What the hell has happened to rec.woodworking?!?!

Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 3:50am (EST+5) [email protected] (Rich=A0Andrews)
wisely says:
The best that you can do is to *NOT* reply to their postings and to
quietly email a copy of the offensive posting with *all* headers to the
abuse address and/or ISP in question.

Yep, exactly right. And when you do, if the post is libelous, make
sure to tell the ISP that, and ask them to kick the guilty party off.
That's important.

Guess who's been checking google about internet harassment and
libel. Hehehehe

From WordNet (r) 1.7 (wn)
libelous adj : (used of statements) harmful and often untrue; tending to
discredit or malign [syn: {calumniatory}, {calumnious}, {defamatory},
{denigrative}, {denigrating}, {denigratory}, {libellous}, {slanderous}]


JOAT
My aim is to get through life peacefully, with as little interferrnce
from human beings as possible.

Life just ain't life without good music. - JOAT
Web Page Update 23 Oct 2003.
Some tunes I like.
http://community-2.webtv.net/Jakofalltrades/SOMETUNESILIKE/

In article <[email protected]>,
alexy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] () wrote:
>>>In article <WuOnb.6410$P%[email protected]>,
>>>Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>[email protected] (T.) wrote:
>>>>> Guess who's been checking google about internet harassment and
>>>>>libel. Hehehehe
>>>>>
>>>>>From WordNet (r) 1.7 (wn)
>>>>>libelous adj : (used of statements) harmful and often untrue;
>>>>
>>>>"Often" untrue?? The inclusion of this word makes WordNet a bit suspect as a
>>>>source of legal advice. Under U.S. law, truth is an _absolute_
>defense against
>>>
>>>>a charge of libel or slander. IOW, *only* untrue statements can be libelous.
>>>
>>>FALSE TO FACT. Truth is *NOT* an absolute defense. There's a famous
>>>California lawsuit, known as "The Case of the Red Kimono" , that is the
>>>definitive precedent for situations where truth is -not- a successful
>>>defense. Note: the "Red Kimono" case did go to the Fed. Appellate Ct.
>>>in Calif., thus it -is- "binding precedent" in that circuit. And has
>>>been cited numerous times in other circuits as well.
>>
>>http://www.google.
>>com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22case+of+the+red+kimono%22
>>
>>"Your search - "case of the red kimono" - did not match any documents."
>>
>>Nice try.
>
>"Red Kimona California" turned up lots of hits, such as
>www.moviediva.com/MD_root/reviewpages/MDRedKimona.htm . They refer to
>a suit against the producers of the film. Relevance to the current
>discussion I will leave up to the lawyer types here.

Yup. that's the suit.

In news:SnPnb.6418$P%[email protected],
Doug Miller <[email protected]> spewed:
<snip>
>>
>> FALSE TO FACT. Truth is *NOT* an absolute defense. There's a famous
>> California lawsuit, known as "The Case of the Red Kimono" , that is
>> the definitive precedent for situations where truth is -not- a
>> successful defense. Note: the "Red Kimono" case did go to the Fed.
>> Appellate Ct. in Calif., thus it -is- "binding precedent" in that
>> circuit. And has been cited numerous times in other circuits as well.
>
> http://www.google.
> com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22case+of+the+red+kimono%22
>
> "Your search - "case of the red kimono" - did not match any
> documents."
>
> Nice try.

Try "red kimono lawsuit". You'll do better.

Saudade (still lol....)

In article <WuOnb.6410$P%[email protected]>,
Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] (T.) wrote:
>> Guess who's been checking google about internet harassment and
>>libel. Hehehehe
>>
>>From WordNet (r) 1.7 (wn)
>>libelous adj : (used of statements) harmful and often untrue;
>
>"Often" untrue?? The inclusion of this word makes WordNet a bit suspect as a
>source of legal advice. Under U.S. law, truth is an _absolute_ defense against
>a charge of libel or slander. IOW, *only* untrue statements can be libelous.

FALSE TO FACT. Truth is *NOT* an absolute defense. There's a famous
California lawsuit, known as "The Case of the Red Kimono" , that is the
definitive precedent for situations where truth is -not- a successful
defense. Note: the "Red Kimono" case did go to the Fed. Appellate Ct.
in Calif., thus it -is- "binding precedent" in that circuit. And has
been cited numerous times in other circuits as well.

"Truth" _is_ *almost*always* a valid defense against libel/slander in the
United States, yes. *BUT*NOT*ALWAYS*.

The situation in other jurisdictions _is_ considerably different.
Notably, in U.K., and U.K.-derived law.

>Not that this is relevant to your situation, Joat -- it seems obvious that
>you've been libelled, and pretty seriously at that.


>
>--
>Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] () wrote:
>In article <WuOnb.6410$P%[email protected]>,
>Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>[email protected] (T.) wrote:
>>> Guess who's been checking google about internet harassment and
>>>libel. Hehehehe
>>>
>>>From WordNet (r) 1.7 (wn)
>>>libelous adj : (used of statements) harmful and often untrue;
>>
>>"Often" untrue?? The inclusion of this word makes WordNet a bit suspect as a
>>source of legal advice. Under U.S. law, truth is an _absolute_ defense against
>
>>a charge of libel or slander. IOW, *only* untrue statements can be libelous.
>
>FALSE TO FACT. Truth is *NOT* an absolute defense. There's a famous
>California lawsuit, known as "The Case of the Red Kimono" , that is the
>definitive precedent for situations where truth is -not- a successful
>defense. Note: the "Red Kimono" case did go to the Fed. Appellate Ct.
>in Calif., thus it -is- "binding precedent" in that circuit. And has
>been cited numerous times in other circuits as well.

http://www.google.
com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22case+of+the+red+kimono%22

"Your search - "case of the red kimono" - did not match any documents."

Nice try.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (T.) wrote:
> Guess who's been checking google about internet harassment and
>libel. Hehehehe
>
>From WordNet (r) 1.7 (wn)
>libelous adj : (used of statements) harmful and often untrue;

"Often" untrue?? The inclusion of this word makes WordNet a bit suspect as a
source of legal advice. Under U.S. law, truth is an _absolute_ defense against
a charge of libel or slander. IOW, *only* untrue statements can be libelous.

Not that this is relevant to your situation, Joat -- it seems obvious that
you've been libelled, and pretty seriously at that.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Many of us here appreciate JOAT so much that he has a permenant place in our
kill files. While what he posts could not be considered spam, I for one,
consider it a waste of space.


"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
> Claiming "JOAT is a spammer" is libellous and untrue on the basis of
> his regular (and appreciated) posts to the wreck.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:01:35 GMT, [email protected] ()
wrote:

>Truth is *NOT* an absolute defense. There's a famous
>California lawsuit, known as "The Case of the Red Kimono" , that is the
>definitive precedent for situations where truth is -not- a successful
>defense.

The Red Kimono case hinged on the disclosure of an old fact being
embarassing and harmful to someone's current life, where this ancient
fact was no longer true or relevant. So I'm risking a libel suit by
disclosing that Dubya Bush used to be a drunken coke head with a
high-speed parking problem, when he's now the highly regarded pillar
of wisdom that we know so well.

Claiming "JOAT is a spammer" is libellous and untrue on the basis of
his regular (and appreciated) posts to the wreck. However should he be
unmasked as the secret head of a huge V1agra spam-sales operation, the
red kimono defence _still_ wouldn't apply, as he would be _currently_
that modern figure of hate, the spammer.

--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] () wrote:
>>In article <WuOnb.6410$P%[email protected]>,
>>Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>[email protected] (T.) wrote:
>>>> Guess who's been checking google about internet harassment and
>>>>libel. Hehehehe
>>>>
>>>>From WordNet (r) 1.7 (wn)
>>>>libelous adj : (used of statements) harmful and often untrue;
>>>
>>>"Often" untrue?? The inclusion of this word makes WordNet a bit suspect as a
>>>source of legal advice. Under U.S. law, truth is an _absolute_ defense against
>>
>>>a charge of libel or slander. IOW, *only* untrue statements can be libelous.
>>
>>FALSE TO FACT. Truth is *NOT* an absolute defense. There's a famous
>>California lawsuit, known as "The Case of the Red Kimono" , that is the
>>definitive precedent for situations where truth is -not- a successful
>>defense. Note: the "Red Kimono" case did go to the Fed. Appellate Ct.
>>in Calif., thus it -is- "binding precedent" in that circuit. And has
>>been cited numerous times in other circuits as well.
>
>http://www.google.
>com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22case+of+the+red+kimono%22
>
>"Your search - "case of the red kimono" - did not match any documents."
>
>Nice try.

"Red Kimona California" turned up lots of hits, such as
www.moviediva.com/MD_root/reviewpages/MDRedKimona.htm . They refer to
a suit against the producers of the film. Relevance to the current
discussion I will leave up to the lawyer types here.
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

[email protected] wrote:

>
>
> FALSE TO FACT. Truth is *NOT* an absolute defense. There's a famous
> California lawsuit, known as "The Case of the Red Kimono" , that is the
> definitive precedent for situations where truth is -not- a successful
> defense.


The decision can be read here:

http://www.wooster.edu/economics/js/law_archive/reid.pdf

As stated in the decision if the movie stopped or limited it's self to
what was contained within the public record from the murder trial they
would have not performed an actionable offense.

The movie steeped outside the public record and without the woman's
permission 1) told of a life the woman had risen above thus violating
her privacy, 2) used her real name and 3) photographs of her in
advertising thus destroying her life. 4) The photographer was
'contracted' to make graphics by the woman who then apparently paid for
them. The date of these photographs aren't addressed in the decision.
The photographer apparently made the photographs available to a third
party which was a breach of contract.


From the decision:
"The use of appellant's true name in connection with the incidents of
her former life in the plot and advertisements was unnecessary and
indelicate and a willful and wanton disregard of that charity which
should actuate us in our social intercourse and which should keep us
from unnecessarily holding another up to the scorn and contempt of
upright members of society."



Seems the people who made the movie set out to further their own agenda
without regard to whom they may ruin or destroy in the process.