thats just it though, you can petition the government in various ways
1) through a wide public forum (eg the news, or a public petition sent to a body as a whole)
2) through contact with an appropriate office (such as majority leader of the senate for concerns that fall in that job's purview)
3) via your elected representatives (that is why they're elected, to represent you and your views to the government as a whole)
"Maybe he should have sued in the UK instead of NY, since truth is no defense against defamation there?"
Say what?
YES IT IS!
I had to undergo a crash course in UK defamation law back in 2012 when the UK Intellectual Property Office made claims of defamation against consulation submissions from me back in 2012 (which is BEFORE the easing of the law)
under the pre-2013 standard (the 1952 law) the section on justification read "In an action for libel or slander in respect of words containing two or more distinct charges against the plaintiff, a defence of justification shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff’s reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges."
and the next section, about 'fair comment' said:
"In an action for libel or slander in respect of words consisting partly of allegations of fact and partly of expression of opinion, a defence of fair comment shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every allegation of fact is not proved if the expression of opinion is fair comment having regard to such of the facts alleged or referred to in the words complained of as are proved"
So, two sections, both saying that the exceptions do not get discarded if not everything can be proven to be factual, but are based on the facts that can be proven.
So, amazingly, facts actually did exempt things from defamation.
It just made things kinda complex in defending it.
Ok, that was the BAD law, what about the post 2013 law?
Well, amazingly enough, it lists defenses, and the first defense listed, is 'truth'.
"Truth
(1)It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.
(2)Subsection (3) applies in an action for defamation if the statement complained of conveys two or more distinct imputations.
(3)If one or more of the imputations is not shown to be substantially true, the defence under this section does not fail if, having regard to the imputations which are shown to be substantially true, the imputations which are not shown to be substantially true do not seriously harm the claimant's reputation.
(4)The common law defence of justification is abolished and, accordingly, section 5 of the Defamation Act 1952 (justification) is repealed."
(justification is the bit I quoted earlier)
then there's more defenses, including 'its an opinion' or that it's in the public interest, or that it's privileged.
Hell, there's even a variant of CDA230 there,
"Operators of websites
(1)This section applies where an action for defamation is brought against the operator of a website in respect of a statement posted on the website.
(2)It is a defence for the operator to show that it was not the operator who posted the statement on the website.
(3)The defence is defeated if the claimant shows that—
(a)it was not possible for the claimant to identify the person who posted the statement,
(b)the claimant gave the operator a notice of complaint in relation to the statement, and
(c)the operator failed to respond to the notice of complaint in accordance with any provision contained in regulations.
(4)For the purposes of subsection (3)(a), it is possible for a claimant to “identify” a person only if the claimant has sufficient information to bring proceedings against the person."
So, er, yeah, you've always had 'truth as a defense' in defamation cases, even in the UK. The problem was that pre 2013 it was awkward, legally, to put that in a response under the justification system.
oh, and it removed the libel-tourism aspect too, with section 9 "Action against a person not domiciled in the UK or a Member State etc"
"(1)This section applies to an action for defamation against a person who is not domiciled—
(a)in the United Kingdom;
(b)in another Member State; or
(c)in a state which is for the time being a contracting party to the Lugano Convention.
(2)A court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action to which this section applies unless the court is satisfied that, of all the places in which the statement complained of has been published, England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place in which to bring an action in respect of the statement."
And that would be a fail there.
So, er, you've made a statement of purported fact, that was false and maliciously attacks the uk legal system, libelling it. Oh dear, it seems you're in the brown and sticky stuff now! :-)
Amazingly, 13526 must be the only EO by Obama trump didn't try and throw in the shredder, which is odd, because most presidents have redone that EO by now.
13526 was by Obama and done December 09 replacing
13292 by Bush-43, which was done March 21 03, which replaced
12958 done by Clinton in 95...
So either he doesn't know about the EO (or how classification actually works, which is extremely improbable given he 'knows more about it than the generals'); OR hes just tweeting 'for the lulz' to troll people, and the court.
They're wondering why if the US cops can't avoid due process, and since the Special 301 has extended that to copyright in the eyes of the US Gov, why it shouldn't be true across the rest of WIPO.
One day I'll get around to writing down the story of when I tried to set up a Superleague v NFL charity event when I was working in Cali, and the horror and panic on the NFL players when I was pitching at them.
Re: Which came first and which will be there last?
No, the teams do not move. That's a uniquely American thing, caused by there being very few teams by design.
The UK soccer scene has 5 professional leagues each with 20+ teams, and at the end of each season the bottom one or two go down a level, and the top ones go up. So a good team, over time goes up the leagues. And this is just England. 100 teams, with a bunch more local/part time teams and leagues. So no, no moving around. if you want to a premiership team in your city, you have to get the existing team there up to grade.
The city of Liverpool has two premiership teams, Everton is the older club (1879), but it was based at Anfield (liverpool's ground from 1884 on, and was a founder team of the football league in 1788. In 1892, a business dispute over the stadium and business interests saw a rival entity started which tried for a business takeover of the 20,000 capacity stadium, which ended up becoming liverpool football club. Everton left anfield, and set up a new stadium on the other side of Stanley Park called Goodison.
And Liverpool has stayed at anfield, and everton at goodison ever since (although Everton is looking at a new stadium on the riverfront, instead of literally across the park from their rivals)
Gee, it's almost as if this has been drilled into me by my father, and his wife (who's the capacity control officer for Goodison)
Now, there has been one example that I can think of of a more substantial move, and that was when Wimbledon FC moved from.. Wimbledon (a borough of London) to Milton Keynes in the early 90s, This was in large part due to the Taylor report, which was a stadium safety report following the Hillsborough disaster (which the CCO now tries to prevent) that said their stadium was unsafe - many at the time had extensive terraces or 'stands', where people stood. The taylor report said the stadiums now had to be all-seater, which their 1912-era stadium couldn't be converted to in a cost-effective manner. However a developer in Milton Keynes was offering to build a new stadium as part of a complex, so it was that or the end of the club. So they got special permission to move 50 miles away, and became the Milton Keynes Dons. Eventually a new team was formed by the locals called AFC Wimbledon, and they established themselves back in the borough.
Oh, and Wimbledon in its late years had one of the few footballers Americans might have heard of - Vinny Jones played for them in the late 80s at the peak of his career, and his film roles are a reflection of how he was on the field.
Does that answer things? Basically the only time in recent memory a upper-level team moved around, was because their old stadium no longer met legal minimum standards and this was their only option to continue, and still only got a 2-1 vote in approval.
(then there's the whole thing about teams running their own junior programs, with no school/educational tie-ins.)
Thinking on, whatever lawyer suggested this better watch he doesn't get a copy of the S*n shoved up him and set fire to. Same would probably go for the wool that thought hiring that lawyer was a good idea.
As a scouser (one that grew up with anfield visible from his bedroom window), no, just no.
Tired of hearing about the damned team already, just this year, i'm already sick of it. Every bandwagon-jumper, etc. Even moreso than when I lived there.
I can also say, this aint really news there yet, but looks both ways gimmie a few hours, ok?
Just, oh dear. I mean, just how big for their boots have Everton Reserves gotten?
He's in New York, so a 'professional' can't form an LLC there, instead they need to form a PSLLC (professional service limited liability company). They're like an LLC but with one difference - they don't protect against a professional's OWN malpractice, but do indemnify others in the PSLLC (just a PLLC in most states) from your malpractice (and vice versa, you're protected from the malpractice of others in your PSLLC).
So, here's the FUN thing. If the Rule 68 thing happens, and it ends up costing his client tens of thousands, that's almost certainly malpractice, in that he acted in a manner he should have known better than to do. Especially with running up the billing as an attempt to vexatiously litigate. That is not a matter of reasonable care, and so it's not a good outlook for him.
Look, the reason why they're not infiltrating those groups is something like this
"Hey dick, what are you doing here?"
"Oh hey Tom, nothing nothing"
"Hey, wait a minute, didn't you just trasfer out of patrol into Major Crimes? I think my Sergeant mentioned it when we were on patrol yesterday..."
And from Adrian Schoolchild, to Donna Jane Watts, back to Serpico, we know how cops feel about informing on cops.
That's not to say all cops are in these far right groups, but some are. And the problem is that with police Omerta, they can't risk informing on any, because they're always buddies with 5 other cops, and then it goes on.
We got it 5 years ago when we got a TV set (the last time we'd had any tv service was back in 2006, on a 19" zenith). It was great, used it all the time.
it's been loaded maybe a dozen times in the past 3 months. There's nothing on there any more, except 3rd rate shows. The good stuff is gone. They're now just throwing money at any old crap. and the one-way scrolling on the xbox app is also annoying as hell.
We've spent more time on hulu this past year, but with the fragmentation, we're thinking about torrenting again.
On the post: Knight Institute Warns Rep. Ocasio-Cortez That She, Like Trump, Can't Block People On Twitter
Re: Re:
thats just it though, you can petition the government in various ways
1) through a wide public forum (eg the news, or a public petition sent to a body as a whole)
2) through contact with an appropriate office (such as majority leader of the senate for concerns that fall in that job's purview)
3) via your elected representatives (that is why they're elected, to represent you and your views to the government as a whole)
On the post: Top MPAA Lawyer, Mastermind Behind Its Plan To Attack The Internet, Arrested On Blackmail And Sexual Assault Charges
Sleezebag acts like sleezebag
film at 11
On the post: Devin Nunes Discovery Requests Against Twitter, A Fake Cow, And Liz Mair Show Just How Much A Fishing Expedition He's On
I guess he's going fishing now, to practice for when he's not re-elected next year...
On the post: Judge Dismisses Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Defamation Lawsuit Against The New York Times
Re: Re: Re: Is it Defamation?
its just the process.
it's the us equivalent of what happened here, where the things were true.
it's just a different process for doing the same thing. in the US, they'll just say 'this is factual', its the same thing.
On the post: Judge Dismisses Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Defamation Lawsuit Against The New York Times
Re: Re: Re: Is it Defamation?
maybe it's the overwork, but 'who'?
On the post: Giant Copyright Troll, Malibu Media, Sued By Investors
I... I just can't.
Not today.
You know that gif of Nathan Fillion (you know the one) - that, in British....
On the post: Judge Dismisses Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Defamation Lawsuit Against The New York Times
Re: Is it Defamation?
"Maybe he should have sued in the UK instead of NY, since truth is no defense against defamation there?"
Say what?
YES IT IS!
I had to undergo a crash course in UK defamation law back in 2012 when the UK Intellectual Property Office made claims of defamation against consulation submissions from me back in 2012 (which is BEFORE the easing of the law)
under the pre-2013 standard (the 1952 law) the section on justification read "In an action for libel or slander in respect of words containing two or more distinct charges against the plaintiff, a defence of justification shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff’s reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges."
and the next section, about 'fair comment' said:
"In an action for libel or slander in respect of words consisting partly of allegations of fact and partly of expression of opinion, a defence of fair comment shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every allegation of fact is not proved if the expression of opinion is fair comment having regard to such of the facts alleged or referred to in the words complained of as are proved"
So, two sections, both saying that the exceptions do not get discarded if not everything can be proven to be factual, but are based on the facts that can be proven.
So, amazingly, facts actually did exempt things from defamation.
It just made things kinda complex in defending it.
Ok, that was the BAD law, what about the post 2013 law?
Well, amazingly enough, it lists defenses, and the first defense listed, is 'truth'.
"Truth
(1)It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.
(2)Subsection (3) applies in an action for defamation if the statement complained of conveys two or more distinct imputations.
(3)If one or more of the imputations is not shown to be substantially true, the defence under this section does not fail if, having regard to the imputations which are shown to be substantially true, the imputations which are not shown to be substantially true do not seriously harm the claimant's reputation.
(4)The common law defence of justification is abolished and, accordingly, section 5 of the Defamation Act 1952 (justification) is repealed."
(justification is the bit I quoted earlier)
then there's more defenses, including 'its an opinion' or that it's in the public interest, or that it's privileged.
Hell, there's even a variant of CDA230 there,
"Operators of websites
(1)This section applies where an action for defamation is brought against the operator of a website in respect of a statement posted on the website.
(2)It is a defence for the operator to show that it was not the operator who posted the statement on the website.
(3)The defence is defeated if the claimant shows that—
(a)it was not possible for the claimant to identify the person who posted the statement,
(b)the claimant gave the operator a notice of complaint in relation to the statement, and
(c)the operator failed to respond to the notice of complaint in accordance with any provision contained in regulations.
(4)For the purposes of subsection (3)(a), it is possible for a claimant to “identify” a person only if the claimant has sufficient information to bring proceedings against the person."
So, er, yeah, you've always had 'truth as a defense' in defamation cases, even in the UK. The problem was that pre 2013 it was awkward, legally, to put that in a response under the justification system.
oh, and it removed the libel-tourism aspect too, with section 9 "Action against a person not domiciled in the UK or a Member State etc"
"(1)This section applies to an action for defamation against a person who is not domiciled—
(a)in the United Kingdom;
(b)in another Member State; or
(c)in a state which is for the time being a contracting party to the Lugano Convention.
(2)A court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action to which this section applies unless the court is satisfied that, of all the places in which the statement complained of has been published, England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place in which to bring an action in respect of the statement."
And that would be a fail there.
So, er, you've made a statement of purported fact, that was false and maliciously attacks the uk legal system, libelling it. Oh dear, it seems you're in the brown and sticky stuff now! :-)
On the post: Reaping What They Sowed: Recording Industry Now Quite Upset About Copyright Run Amok
hmm, just how similar are they is the question.
And then, using my amazing magical mathematical skills, I wonder how many songs you could possible have and not be infringing.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Banana Costume Is Infringing
This ruling's a proper 'narna!
On the post: Judge Not Impressed With DOJ's Attempt To Claim Presidential Tweets And Orders Don't Mean Anything
Re: Re: Speculation
Amazingly, 13526 must be the only EO by Obama trump didn't try and throw in the shredder, which is odd, because most presidents have redone that EO by now.
13526 was by Obama and done December 09 replacing
13292 by Bush-43, which was done March 21 03, which replaced
12958 done by Clinton in 95...
So either he doesn't know about the EO (or how classification actually works, which is extremely improbable given he 'knows more about it than the generals'); OR hes just tweeting 'for the lulz' to troll people, and the court.
On the post: WIPO Says Websites In Its Pirate Database Don't Deserve Due Process Because 'They Know What They're Doing'
They're wondering why if the US cops can't avoid due process, and since the Special 301 has extended that to copyright in the eyes of the US Gov, why it shouldn't be true across the rest of WIPO.
On the post: Fans, Indie Soccer Clubs Slam Liverpool FC For Trying To Trademark 'Liverpool'
Re:
we don't use the word liverpool on postage.
it's 'town'. or in less formal settings "town, laa"
On the post: Fans, Indie Soccer Clubs Slam Liverpool FC For Trying To Trademark 'Liverpool'
Re:
yup.
One day I'll get around to writing down the story of when I tried to set up a Superleague v NFL charity event when I was working in Cali, and the horror and panic on the NFL players when I was pitching at them.
On the post: Fans, Indie Soccer Clubs Slam Liverpool FC For Trying To Trademark 'Liverpool'
Re: Re: Re: Which came first and which will be there last?
US, Canada, same thing isn't it?
On the post: Fans, Indie Soccer Clubs Slam Liverpool FC For Trying To Trademark 'Liverpool'
Re: Which came first and which will be there last?
No, the teams do not move. That's a uniquely American thing, caused by there being very few teams by design.
The UK soccer scene has 5 professional leagues each with 20+ teams, and at the end of each season the bottom one or two go down a level, and the top ones go up. So a good team, over time goes up the leagues. And this is just England. 100 teams, with a bunch more local/part time teams and leagues. So no, no moving around. if you want to a premiership team in your city, you have to get the existing team there up to grade.
The city of Liverpool has two premiership teams, Everton is the older club (1879), but it was based at Anfield (liverpool's ground from 1884 on, and was a founder team of the football league in 1788. In 1892, a business dispute over the stadium and business interests saw a rival entity started which tried for a business takeover of the 20,000 capacity stadium, which ended up becoming liverpool football club. Everton left anfield, and set up a new stadium on the other side of Stanley Park called Goodison.
And Liverpool has stayed at anfield, and everton at goodison ever since (although Everton is looking at a new stadium on the riverfront, instead of literally across the park from their rivals)
Gee, it's almost as if this has been drilled into me by my father, and his wife (who's the capacity control officer for Goodison)
Now, there has been one example that I can think of of a more substantial move, and that was when Wimbledon FC moved from.. Wimbledon (a borough of London) to Milton Keynes in the early 90s, This was in large part due to the Taylor report, which was a stadium safety report following the Hillsborough disaster (which the CCO now tries to prevent) that said their stadium was unsafe - many at the time had extensive terraces or 'stands', where people stood. The taylor report said the stadiums now had to be all-seater, which their 1912-era stadium couldn't be converted to in a cost-effective manner. However a developer in Milton Keynes was offering to build a new stadium as part of a complex, so it was that or the end of the club. So they got special permission to move 50 miles away, and became the Milton Keynes Dons. Eventually a new team was formed by the locals called AFC Wimbledon, and they established themselves back in the borough.
Oh, and Wimbledon in its late years had one of the few footballers Americans might have heard of - Vinny Jones played for them in the late 80s at the peak of his career, and his film roles are a reflection of how he was on the field.
Does that answer things? Basically the only time in recent memory a upper-level team moved around, was because their old stadium no longer met legal minimum standards and this was their only option to continue, and still only got a 2-1 vote in approval.
(then there's the whole thing about teams running their own junior programs, with no school/educational tie-ins.)
On the post: Fans, Indie Soccer Clubs Slam Liverpool FC For Trying To Trademark 'Liverpool'
Re: yeah... NO, ya blerts!
Thinking on, whatever lawyer suggested this better watch he doesn't get a copy of the S*n shoved up him and set fire to. Same would probably go for the wool that thought hiring that lawyer was a good idea.
On the post: Fans, Indie Soccer Clubs Slam Liverpool FC For Trying To Trademark 'Liverpool'
yeah... NO, ya blerts!
As a scouser (one that grew up with anfield visible from his bedroom window), no, just no.
Tired of hearing about the damned team already, just this year, i'm already sick of it. Every bandwagon-jumper, etc. Even moreso than when I lived there.
I can also say, this aint really news there yet, but looks both ways gimmie a few hours, ok?
Just, oh dear. I mean, just how big for their boots have Everton Reserves gotten?
On the post: Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz May Have Cost His Client A Ton Of Money, And Set An Expensive Precedent For Copyright Trolls
Re: shell companies
He's in New York, so a 'professional' can't form an LLC there, instead they need to form a PSLLC (professional service limited liability company). They're like an LLC but with one difference - they don't protect against a professional's OWN malpractice, but do indemnify others in the PSLLC (just a PLLC in most states) from your malpractice (and vice versa, you're protected from the malpractice of others in your PSLLC).
So, here's the FUN thing. If the Rule 68 thing happens, and it ends up costing his client tens of thousands, that's almost certainly malpractice, in that he acted in a manner he should have known better than to do. Especially with running up the billing as an attempt to vexatiously litigate. That is not a matter of reasonable care, and so it's not a good outlook for him.
On the post: LAPD Infiltrated An Anti-Fascist Protest Group Because The First Amendment Is Apparently Just A Suggestion
Look, the reason why they're not infiltrating those groups is something like this
"Hey dick, what are you doing here?"
"Oh hey Tom, nothing nothing"
"Hey, wait a minute, didn't you just trasfer out of patrol into Major Crimes? I think my Sergeant mentioned it when we were on patrol yesterday..."
And from Adrian Schoolchild, to Donna Jane Watts, back to Serpico, we know how cops feel about informing on cops.
That's not to say all cops are in these far right groups, but some are. And the problem is that with police Omerta, they can't risk informing on any, because they're always buddies with 5 other cops, and then it goes on.
And yes, we know White supremacists and other far-right groups mix, and it doesn't matter if it's cops joining far right groups, or far right group members joining the cops. It doesn't matter either way it's an internal investigation, and that's bad for the 'branding'.
On the post: Netflix Sees First Subscriber Losses Ever
We're about to cancel.
We got it 5 years ago when we got a TV set (the last time we'd had any tv service was back in 2006, on a 19" zenith). It was great, used it all the time.
it's been loaded maybe a dozen times in the past 3 months. There's nothing on there any more, except 3rd rate shows. The good stuff is gone. They're now just throwing money at any old crap. and the one-way scrolling on the xbox app is also annoying as hell.
We've spent more time on hulu this past year, but with the fragmentation, we're thinking about torrenting again.
Next >>