Phil suing over some anonymous yoyo

[newtogolf]

Shorty you're really not worth my time to debate with, stick with crushing the dreams of 13 year olds on here.  Congrats you're the first person on my ignore list.

Originally Posted by Shorty

Why have you put the word "lies" in inverted commas?

This suggests to me that you think  that they are not lies.

And...what money? There is no mention of money.

How do you know it's  a threat? Again, you are doubting him, suggesting that he is not serious.Taking legal action is not a threat, it's taking legal action.

And....do you know what? If I were Phil I'd take it as far as I could to set an example of peole like this.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Shorty you're really not worth my time to debate with, stick with crushing the dreams of 13 year olds on here.  Congrats you're the first person on my ignore list.

Oh well. -

I prefer to think that Mickelson is a decent person and support what he is doing.

But...I suppose that there are those who prefer to believe rumours. It must make them feel better about themsleves.

Let's hope that you are never famous enough to be the target of this sort of thing.

[MbolicGolf]

Originally Posted by brocks

I don't think it's as cut and dried as you make it sound. A few months ago, Bill Maher said this about Rick Perry on one of his recent shows, talking about the Republican debates: "he sounded like a sixth grader who didn't do the reading. Garbled syntax, messing up simple facts, sentences that went nowhere. Sarah Palin was watching and she said, “If only he was black, I'd f--k him."

I'm not sure what he said about Perry was even a joke -- it sounds pretty accurate to me. But I'm pretty sure that he just made up what he said about Palin. And like him or not, he's got a lot of money, and he said it on a nationally broadcast show, which should make him a much easier and more lucrative target than some guy in his mom's basement posting comments on Yahoo. And yet, Palin hasn't sued him, and AFAIK there's no point in suing him, because he can say it's satire.

Maher says stuff like this every week. HBO puts him on the air, and would be sued along with him if anybody thought they could win. HBO also presumably has a lot of lawyers, who have allowed this to go on for years. There must be something they know that makes them not worry about being sued.

satire isn't intended to be true, or clearly identified as fact or any thing other than Maher's opinion.

Having a case is not the same as winning a case. It just means he'll get past the motion to dismiss and will move on to discovery, which is expensive. in order to prevail upon a motion to dismiss there must be no question as to the facts as a matter of law. So if Phill alledges that this person made these comments with malice and intended for them to be believed by all who listened and the defendant denies it, the motion to dismiss fails. There's a question as to the facts as they relate to the elements of the law. Therefore he has a case.

[WWBDD]

Quote:

Congrats you're the first person on my ignore list.

There's an ignore feature?

Anyhoo ... Phil's got deeper pockets than some yahoo troll, so just tying this guy up in a protracted legal battle will do the trick.

[Clambake]

It seems everyone here has missed the facts so far.    Phil has not sued the internet troll for libel (yet).     He is suing the Canadian ISP for the identity of the troll.    Thus far, Phil's legal action has nothing to do with libel by an individual or if such statements are satire.    The legal issue here is the privacy rights by an internet user through their ISP and if an individual has the legal right to compel that ISP to provide such private information, similar to what government agencies can compel an ISP to do under strict legal guidelines.

Presumably Phil would then pursue legal action against the guy, but this has not happened yet.    Personally, I think Phil would be justified for running a 4 iron shaft completely down the guy's throat, but I suspect that is sadly outside the scope of acceptable behavior.

[Yukari]

True.   But in order for Phil to sue the "troll", he needs that information to serve the "troll" with the law suit.  Right now, Phil can't sue the "troll" without knowing who the "troll" is.  It is assumed that Phil is seeking "troll's" information from Canadian ISP in order to sue him for libel.

Originally Posted by Clambake

It seems everyone here has missed the facts so far.    Phil has not sued the internet troll for libel (yet).     He is suing the Canadian ISP for the identity of the troll.    Thus far, Phil's legal action has nothing to do with libel by an individual or if such statements are satire.    The legal issue here is the privacy rights by an internet user through their ISP and if an individual has the legal right to compel that ISP to provide such private information, similar to what government agencies can compel an ISP to do under strict legal guidelines.

Presumably Phil would then pursue legal action against the guy, but this has not happened yet.    Personally, I think Phil would be justified for running a 4 iron shaft completely down the guy's throat, but I suspect that is sadly outside the scope of acceptable behavior.

[ghalfaire]

While this is true the fellow (gal?) that is doing the posting isn't confining comments to just Phil. They are also attacking his family.

Originally Posted by GJBenn85

Phil is going to find out that defamation laws do not offer the same protection to public figures as they do typical citizens.  Public figures includes anyone that is well known, not just politicians.

[AmazingWhacker]

Originally Posted by MbolicGolf

Libel- to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others......

He has a Case.

I think I understand libel the same way as you do but I think the issue will be to prove that there was any real harm done.  Most of the things the person posted were actually repeats of old rumors (the michael jordon one, for example, has apparently been around since 2006 http://deadspin.com/5515170/how-did-that-false-amy-mickelson+michael-jordan-rumor-start-anyway )

and I don't think you can reasonably say that anonymous posts on the internet are actually damaging in a real way.  Even on the blog in question, 90% of the other posts on the thread are admonishing those by Fogroller, et al.

The irony is that Phil's action will probably only encourage more of this behavior because 1. the penalty will be at most a cease and decist  2.  The recent headlines probably increased the public awareness of all this by a thousand-fold and 3.  Now this person has managed to get the attention of Phil Mickelson.  How many star-stuck crazies might try to do the same?

[MbolicGolf]

Originally Posted by AmazingWhacker

I think I understand libel the same way as you do but I think the issue will be to prove that there was any real harm done.  Most of the things the person posted were actually repeats of old rumors (the michael jordon one, for example, has apparently been around since 2006 http://deadspin.com/5515170/how-did-that-false-amy-mickelson+michael-jordan-rumor-start-anyway )

and I don't think you can reasonably say that anonymous posts on the internet are actually damaging in a real way.  Even on the blog in question, 90% of the other posts on the thread are admonishing those by Fogroller, et al.

The irony is that Phil's action will probably only encourage more of this behavior because 1. the penalty will be at most a cease and decist  2.  The recent headlines probably increased the public awareness of all this by a thousand-fold and 3.  Now this person has managed to get the attention of Phil Mickelson.  How many star-stuck crazies might try to do the same?

"Will do harm" means that a reasonable person would find that it would do harm, not that harm is actually done. Secondly based upon what the anon poster said, The libel per se criteria are met in both cases, The unsavory things said about phil's wife of a prurient nature, the child out of wedlock statement, and there's a question as to whether or not alot of the statments made are inteded to harm phils livelyhood. Libel per se does not require actually damages.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by Yukari

There may be a question of whether something is a legal or illegal depending on circumstances and mitigating factors, but there is no degree of illegality.

Something can not be "very very illegal", that is all I am saying.

Malum in se:  something is against the law because it is wrong.  Murder, rape, robbery, arson, etc.

Malum prohibitum:  something is against the law because some dudes in the legislature say so.  Smoking weed, making a U-turn at the corner of First and Main, etc.

[brocks]

Malum in se:  something is against the law because it is wrong.  Murder, rape, robbery, arson, etc. Malum prohibitum:  something is against the law because some dudes in the legislature say so.  Smoking weed, making a U-turn at the corner of First and Main, etc.

Who, exactly, determines that something is simply wrong? If it's our Judeo-Christian heritage, then using your examples, there is nothing in the Ten Commandments about arson, but washing your car or mowing your lawn on the Sabbath gets you the death penalty. And murder is OK if you beat a slave to death, as long as it takes him a few days to die. In fact, most people today would say it is obviously wrong to enslave anyone, but our Founding Fathers gave the slave trade the highest status imaginable --- it was the only industry that was protected from Constitutional amendments. So who decides?

[Yukari]

That is in reference to acts that were known when civilization was established and acts that became known after the laws have been established.  You are talking about the "natural" law (i.e., malum in se) verses acts that were "invented" by modern society.

Originally Posted by k-troop

Malum in se:  something is against the law because it is wrong.  Murder, rape, robbery, arson, etc.

Malum prohibitum:  something is against the law because some dudes in the legislature say so.  Smoking weed, making a U-turn at the corner of First and Main, etc.

[MbolicGolf]

Originally Posted by brocks

, but our Founding Fathers gave the slave trade the highest status imaginable --- it was the only industry that was protected from Constitutional amendments.

So who decides?

Which industries were not protected from constitutional amendments? Which constitutional amendments speak to industry?  What status was the slave trade given? What was the highest status? Do you know why the three fifths compromise was formed? Have you read the federalist papers? Did all the founding fathers own slaves?

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by brocks

Who, exactly, determines that something is simply wrong? If it's our Judeo-Christian heritage, then using your examples, there is nothing in the Ten Commandments about arson, but washing your car or mowing your lawn on the Sabbath gets you the death penalty. And murder is OK if you beat a slave to death, as long as it takes him a few days to die.

In fact, most people today would say it is obviously wrong to enslave anyone, but our Founding Fathers gave the slave trade the highest status imaginable --- it was the only industry that was protected from Constitutional amendments.

So who decides?

This is either an intentionally combative comment or you are a disturbingly ignorant person.  Say this out loud:  "Most reasonable people would agree that washing your car on Sunday is wrong and punishable, but killing or enslaving a black person is either desirable or irrelevant."  If that doesn't sound outrageously stupid to you, then please post your name and address here so that we can warn your neighbors.

Slavery is one of 4 or 5 crimes recognized through international law as universally wrong, and which may be tried and punished at any time in any state regardless of where the crime occurred or whether that state had an actual law proscribing it.

[walk18]

I thought this thread was about Phil Mickelson?

[Ernest Jones]

Originally Posted by walk18

I thought this thread was about Phil Mickelson?

It was, but now it's about his slaves.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by k-troop

This is either an intentionally combative comment or you are a disturbingly ignorant person.

Not trying to start an argument here, but k-troop needs to read his bible a bit more thoroughly.

I think the point that brocks is making is that some people, when trying to define morality and righteousness, choose the bible as an example and call it "God's word".

And brocks also need to read some of his own country's history regarding slavery.

The problem is that the bible is full of nasty stuff where murder and torture are suggested as punishment for things that these days we don't even call crimes or misdemeanours.

If you tried to live your life according to the bible, and wanted others to, you'd be in jail pretty quickly in the modern world.

Adulterers should be put to death, for example.

And people breaking the sabbath? - death of course. That would include playing golf, one would assume.

Back to topic?

[brocks]

Which industries were not protected from constitutional amendments? Which constitutional amendments speak to industry?  What status was the slave trade given? What was the highest status? Do you know why the three fifths compromise was formed? Have you read the federalist papers? Did all the founding fathers own slaves?

If you will calm down and tell me what your problem is, I will attempt to address it.