life.

The problem is that it seems to be that anything that doesn't sit well with you is either bashing, flaming, or flamebaiting. Frankly, from what I have seen, I don't trust the opinions of people like you to make a decision of what is and is not acceptable.

There is a way to do that.

To give you another example--on my last job, I heard one of the assistant principals talking to a student about this subject. He said, "You may think I'm ugly--but you keep it to yourself."

This is my point. It's called manners and decency, and thinking before you post.

a_g this is not a third grade classroom. We don't need people to constantly remind us to "play nice", as much as you seem to want to. Moderating "manners" would be quite distasteful to many people. Furthermore, if anyone actually flames anyone else, then they should be banned. We all know its against the rules before we post. But we also should be able to post our opinions, no matter how unsubstantiated they are, as long as they follow the guidelines of the messageboard.

If I think Lucas has become a hack, I should be able to post that. I see no reason why not.

Exactly what are you accomplishing, for example, by saying that Carrie Fisher has saggy boobs or George Lucas has ugly kids? You certainly aren't inviting discussion. Maybe you want to start a hatefest in which a bunch of howler monkeys throw excrement and scream "Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! Let's lynch Lucas' ugly kids!"

a) If its offtopic, then someone should lead them back to topic.

b) Posting about "lynching" anyone is bannable.

c) I liked Carrie Fishers boobs. They looked normal.

This is far different from a discussion in which, for example, Jedi_Learner might say, "I think Lucas didn't do a very good job directing the first two prequels and he should get someone else to direct Episode III." That invites discussion. People can agree and elaborate, or they can disagree and argue.

Do you see the difference?

Quite honestly, the only difference that I see is one argument appeals to you and the other does not.

The rules are meant to be a balance between the desire of some JCers to do what they want and the desire of other JCers to not be insulted, offended, and otherwise made miserable by coming here. That's why flaming another user is punished while flaming someone who doesn't post here isn't. The former situation is hurtful to the person if they see it. Stopping people from doing the latter would be unnecessarily restrictive because what the celebrity doesn't see doesn't hurt them.

Beth has the right idea. Oh, how I love her so.

 

I agree with Danny on this issue. And by "I agree with Danny on this issue" what I really mean is "Danny turns me on."

AYBABTU?

 

I agree with Danny on this issue. And by "I agree with Danny on this issue" what I really mean is "Danny turns me on."

That's not the rules!

 

I have no idea what we're discussing.

 

We're discussing how much I turn people on, which is a good topic, imo.

 

However, the reason that this is all subjective is that there IS no "right to privacy" -- it's a fallacy and a construct created entirely by the courts, so they can interpret it however they wish.

wrong. very wrong. despite the lack of an express and clearly defined "right to privacy" in the constitution, the privacy rights inherent in the constitution are easily and regularly interpreted by the u.s. supreme court.

the constitutional right to privacy arises out of an amalgam of clauses in four ammendments: 1. the first ammendment right to free expression and association. 2. the third ammendment prohibition against quartering soldiers in private homes. 3. the fourth ammendment right to be secure in one's person, house, and effects. 4. the ninth ammendment provision that "the enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

you're fooling yourself if you think there aren't MANY rights provided by the constitution that aren't literally expressed within the constitution in a single ammendment.

 

The origins of "public figure" status generally can be traced to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1964 opinion

As I said, the only things that say anything are from common law (ie anything decided by a court, not a legislative council).

Anyway, the 3 of us are saying the same thing, just from slightly different angles.

 

wrong. very wrong. despite the lack of an express and clearly defined "right to privacy" in the constitution, the privacy rights inherent in the constitution are easily and regularly interpreted by the u.s. supreme court.

Interpretation being the key phrase in your lack of rebuttal...

 

a_g this is not a third grade classroom.

Actually I teach middle school, and some folks around here are in middle school and many others act like they are.

We don't need people to constantly remind us to "play nice", as much as you seem to want to.

Evidently we do, otherwise this place wouldn't be so negative, mean and hateful.

Moderating "manners" would be quite distasteful to many people.

It would only be distasteful to people who don't have any manners.

Quite honestly, the only difference that I see is one argument appeals to you and the other does not.

Actually, the example I posted-- "I think Lucas should get someone else to direct Episode III and he didn't do a very good job with the prequels" --is an argument that does not appeal to me at all.

But there are ways to disagree without being a jerk about it. The difference is that some people would prefer not to consider anyone else's feelings and would rather exercise their God-given right to be jerks.

And no, I'm not talking about you. I think you and I have only been in one thread together recently.

The rules are meant to be a balance between the desire of some JCers to do what they want and the desire of other JCers to not be insulted, offended, and otherwise made miserable by coming here. That's why flaming another user is punished while flaming someone who doesn't post here isn't. The former situation is hurtful to the person if they see it. Stopping people from doing the latter would be unnecessarily restrictive because what the celebrity doesn't see doesn't hurt them.

Beth has the right idea. Oh, how I love her so.

Interesting--I thought she was right as well, and I've boldfaced the reasons why.

First off, people don't have the "right" to come here and act like jerks--express your opinion all you want, but be civil about it. This is not difficult, but it's almost laughable that people come into Coms in order to defend their divine right to bully people on the boards.

Secondly, how do you know that Star Wars celebrities don't look at these boards? This is one of the largest Star Wars sites on the web. If I were George Lucas or Rick McCallum, I might come over and see what people have said about me (and if I saw comments about my "ugly children", I'd have the place shut down).

Frankly, from what I have seen, I don't trust the opinions of people like you to make a decision of what is and is not acceptable.

Frankly, from what I have seen, I'd be insulted if you did trust my opinion of what is and isn't acceptable.

 

"Actually I teach middle school, and some folks around here are in middle school and many others act like they are. "

So again, you're agaisnt rudeness...unelss it;s you being rude and condescending?

And there is no need for the 'actually'. DOT didn;t say you did teach third grade.