not logged in
| re: Small Minded... Possibly | |
Posted by:  |
pidunk 10:16 pm UTC 05/18/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Small Minded... Possibly - rockfenris2005 12:38 pm UTC 05/18/07 |
> > And yes, I believe in free speech. >I don't know what Jacqueline's > problem is this time. >You'll have to ask her. > > "Pidunk" spreads nonsensical slander that would be > punished in any society. I have seen an Australian > novelist get imprisonment for less things. Susan is one of > the worst-case scenarios I have seen. There is no such thing as "nonsensical slander" as the definition of slander is such that makes a derogotory effect upon the quality of life stemming from a damage in reputation caused by a falsity of important reputational issues which are credible. Reputational issues concern those of moral perpitude, and would be those which paint the slandered in an immoral, improper light, which damage their well being as members of society. Saying things that someone does not believe, or does not want to believe, of another person, such factors which bear no weight upon the desirability of status quo contact with the listening subject, does not go towards any definitions of slander against the subject of the discussion. Hence, nothing that rockfenris hears of my comments, statements, writings, and such and so forth about Jim, or about myself in relation to Jim, is slanderous to Jim and cannot be deemed as slanderous by rockfenris because it has no reputational damage and no effect upon the status quo contact with Jim, which is as a distant fan without personal contact or business relationship. Buying a concert ticket to a meatloaf show does not constitute a business relationship, nor does maintaining websites, forums, conducting interviews, or doing independent unsolicited promotional work which are superflouis, a businss relationship. A business relationship is one in which the subject, being Jim, initiates or seeks to initiate with an individual, and slander may be judged if that individual refuses to do the busines on basis of a credible falsity such devised by a credible source. As for statements in which rockfenris declares authority in the established credibility within the Steinman community which rockfenris has established with long care and dedication, rockfenris has routinely pointed out to the community alleged acts of plaigerism on the act of Jim, and derided my own standing with insults, impersonations, falsities as if known for fact, and with the expectation that he would be believed, with the belief of others so accepted. And thus slandering, and denigrating my own reputation. Therefore, according to Australian law, rockfenris is guilty of slander. http://www.caslon.com.au/defamationprofile2.htm#criminal | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Small Minded... Possibly - rockfenris2005 12:38 pm UTC 05/18/07 |
| Next: | Everyone: - rockfenris2005 06:12 am UTC 05/19/07 |
| Thread: |
|