Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Giving An Opinion On A Game? You Should Know This...

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Giving An Opinion On A Game? You Should Know This... Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Giving An Opinion On A Game? You Should Know This... - 3/9/2009 8:30:11 PM   
barbarossa2

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: The following information is not a subsitute for real legal advice. For that you have to see your attorney. And I am in no way representing myself to be an attorney.

Please also note that this posting has nothing to do with Matrix and deals exclusively with my bad experience with another company which cannot handle criticism. For my thoughts on Matrix, see my posting, "Matrix is Awesome for Freedom of Speech".

If you are looking at this post and thinking it is too long to read, you could be making a big mistake, because every comment you ever post in the Internet about a company or product, or individual is covered by the issues I discuss here. As I learned, not knowing this could be a big mistake. :)

*******************************************************************
GETTING SUED FOR LIBEL AND SLANDER WHILE GIVING AN OPINION ON A PRODUCT

While giving my opinion on a product in the Internet, I have recently been sued for libel and slander and I have learned so much about libel and slander law that I would like to share my valuable learned experiences with you. I see it is virtually impossible to function in this world by adhering to it. As I read through these (and other forums), I see that what qualifies as libel and slander abounds in the computer gaming world.

This experience has really shown me that there are two kinds of speech...1) every day speech, the way we really talk...e.g. "That guy is nuts.", and 2) The way you speak if you know about libel and slander and want to cover your ass...e.g. "In my pure opinion, that guy is nuts and the word "nuts" is meant strictly as hyperbole."

When speaking about a product or non-public figure, if called before the Court, you need to (should) have proof your statements are true. Do not make any statements of opinion if you want to be really safe and avoid legal bills and fines in the $20,000-$40,000 range. Present only facts and let the reader draw their own conclusions (For instance: Say, "The game crashed 4 times---NOT, "The game is full of bugs"). Repeating statements of others you believe to be true is not a defense. You may have to, or will probably have to prove them yourself. With little exception (i.e. unless you have a lobby which has worked to protect your industry), spreading information created by others is also no defense...a person or corporation can sue anyone in the chain of distribution they like to stop the spread of the information. So be careful what you say or repeat. Anywhere. Especially in forums. Unless you have gone to extremes to protect your Internet privacy, everything you do can be traced to you with your IP address (emails, postings, everything).

If you can, always have a pre-paid legal insurance rider on your home insurance or rental insurance which covers defense of freedom of speech issues, so you can tell anyone interested in suing you that you WILL have a lawyer in court as this alone may take the wind out of their sails. The court system in the United States has a reputation internationally for being so expensive that it can be used to shut people up merely by making court costs impossible to keep up with. Decisions rendered by judges are very sensitive to whether your argumentation is being presented by someone of their own making (i.e. from the Bar Association) or if you are making the major mistake of representing yourself and trying to learn everything there is to learn about defamation law in the mere 30 days you will have to begin prepare your case.


OF LAWYERS AND JUDGES

Remember, judges have their reputations on the line with LAW FIRMS they have relationships with...not with individuals representing themselves. And with more and more questions about corruption in US courts surfacing in suppressed writings around the world, this all becomes increasingly dicey. I am in contact with authors/Drs of Journalism who are in asylum in Europe who claim their work magically disappears from the Internet and have had death threats delivered to them by US federal judges. Believe me, you only get asylum (a new passport, and a life free of fear of death/torture) with proof your allegations are likely true. Hear about the Pennsylvania judges who were getting bag money from people running correctional facilities for locking kids up who did not have any legal representation? Purchasing a lawyer helps guarantee you won't get totally screwed if only because the judge is literally under peer pressure to do things "fairly."

Yes, it's not much different than a protection racket which has been legalized.

It is not enough to "have the right" to say something. You need to "have the right to say it" AND have the thousands of dollars (or tens of thousands) lying around ready to buy a team of your lawyers ready to sell your version of the law to the judge as your opposition works hard to claim your intention is to destroy the reputation of the company/product/individual, etc. and takes every word of yours out of context and presents it in a light designed to make you look as bad as possible. This is done in their quest for the Holy Grail of Libel and Slander litigation: the permanent injunction...meaning that even though there is NO authority for it according to the US Supreme Court, your little state judge can write an order stating if you EVER speak about these people/products/companies again, you go to jail. Note that at $400/hour, the minimum fee just to RETAIN a lawyer is running near $2500 these days. This will get you through a few hearings perhaps if you have developed a large amount of information for him/her to go through.

Yes. Freedom of Speech is for rich people. Unless you live in the European Union, where it is a human rights violation to not get a lawyer if you can't afford one. Perhaps not coincidentally, all but two of these 27 EU nations ranked higher than the USA's miserable 48th place on the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index in 2007. On that list, the USA--home of the "free"--was edged out by Nicaragua, which came in at 47th. I am an American, and now I guess I know where liberty reigns. It isn't here anymore. To speak out against their politicians (yes, my problem was with a politician and his product and area of expertise), poor and middle class Americans must now seek asylum in Europe. Oh well, Thomas Jefferson saw it coming.


OF JURISDICTIONS AND ENFORCEMENT

Additionally, if you are speaking about a company or person domiciled in a state or nation different than yours and they decide to sue you in a court in THEIR jurisdiction, you will probably NEED a lawyer in their city, because travelling there for the many, many hearings (which can be cancelled at the last moment) to represent yourself will be cost prohibitive for the vast majority of human beings. If you don't have a lawyer in their courts, you get to play the highly entertaining, "Enforcing of Judgements" game.

If you are a resident of Austria, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and to a lesser degree Germany, Great Britain, or France, you will be better protected against foreign judgements than others will be, as the first five nations listed won't enforce most OR ANY judgements against their residents from other nations (unless rendered within the EU). Germany and Britain will generally only enforce if you have decided to actually appear before the foreign, non-EU Court and try to fight it. If there is a default judgement entered against you, more often than not, these two countries have not enforced the judgement AS IS. France is a special case, and they likely won't force the enforcement of a judgement against any resident which is ALSO a citizen and you will probably have the right to another trial in your country. If you live in Italy, and to a lesser degree Spain, you are stuck with the foreign judgement if you have had proper notice and you cannot demonstrate the hearing was inherently unfair (VERY difficult to show, but if you couldn't afford a lawyer and are lucky enough to be living in the EU, you may be able to claim that it was a human rights violation and get a new trial in your home country).

Enforcing a non-US judgement within the USA isn't easy as pie either, but you will have to talk to your lawyer about this.


OF INJUNCTIONS

Additionally, when you receive notice of the lawsuit, you will generally get 24 hours to stop ALL communication about the company/product/individual. This will make it so that unless you have already gotten your information to as many people as possible, you run the risk of being silenced forever without even getting the word out that you are being sued. It is a handy way for a company to dispose of you and wipe their hands clean.

All of my research has shown (including interviews with extradition experts) that generally, international extradition is not an option if you decide to speak out in violation of an injunction against further speech issued in another country. So if you get a US injunction, continuing to speak out will only prevent you from ever visiting the US again.

By the way, when the "injunction" against me is strictly interpreted, I am an American who can never again speak about the politician who sued me--"by implication or otherwise"--or my government, the health care system for which he is responsible for, the Court System, my experiences in it, or even problems facing humanity in general, without the risk of having the police show up and throwing me in prison for it. Same goes for the 70 people who were ready to kick off an emailing campaign to complain about him to the state legislature.

US Citizens, also please note that your government is one of the handful of nations which has refused to sign the original wording of the International Covenant on Political and Social Rights. This treaty guarantees the citizens of its signatory nations the right to express their contempt for their governments--with violations causing civil damages which can be recovered by the affected individuals. Other nations which have not ratified the original text include China, Myanmar Republic, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba. On top of that, recently US Court decisions have been rendered which emasculate Title 42, Section 1983 of the US Civil Code which allows US citizens to sue for damages in federal court when their constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech--or other Civil Liberties--have been taken away. Now, State judges can do as they please unless you are monied enough to push a case through two appeals to the Supreme Court in your state. Title 42, Section 1983 was a key tool of the Civil Rights movement to campaign for the right to vote for African Americans living in the Southern States. Do you see where this is going?

Will I go to prison for posting this? We shall see. :) I have always wanted to go to prison for voicing my political opinion in the United States. If I can bring a laptop and a copy of War in the Pacific, I should be okay.


CONCLUSION

Sometimes, the way things are, I am not even sure what the men at Lexington, Bunker Hill, and Saratoga died for. And I am not sure I am ready to let the current American government piss on their graves. Yes, my friends, it has come to the point where we have to purchase the rights others died to bequeath to us.

Having said all of this, I think it would be silly for software companies to develop a reputation for suing their customers and it would do more harm than good. And Matrix itself is a shining example of freedom of speech. However, I have also read about one man who said one software company was a "spammer", was sued, and subsequently went through $70,000 in legal fees and lost. So be careful what you say and how you say it. Remember, to be safest, state the facts (I was emailed 10 times in a day) and let the reader draw their own conclusion (ah! they must be spammers!).

So. Before you post on software again, stop and think. You have a right to know this information, and I think a company/person/product have a right not to be "libelled and slandered." :)


< Message edited by barbarossa2 -- 3/11/2009 12:21:18 PM >
Post #: 1
Harpoon - 3/9/2009 9:04:27 PM   
hermanhum


Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

When speaking about a product or non-public figure, if called before the Court, you need to (should) have proof your statements are true. Do not make any statements of opinion if you want to be really safe and avoid legal bills and fines in the $20,000-$40,000 range. Present only facts and let the reader draw their own conclusions (For instance: Say, "The game crashed 4 times---NOT, "The game is full of bugs"). Believing statements of others as being true is not a defense. You may have to prove them yourself.

It's a good thing I have a verification and confirmation file for every Harpoon bug that gets reported...

_____________________________


(in reply to barbarossa2)
Post #: 2
RE: Harpoon - 3/9/2009 11:30:25 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37183
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: online
Barbarossa,

Please do not repeat the same post in multiple places on our forum. We are not in the business of going around suing our customer, so while I'm sorry to hear about what happened to you, really just posting it once would have sufficed.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to hermanhum)
Post #: 3
Watching Opinions In the Internet - 3/10/2009 6:12:14 PM   
barbarossa2

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline
Eric, you mentioned that in one place I mention that I had a problem with a product and later I say with a politician. This is because the politician has a business in which he offers health care services which I complained about. :) It was a fair question though.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 4
RE: Watching Opinions In the Internet - 3/10/2009 7:37:16 PM   
Jeffrey H.


Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline
Try satire.

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to barbarossa2)
Post #: 5
RE: Watching Opinions In the Internet - 3/10/2009 8:05:06 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
That requires a sense of humour...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Jeffrey H.)
Post #: 6
RE: Watching Opinions In the Internet - 3/10/2009 8:54:51 PM   
barbarossa2

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline
Satire? Good point :). And something I have given more and more thought to.

_____________________________

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori*.
-Wilfred Owen
*It is sweet and right to die for your country.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 7
RE: Watching Opinions In the Internet - 3/10/2009 9:34:01 PM   
Crimguy


Posts: 1409
Joined: 8/15/2003
From: Cave Creek, AZ
Status: offline
Just remember truth is a defense to libel and slander. . .

_____________________________

________________________
www.azcrimes.com
<sig removed because I'm a bandwidth hog>

(in reply to barbarossa2)
Post #: 8
RE: Watching Opinions In the Internet - 3/11/2009 12:57:57 AM   
V22 Osprey


Posts: 1593
Joined: 4/8/2008
From: Corona, CA
Status: offline
I thought this thread was locked???

(in reply to Crimguy)
Post #: 9
RE: Watching Opinions In the Internet - 3/11/2009 5:57:59 AM   
Crimguy


Posts: 1409
Joined: 8/15/2003
From: Cave Creek, AZ
Status: offline
You can't lock gold like this!

_____________________________

________________________
www.azcrimes.com
<sig removed because I'm a bandwidth hog>

(in reply to V22 Osprey)
Post #: 10
RE: Watching Opinions In the Internet - 3/11/2009 12:11:52 PM   
PunkReaper


Posts: 1085
Joined: 8/23/2006
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

I thought this thread was locked???


So did I.... who is the secret unlocker

(in reply to Crimguy)
Post #: 11
RE: Watching Opinions In the Internet - 3/11/2009 12:19:34 PM   
barbarossa2

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline
Look, I need to say, in the United States, technically you are allowed to say more than just facts about games. Otherwise, most game reviews would list only system requirements. But these companies probably have media liability insurance, which runs a minumum of around $2500 a year for simple blogs.

The recommendation to state just facts and let the reader draw their own conclusions is drawn from much of my reading by activists who have had similar experiences as I have. If you state just facts and you get called into court, your legal bills will be much lower and you won't run so much of a risk of stepping over any lines you don't know about. Saying more simply gets much more expensive. Because then you have to start litigating EVERYTHING which was said... was this said as hyperbole or not? Was that your opinion or should it be contrued as fact? etc., etc., etc.

So, unless you are an experienced media lawyer and have a GOOD medial liability insurance policy, I would stick to the facts.

If you have doubts and would like to speak out about a product anyway, a good resource may be your state's online Bar Association Media Law Guide. Missouri has one. Google it and there you will find very helpful chapters on Defamation, Invasion of Privacy (often accompanies such a lawsuit...mine did), Media Liability Insurance laws, and more goodies.

< Message edited by barbarossa2 -- 3/11/2009 12:20:16 PM >

(in reply to PunkReaper)
Post #: 12
RE: Watching Opinions In the Internet - 3/11/2009 12:29:54 PM   
leastonh1


Posts: 879
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: West Yorkshire, England
Status: offline
I think I've completely missed the point of this thread. What is the link to Matrix, if any? It could be that I'm just too dumb to take part in the discussion, in which case please delete my post or tell me to go and stand in the corner. 

_____________________________

2nd Lt. George Rice: Looks like you guys are going to be surrounded.
Richard Winters: We're paratroopers, Lieutenant, we're supposed to be surrounded.

(in reply to barbarossa2)
Post #: 13
RE: Watching Opinions In the Internet - 3/11/2009 1:19:47 PM   
barbarossa2

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline
Jim H,

The connection to matrix was intended to be in the following thread:

"Matrix is Awesome for Freedom of Speech". The link is:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2057641
In short, in that discussion thread I praise Matrix for its allowing such extreme language and criticism of its games. Not every company is like this. Unfortunatley, this thread was locked when that one was started, and ideally, they would have been in the same thread. But I can't change that now.

These combined postings were an attempt to get people here to think a little more carefully about what they say about the products here, because I feel that companies and products DO have a right not to be libelled and slandered. And many comments here border on this, and I feel that Matrix and its stable of gaming companies deserve to be treated better in some instances. :)

Additionally, I didn't think everything in "General" discussions had to be directly linked to Matrix, as even its competitor's products are mentioned (for example, "Total War:Empire").



_____________________________

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori*.
-Wilfred Owen
*It is sweet and right to die for your country.

(in reply to leastonh1)
Post #: 14
RE: Watching Opinions In the Internet - 3/11/2009 3:59:26 PM   
leastonh1


Posts: 879
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: West Yorkshire, England
Status: offline
Ahh, ok. Sorry barbarossa2, I didn't read everything you said and took this thread out of context.

I think you're right. People here are so comfortable with the way Matrix allow us to criticise (fairly or not) that sometimes it goes too far. Even then, it's extremely rare for a staff member to step in. There have been a few threads over the past few years where I'd have probably gotten very angry in the shoes of someone like Erik, yet the threads have been left unlocked.

It is very rare to see this anywhere online. Most companies tend to reward criticism and complaint with a ban or at least a warning. This isn't the way to be in my opinion, but it must be difficult to strike that balance. I think Matrix have it just right.

As for freedom of speech on this forum. It's not a right, it's a privilege granted by the very generous guys at Matrix and it's always good to bear that in mind and be reminded of it every now and then.


_____________________________

2nd Lt. George Rice: Looks like you guys are going to be surrounded.
Richard Winters: We're paratroopers, Lieutenant, we're supposed to be surrounded.

(in reply to barbarossa2)
Post #: 15
RE: Watching Opinions In the Internet - 3/11/2009 4:28:33 PM   
FirstPappy


Posts: 744
Joined: 9/12/2000
From: NY, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

Jim H,

The connection to matrix was intended to be in the following thread:

"Matrix is Awesome for Freedom of Speech". The link is:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2057641
In short, in that discussion thread I praise Matrix for its allowing such extreme language and criticism of its games. Not every company is like this. Unfortunatley, this thread was locked when that one was started, and ideally, they would have been in the same thread. But I can't change that now.

These combined postings were an attempt to get people here to think a little more carefully about what they say about the products here, because I feel that companies and products DO have a right not to be libelled and slandered. And many comments here border on this, and I feel that Matrix and its stable of gaming companies deserve to be treated better in some instances. :)

Additionally, I didn't think everything in "General" discussions had to be directly linked to Matrix, as even its competitor's products are mentioned (for example, "Total War:Empire").




Barbarossa 2,

Kudos to you. Very intelligent post. When your various threads started I thought you were just a wild ranter/spammer. Glad I kept reading.

Pappy

(in reply to barbarossa2)
Post #: 16
RE: Watching Opinions In the Internet - 3/11/2009 5:11:40 PM   
barbarossa2

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline
Yes. Another thing I really wanted to make clear with my posting is this:

We are fortunate to be the customers of such a great company like Matrix. Who doesn't have to allow any of this. However, this may lead us to thinking that this type of commentary is "okay" in the world at large. And that believing something you say is enough to be allowed to say it.

No. It isn't. Be careful what you say in the real world. Because comments like some of those in here, directed at other companies can and will get you sued.

By the way, thanks Pappy.

_____________________________

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori*.
-Wilfred Owen
*It is sweet and right to die for your country.

(in reply to FirstPappy)
Post #: 17
RE: Watching Opinions In the Internet - 3/11/2009 5:17:53 PM   
IronWarrior


Posts: 801
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: Beaverton, OR
Status: offline
I'm all for liberties and free speech, whether or not we're entitled to them, but this pretty much says it all right here:

quote:


because I feel that companies and products DO have a right not to be libelled and slandered.


Consumer protection laws are woefully inadequate when things like "companies" and "products" are treated like a living entity, more humanely, and have more rights than actual people do. "Orwellian Corporatism" in a way. I believe it was Jefferson who warned us about the "monied interests" and so on...

(in reply to FirstPappy)
Post #: 18
RE: Watching Opinions In the Internet - 3/13/2009 2:44:57 PM   
06 Maestro


Posts: 3989
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronWarrior
Consumer protection laws are woefully inadequate when things like "companies" and "products" are treated like a living entity, more humanely, and have more rights than actual people do. "Orwellian Corporatism" in a way. I believe it was Jefferson who warned us about the "monied interests" and so on...


This is a truth that most folks are not aware of. The laws were change to reflect this enlightened attitude about 100 years ago in the US. It seems the various results of giving such rights to corporations should have been predictable.

_____________________________

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Thomas Jefferson


(in reply to IronWarrior)
Post #: 19
RE: Watching Opinions In the Internet - 3/13/2009 6:40:57 PM   
barbarossa2

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline
"Corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed."

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Sounds like something you would hear from Noam Chomsky. But the first quote is Abe Lincoln, and the second is Thomas Jefferson.

Yes, in the US legal system which has become known in Europe for allowing people to spend each other to death (which is why for instance, Germany won't enforce most US judgements), the ascendancy of the corporation, with its deep, deep war chests, has triumphed.

Ever wonder why in spite of the fact that we supposedly have a "right" to freedom of speech and perhaps 700,000 Americans die every year from contact with the health care industry, you never see anyone in front of a hospital protesting the death of their mother or brother or sister? Or dad?

Who has $40,000 lying around to do something like that? Especially if it was your bread winner that was killed?

After looking into this, the biggest mistake I made was not having Media Liability Insurance before I spoke up (costing roughly $2500 a year). :) But I have learned my lesson. And have a very legal trick up my sleeve they have simply not bargained for. :)

P.S. No one in my family died. :) We were lucky. It was "only" a major, career ending injury.

< Message edited by barbarossa2 -- 3/13/2009 9:06:21 PM >


_____________________________

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori*.
-Wilfred Owen
*It is sweet and right to die for your country.

(in reply to 06 Maestro)
Post #: 20
RE: Watching Opinions In the Internet - 3/13/2009 8:12:38 PM   
IronWarrior


Posts: 801
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: Beaverton, OR
Status: offline
Major props from me for knowing who Noam Chomsky is.

(in reply to barbarossa2)
Post #: 21
RE: Watching Opinions In the Internet - 3/14/2009 12:20:02 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pappy

Barbarossa 2,

Kudos to you. Very intelligent post. When your various threads started I thought you were just a wild ranter/spammer. Glad I kept reading.

Pappy



Well, barbarossa2 just purchased COG:EE today, so I consider him a man of exceptional taste and sophistication.

_____________________________

Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.

(in reply to FirstPappy)
Post #: 22
RE: Watching Opinions In the Internet - 3/14/2009 2:19:01 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to barbarossa2)
Post #: 23
RE: Watching Opinions In the Internet - 3/14/2009 3:59:53 AM   
Tactics


Posts: 347
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: USA
Status: offline
That is a lot to read. What game did you trash and what did you say about it?

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 24
RE: Watching Opinions In the Internet - 3/14/2009 5:44:54 PM   
Brigz


Posts: 1162
Joined: 1/20/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tactics

That is a lot to read. What game did you trash and what did you say about it?

That's exactly what I've been wondering. This whole thread is kind of like a UFO report. Lot's of second hand talk, men in black, and fuzzy photos with no substance. Does Bob Lazar fit into this somewhere?

_____________________________

“You're only young once but you can be immature for as long as you want”

(in reply to Tactics)
Post #: 25
RE: Watching Opinions In the Internet - 3/14/2009 7:06:59 PM   
Yogi the Great


Posts: 1948
Joined: 4/10/2007
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline
Sounded like he can't tell us what game.

Merits or no merits as may be on this case aside, we have gone too far and have become a nation of litigators, sueing over just about anything.   Sadly it will probably become worse before it gets better. 

As to libel and slander;

   Was the statement the truth?
   Truth or not, did the person making it believe it to be true?
   What was the intent of the statement?
   Did the person want to defame the other party?
   Was any damage actually done?

Worst case, statement wasn't true, person knew it wasn't true and person intetionally meant to damage and defame the subject/person/business the remarks pertained to.

Of course in politics such statements occur many times every day.

_____________________________

Hooked Since AH Gettysburg

(in reply to Brigz)
Post #: 26
RE: Watching Opinions In the Internet - 3/14/2009 7:37:43 PM   
IronWarrior


Posts: 801
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: Beaverton, OR
Status: offline
That may be true Yogi, but on the other hand we need to be careful. Tort reform has really done massive harm to consumer rights. Case in point is, as I'm sure many will remember, the McDonalds coffee lawsuit. A lady sued for the coffee being too hot, and a mockery was made of it. It turned out to be the posterboy case for tort reform. A huge propaganda campaign followed pointing to the coffee that was too hot. They claim that the woman was an idiot- as in duh coffee is hot.

What was left out of the media, and what many don't know about the case is this:

(1) The McDonalds coffee was far hotter than normal coffe, causing a greatly accelerated burn rate; (2) McDonalds had received 700 complaints of burns, but stubbornly refused to lower the temperature or place a clearer warning on coffee cups; (3) the seventy-nine-year-old victim suffered third-degree burns on her thighs, buttocks, and genitals, requiring a week of hospitilization and subsequent skin grafts; (4) Shortly after the incident she wrote McDonalds a letter explaining that she had no intention of suing and requesting only that McDonalds cover her medical and recuperation costs and look into its coffee-making process to avoid future injuries; (5) McDonalds declined to change its policies and offered her an insulting $800; (6) Only $160,000 out of the $2.9 million verdict went to compensate the victim.

Another example of tort reform:

A two-year-old boy became permanently blind and brain-damaged because a hospital refused to give him a CAT scan that would have detected a growing brain abscess. A jury awarded $7.1 million in non-economic compensation, but the judge was forced to reduce the amount to $250,000.

< Message edited by IronWarrior -- 3/14/2009 7:39:18 PM >

(in reply to Yogi the Great)
Post #: 27
RE: Watching Opinions In the Internet - 3/15/2009 2:51:56 AM   
barbarossa2

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline
Dear Dave Briggs,

The reason my report sounds like there is no substance is because I am under a very illegal restraining order, so broad that when interpreted literally, I am prohibited from speaking about problems which face "humanity" because the this would refer to the individuals by "implication or otherwise."

The injunction takes the meat out of ANYTHING I say about what happened, because I have to be so incredibly vague that no one knows what the hell I am talking about.

I understand your comment.

_____________________________

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori*.
-Wilfred Owen
*It is sweet and right to die for your country.

(in reply to Brigz)
Post #: 28
RE: Watching Opinions In the Internet - 3/15/2009 4:44:48 AM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2459
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

As to libel and slander;

   Was the statement the truth?
   Truth or not, did the person making it believe it to be true?
   What was the intent of the statement?
   Did the person want to defame the other party?
   Was any damage actually done?

Worst case, statement wasn't true, person knew it wasn't true and person intetionally meant to damage and defame the subject/person/business the remarks pertained to.


In the U.S., if there's no malice, there's no libel or slander.

The accused would have to utter a falsehood, know that what they were saying was untrue, and be dumb enough to admit that they did so with the intention of doing harm to some other concern.

That's the law, as regards public entities.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)


_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to Yogi the Great)
Post #: 29
RE: Watching Opinions In the Internet - 3/15/2009 7:13:52 PM   
Jeffrey H.


Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline
And maybe that's the missing peice of the puzzle here. WHile I've found the thread interesting I can't shake the feeling that there is some element that is missing.

It isn't normal everyday experience for us to share opinions and end up in court over it.


_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Giving An Opinion On A Game? You Should Know This... Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.465