^This. You've brought no evidence to show us, Jhon.
I was called into the office; had I been a new employee on probation or a temp I'd have been fired. When a certain other (very noisy) person got involved, she contacted my employers too. The legal team were involved. It was a very scary time for me and I had to contact my local police and ask them to write an email and a tweet to advise that I wasn't under criminal investigation.
Had I been looking for another job at the time, I'd have been rejected out of hand; being a target makes other people nervous that the troll might do the same to them. It's actually not the first time I've been targeted, so of course the anxiety from the last wave of attacks came rushing back to haunt me and compounded the hell out of my distress because I actually did lose my job that time. I nearly lost my holiday pay, too. I had to take them to a tribunal to get it. When it happened again, I knew what to expect and I was afraid. In the end, my employers were supportive and once I produced the email and tweet from the police, they let it go. I was promoted later on that year.
I nearly shut my blog down over it; the troll was trying to silence me after all, and since I feared being constantly targeted and therefore being at risk of losing my job, that was on the table. In the end, he disappeared when I used his own posts to discredit him.
People didn't help me because they liked me or because I'm female. They helped me because I told the truth and made my case in a reasonable, rational manner with evidence. It took a while to get it all down as I also had to wait for the internet cache to clear.
As for being accused of heinous crimes against children, etc., the accusations usually fall apart when you demand evidence. It takes a lot of guts to stand your ground, but I know a guy who did -- I called him The Snitch because the lies were told about him because he'd ratted on The Fraud, who had made a false claim to his insurance company. When the police showed up, he answered their questions and the case fell apart because The Fraud couldn't keep his story straight.
The man who was beaten up was the victim of a whispering campaign so didn't have a chance to put his side of the story to anyone.
"I just post here to let the lawyers in question know that one day I'll be posting this stuff on online review sites, with full evidence to back it up, under my own name, and then they'll realize who my attorneys are, at a point where my cash position will likely be at least as strong if not MUCH stronger than his."
None of that makes any sense. What you're saying is, you'll post lies about this site on review sites. The reputable ones will take them down on receipt of a counter-notice proving that you're wrong while the less credible ones will let Mike leave a counter-notice stating that you're full of crap.
Should you be stupid enough to go legal, discovery will be a hoot, given all the lies and threats you've posted.
Not always. A guy accused of being a pedophile or rape will have a difficult time ever getting out from under those accusations no matter what facts he can present to clear himself. Some false accusations create an emotional reaction in a lot of people that facts and logic will never overcome, especially in certain professions like teaching. Defending yourself with facts in emotionally charged accusations doesn't level the field in countering the accuser just by virtue of having the same opportunity to present those facts to the same audience.
I've seen cases where people have had serious charges made against them. Ultimately, they were able to prove their accusers wrong. In one case, it was a neighbour getting revenge on a man who ratted on him for insurance fraud -- and presented a photo of the man working on his roof as evidence that he was totally able to move around freely. The neighbour accused him of messing with his kids and called the police. The snitch was able to prove he was nowhere near the kid when the alleged incidents took place, and the accusation fell apart. The fraud got into more trouble for wasting police time.
Unless the accusations go public, truth will usually save the innocent. In the other case, a man was beaten so severely he had to leave town and change his name to escape the vigilantes.
I wouldn't stand a chance in a duel. Not many of us are into fencing and martial arts, etc. How could duelling help us if we didn't have a sociopath on hand to kill someone else for saying nasty things about us?
Unfortunately, in the real world, most people are ruled by emotions instead of facts and logic.
This is true. And damn, they love soundbites. It works a lot better than carefully explained policies. :(
This is something you can use to your advantage. I leaned on the fact that the troll had contacted my employers and actively tried to get me fired. Portraying myself as an honest worker abused by a random troll and in danger of losing her job was the key to getting the crap taken down.
If someone calls you a snot-eating bin-dipper, for example, demand evidence of mucus consumption and waste receptacle search activity.
If you can find other examples of the troll's posts, link to them and point out that he's in the habit of doing this to other people or making slight changes to his username and accusing you on other platforms. It works even better if you find out he's using a burner .ru email address. This is the evidence I used to get the lies about me taken down. It proved he was a troll.
The trick to persuasion is to keep your head and provide evidence to back yourself up.
I did. Suing isn't on their terms, it's moving the goalposts. To play the game on their terms, make a counter-statement and provide evidence. Game over, you win.
A defamation lawsuit is "the only remedy" to those who have been defamed? Bullshit. How about just proving the defamer wrong? We live in an age when anyone can publish, and so if someone has said something false about you, you don't need to run to court and make use of the power of the state to try to correct the record. You can do so yourself.
go on the internet and tell your side of the story
If you do it well (and people can help you do this for a mere fraction of what a pricey defamation lawyer will cost you), you can have a much more effective "recourse" to the defamation. You get your side out there much faster and more thoroughly, and the court of public opinion can determine who is right. If you present your case compellingly, whoever defamed you will end up having their own credibility and reputation hurt.
All of that works entirely without resorting to the court system and the frequently abused system of defamation law...
My own personal experience of being defamed totally bears this out. I went on the internet and told my side of the story, bringing evidence to the admins of the platforms hosting it. Result: lies taken down. Only one website still hosts it, but they let me post my side of the story so whenever anyone sees the torrent of lies, they also see my rebuttal.
People did indeed help me, and for free. All I had to do was show them the evidence; they acted on it straight away. The existence of horrible and untrue statements about an individual or group are only defamatory if they cause actual harm. The crap about me did not; everyone ignored it and the troll slithered back beneath his bridge. Mike is right, people. Heed him.
The dictionary-definition conservative I have few issues with. Things can be discussed with those and a civil agreement to disagree can usually be found.
It's just a matter of figuring out what the key issue really is, at which point you either frame your argument to appeal to that bias or just accept it's not going to fly. For example, if you point out that it's cheaper to house homeless people than to either neglect or persecute them, they can be won over on the fiscal responsibility bias. Hammer the point home with examples of such policies in practice. This works like a dream on me. I changed my attitude to recreational drug use from prohibitionist to "What Portugal does" when the person I was discussing it with pointed me to evidence. It's the same deal with sex work. I'm now in favour of "Legalise, tax, and regulate."
..the current GOP which I maintain would have considered even Eisenhower an ungodly bleeding-heart liberal hippie.
“Analysis of statements has been found to be highly accurate and supported by a [validation survey conducted in a U.S. governmental agency]†. [In that survey, when SCAN was compared to other methods, the validity of SCAN reached above 95%]†,” the site says, without identifying the agency or citing or linking to any survey.
†Left out: agency, survey, examples of other methods, number of methods SCAN was tested against
On the post: No, Filing A Defamation Lawsuit Is Never The Only Way You Can Clear Your Name
Re: By way of example
The first one. It got the job done.
On the post: No, Filing A Defamation Lawsuit Is Never The Only Way You Can Clear Your Name
Re: Re:
^This. You've brought no evidence to show us, Jhon.
I was called into the office; had I been a new employee on probation or a temp I'd have been fired. When a certain other (very noisy) person got involved, she contacted my employers too. The legal team were involved. It was a very scary time for me and I had to contact my local police and ask them to write an email and a tweet to advise that I wasn't under criminal investigation.
Had I been looking for another job at the time, I'd have been rejected out of hand; being a target makes other people nervous that the troll might do the same to them. It's actually not the first time I've been targeted, so of course the anxiety from the last wave of attacks came rushing back to haunt me and compounded the hell out of my distress because I actually did lose my job that time. I nearly lost my holiday pay, too. I had to take them to a tribunal to get it. When it happened again, I knew what to expect and I was afraid. In the end, my employers were supportive and once I produced the email and tweet from the police, they let it go. I was promoted later on that year.
I nearly shut my blog down over it; the troll was trying to silence me after all, and since I feared being constantly targeted and therefore being at risk of losing my job, that was on the table. In the end, he disappeared when I used his own posts to discredit him.
People didn't help me because they liked me or because I'm female. They helped me because I told the truth and made my case in a reasonable, rational manner with evidence. It took a while to get it all down as I also had to wait for the internet cache to clear.
As for being accused of heinous crimes against children, etc., the accusations usually fall apart when you demand evidence. It takes a lot of guts to stand your ground, but I know a guy who did -- I called him The Snitch because the lies were told about him because he'd ratted on The Fraud, who had made a false claim to his insurance company. When the police showed up, he answered their questions and the case fell apart because The Fraud couldn't keep his story straight.
The man who was beaten up was the victim of a whispering campaign so didn't have a chance to put his side of the story to anyone.
On the post: No, Filing A Defamation Lawsuit Is Never The Only Way You Can Clear Your Name
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
McGowan was right. Why are you hung up on her?
On the post: No, Filing A Defamation Lawsuit Is Never The Only Way You Can Clear Your Name
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I just post here to let the lawyers in question know that one day I'll be posting this stuff on online review sites, with full evidence to back it up, under my own name, and then they'll realize who my attorneys are, at a point where my cash position will likely be at least as strong if not MUCH stronger than his."
None of that makes any sense. What you're saying is, you'll post lies about this site on review sites. The reputable ones will take them down on receipt of a counter-notice proving that you're wrong while the less credible ones will let Mike leave a counter-notice stating that you're full of crap.
Should you be stupid enough to go legal, discovery will be a hoot, given all the lies and threats you've posted.
On the post: No, Filing A Defamation Lawsuit Is Never The Only Way You Can Clear Your Name
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So what happens if I provide the evidence? Everyone just believes it (should be easy since it's authenticated)? Don't think so.
They believed me. The lies were posted on multiple platforms. The troll even set up a blog and made one post just to tell lies about me.
The whole damn lot went down on every platform bar the one that let me post a rebuttal.
not questioning why someone with ties to attorneys just "happened" to show up in a thread with a link to the lies that set them up to be sued
I think there may be lead in your tinfoil hat.
On the post: No, Filing A Defamation Lawsuit Is Never The Only Way You Can Clear Your Name
Re: Re:
Not always. A guy accused of being a pedophile or rape will have a difficult time ever getting out from under those accusations no matter what facts he can present to clear himself. Some false accusations create an emotional reaction in a lot of people that facts and logic will never overcome, especially in certain professions like teaching. Defending yourself with facts in emotionally charged accusations doesn't level the field in countering the accuser just by virtue of having the same opportunity to present those facts to the same audience.
I've seen cases where people have had serious charges made against them. Ultimately, they were able to prove their accusers wrong. In one case, it was a neighbour getting revenge on a man who ratted on him for insurance fraud -- and presented a photo of the man working on his roof as evidence that he was totally able to move around freely. The neighbour accused him of messing with his kids and called the police. The snitch was able to prove he was nowhere near the kid when the alleged incidents took place, and the accusation fell apart. The fraud got into more trouble for wasting police time.
Unless the accusations go public, truth will usually save the innocent. In the other case, a man was beaten so severely he had to leave town and change his name to escape the vigilantes.
On the post: No, Filing A Defamation Lawsuit Is Never The Only Way You Can Clear Your Name
Re: Re:
Mike has been targeted, as has Tim Cushing. They didn't sue. They just ignored it.
On the post: No, Filing A Defamation Lawsuit Is Never The Only Way You Can Clear Your Name
Re:
I wouldn't stand a chance in a duel. Not many of us are into fencing and martial arts, etc. How could duelling help us if we didn't have a sociopath on hand to kill someone else for saying nasty things about us?
On the post: No, Filing A Defamation Lawsuit Is Never The Only Way You Can Clear Your Name
Re:
Unfortunately, in the real world, most people are ruled by emotions instead of facts and logic.
This is true. And damn, they love soundbites. It works a lot better than carefully explained policies. :(
This is something you can use to your advantage. I leaned on the fact that the troll had contacted my employers and actively tried to get me fired. Portraying myself as an honest worker abused by a random troll and in danger of losing her job was the key to getting the crap taken down.
On the post: No, Filing A Defamation Lawsuit Is Never The Only Way You Can Clear Your Name
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not hard to be persuasive.
If someone calls you a snot-eating bin-dipper, for example, demand evidence of mucus consumption and waste receptacle search activity.
If you can find other examples of the troll's posts, link to them and point out that he's in the habit of doing this to other people or making slight changes to his username and accusing you on other platforms. It works even better if you find out he's using a burner .ru email address. This is the evidence I used to get the lies about me taken down. It proved he was a troll.
The trick to persuasion is to keep your head and provide evidence to back yourself up.
On the post: No, Filing A Defamation Lawsuit Is Never The Only Way You Can Clear Your Name
Re: Re: "Play their game on their terms!"
I did. Suing isn't on their terms, it's moving the goalposts. To play the game on their terms, make a counter-statement and provide evidence. Game over, you win.
On the post: No, Filing A Defamation Lawsuit Is Never The Only Way You Can Clear Your Name
Mike Is Right
A defamation lawsuit is "the only remedy" to those who have been defamed? Bullshit. How about just proving the defamer wrong? We live in an age when anyone can publish, and so if someone has said something false about you, you don't need to run to court and make use of the power of the state to try to correct the record. You can do so yourself.
go on the internet and tell your side of the story
If you do it well (and people can help you do this for a mere fraction of what a pricey defamation lawyer will cost you), you can have a much more effective "recourse" to the defamation. You get your side out there much faster and more thoroughly, and the court of public opinion can determine who is right. If you present your case compellingly, whoever defamed you will end up having their own credibility and reputation hurt.
All of that works entirely without resorting to the court system and the frequently abused system of defamation law...
My own personal experience of being defamed totally bears this out. I went on the internet and told my side of the story, bringing evidence to the admins of the platforms hosting it. Result: lies taken down. Only one website still hosts it, but they let me post my side of the story so whenever anyone sees the torrent of lies, they also see my rebuttal.
People did indeed help me, and for free. All I had to do was show them the evidence; they acted on it straight away. The existence of horrible and untrue statements about an individual or group are only defamatory if they cause actual harm. The crap about me did not; everyone ignored it and the troll slithered back beneath his bridge. Mike is right, people. Heed him.
On the post: Why Intermediary Liability Protections Matter: Our 'Copying Is Not Theft' T-Shirt May Be Collateral Damage To A Bad Court Ruling
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The dictionary-definition conservative I have few issues with. Things can be discussed with those and a civil agreement to disagree can usually be found.
It's just a matter of figuring out what the key issue really is, at which point you either frame your argument to appeal to that bias or just accept it's not going to fly. For example, if you point out that it's cheaper to house homeless people than to either neglect or persecute them, they can be won over on the fiscal responsibility bias. Hammer the point home with examples of such policies in practice. This works like a dream on me. I changed my attitude to recreational drug use from prohibitionist to "What Portugal does" when the person I was discussing it with pointed me to evidence. It's the same deal with sex work. I'm now in favour of "Legalise, tax, and regulate."
..the current GOP which I maintain would have considered even Eisenhower an ungodly bleeding-heart liberal hippie.
They totally do. I've seen it in their forums.
On the post: Trinidad And Tobago's 'You Can't Afford That' Forfeiture Law Claims Its First Victims
Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting to see the UK mentioned here
I'd really like to see a citation for that. I know about eminent domain; Donald Trump used it.
On the post: Why Are Members Of Congress Telling A Private Organization Not To Comment On Copyright Law?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Agreed. I'm very much a person of faith, but in God, not a Glorious Leader.
On the post: Another Law Enforcement Investigation Tool Found To Be A Junk Science Coin Toss
Re: Fools and their (read: taxpayers') money
“Analysis of statements has been found to be highly accurate and supported by a [validation survey conducted in a U.S. governmental agency]†. [In that survey, when SCAN was compared to other methods, the validity of SCAN reached above 95%]†,” the site says, without identifying the agency or citing or linking to any survey.
†Left out: agency, survey, examples of other methods, number of methods SCAN was tested against
On the post: Tennessee Deputy Who Baptised An Arrestee And Strip Searched A Minor Now Dealing With 44 Criminal Charges And Five Lawsuits
Re: Re: Just a few bad apples...HAH
The "Snitches get stitches" culture is the actual problem, SDM. Until it is addressed, the problems will continue.
On the post: Why Intermediary Liability Protections Matter: Our 'Copying Is Not Theft' T-Shirt May Be Collateral Damage To A Bad Court Ruling
Re:
LOL! That is ridiculous! Seriously, how would you even track the person down to sue them? Can I watch?
On the post: Why Intermediary Liability Protections Matter: Our 'Copying Is Not Theft' T-Shirt May Be Collateral Damage To A Bad Court Ruling
Re: Re: Re:
He's been on a roll lately, bless him. Won a couple of Insightful votes from me, too.
On the post: Why Intermediary Liability Protections Matter: Our 'Copying Is Not Theft' T-Shirt May Be Collateral Damage To A Bad Court Ruling
Re:
What Stephen says.
Next >>