It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why don't freemasonry sue conspiracy theorists?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Since seems that many things that they say is calumny, slander, bs, why not?

I bet there are tons of lawyers/attorneys that are "bros".




posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Because they would have to prove them wrong... That means giving up secrets, we all know they would never do that.

Also i think they like the attention to much.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by refuse_orders
Because they would have to prove them wrong... That means giving up secrets, we all know they would never do that.

Also i think they like the attention to much.


true, negative publicity is still publicity, and its free. and they would NEVER risk giving up their secrets. they are not a secret society, they are a society with secrets.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by 11b1p]



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
it's been going on for hundreds of years. It always has been and always will be. People fear what they do not know and therefore make up theories about that unknown culture/group/society/etc... that best fits their own beliefs.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Here are some more reasons.

1. Discovery

During a lawsuit, the parties go through a phase called discovery where they are able to look at any evidence the other parties have or could possibly have. Discovery in the US is liberal and pretty much allows any party in a lawsuit to snoop into the other parties business. If secret societies like freemasons filed lawsuits, defendants could use discovery to obtain secret ritual books, membership lists, and all sorts of other inoformation the societies would like to keep secret.

2. Free Speech Issues

Under the first amendment, most defamation lawsuits filed by secret societies will be thrown out. According to the US supreme court, the first amendment requires that the plaintiff in a defamation suit show the defamatory statements were intentional falsehoods or made with a reckless disregard for the truth.

Here, many statements made about secret societies concern issues of public concern like world domination or mass brainwashings. The only way the Masons would prevail is if they could prove the people making these statements willfully lied or were reckless with regards to the truth. Since many conspiracy theorists are not intentionally lying, the masons would have a difficult time prevailing.

Furthermore, many states have anti- SLAPP suit laws. SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) are defamation suits that people file to get people to shut up. An example of this is when Beef farmers sued Oprah because she did a piece on mad cow disease. The Beef farmers knew they would not prevail, yet they insisted on engaging in a long, drawn out lawsuit with Oprah so others would be deterred from saying bad things about beef.

If freemasons or other secret societies filed suits against conspiracy theorists, they could be subjecting themselves to penalties under anti-SLAPP suit laws.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


Free speech isn't an issue... libel and slander are still illegal ... not protected speech.

But the real reason is quite simple. We are better than that.

We took an oath to NOT go to such lengths in argument defending the fraternity..
Not to mention the fact that its excellent publicity. In fact I am a Mason because of the conspiracy theorist.... it attracts the right people and it keeps the wrong people away from us.. the vast majority of conspiracy theorist are not Masonic material, so its better they fear us.......




posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by infobrazil
 

And make the conspiracy theorists a martyr? This would be something they want. The theorists would have a hay-day.

Plus the theorists are just on sites like this, it's not like anyone takes them serious.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 

Yes, because our secrets and ritual books are not smeared all over the net. It's not like the Brothers hide their membership.

As for the defamation, it really wouldn't be hard to show the intentional falsehood. If the person wasn't lying they would be seen as dilusional.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Whoooooooooo

so its better they fear us.......



The lower level, barely through initiation masons we see talking about themselves non-stop in this and other forums claim their most usual involvement is 'ritual bar-b-ques' to raise charity for the chillun


Yet here you are -- the dark warlord --- stating in public 'it's better they fear us' ?

They'll make you scrub those lineoleum black and white tiles if they find out you've been talking like that

or they might toss you out for any number of infringements


and then what will you do to feel powerful, 'connected' and important ?



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by infobrazil
 



Im sorry but this is absolutely ridiculous! Its a SECRET society! That means it is a secret and not meant for the entire world to know. I mean my God what is it with people who are so sue happy over anything. I think slander and that kind of crap is stupid but that is MY opinion...I grew up being told "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me," and let me tell you it has worked. I dont let little things get to me like name calling although I will stand up for myself. I dont believe in suing just because someone said something bad about you. People need to get a backbone. If someone is talking about me then it must mean I am important to them in some way...Its when they stop talking about you is when you should worry
I mean my life is very dull and believe me I get my fair share of negative people in my life because of my job but they know nothing about it so I honestly dont care what they think. Their opinion doesnt matter. I dont have opinions on Masons because I am not one so I have no right to judge a group I know nothing about.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by St Vaast
 


I was secretly hoping that some newbie would reference "low level, unknowing, run-of-the-mill Masons"

Thanks for not letting me down Vaast.

Best Regards,

Senrak

Notorious High-Level Mason, Soothsayer, Illuminati Leader and Taxidermist



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by infobrazil
Since seems that many things that they say is calumny, slander, bs, why not?


If it is in print, like it is on this website it is libel.

Firstly, libel laws in the United States, as already mentioned, are rather liberal.

Secondly, I have not seen any personally directed libel. It is more of a general insult along the lines of, "Masons are Satantnists" or "Masons are trying to harvets your children's organs". It is similar to someone saying all Catholics, Muslims or Jews are fanaticals, typing the Elks are Luciferian, or writing all politicians are thieves.

They are too broadbased to be seriously considered libelous in the United States. If however, you target individual Masons, Catholics, Muslims, Politicians, etc. by name and make the same accusations then you would be well advised to have some tangible proof to support your claims.








[edit on 23-8-2009 by AugustusMasonicus]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


You are right in that libel and slander are not protected speech, yet if you read my post you will see the law balances the need to protect people from defamation with free speech concerns. This balance leads to anti-SLAPP laws and other rules that would hinder defamation suits.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by KSigMason
 


Here is the problem with proving someone is delusional. Let us assume you want to sue me for slander because I told people your secret society has its initiates kill and eat a small child as part of its ritual and this is why there are a few missing children in your town. Although this statement sounds obsurd, it is difficult for you to win.

Since missing children is an issue of puplic concern, the burden of proof is on you to prove that I was intentionally lying or speaking with reckless disregard for the truth. You have to come forward and prove, without compromising the secrecy of your society, that your society does not kill and eat children. You would have to prove, that based on what little information I had about what goes on behind your closed doors, I had zero reason to believe you were killing and eating small children.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by St Vaast
 


Lmfao .. it was sarcasm you tit ... *sigh* .. I've sadly noticed it's a fine line to joke around in this forum..

Anywho .. Thanks for the reply.. I wish it could have been more original.. but ah well, you get what you get..



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 




the burden of proof is on you to prove that I was intentionally lying or speaking with reckless disregard for the truth.


LOL .. wow. Actually it's quite the opposite.. when you accuse someone of rape torture and murder, generally you have to "Prove they did it" .. "Guilty until proven innocent" is not the way the system works. If in a Lawsuit you would actually have to prove your words had a foundation in truth, to which you would have to prove the accusations.. We wouldn't disprove anything.. just sit back and watch the circus show that would be that court room. Hell in such a case, we wouldn't even have to furnish a copy of our specific rituals.. which of course can be found online and such as well as books old and new.

Just remember, if you even venture down the road of Law..

The accused does not prove his innocence.. he disproves evidence

The accuser proves guilt through evidence..

So any defense by the is a byproduct of evidence, it is not an initial action.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 

It wouldn't be difficult to win; I would hope that common sense would win.

Actually, in a court of US law, the burden of proof lies with the accuser; innocent until proven and all. We wouldn't have to give up our secrets or rituals to prove you guys wrong.

Like I said earlier, it would be pointless to go after the conspiracy theorists, it would make them feel the part of the martyr. Again, no one takes them seriously anyway. Their like little clows or jesters, jumping around like little monkeys.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Why make a fuss about people with sad life's, that have nothing better to do with their time than sit and spout rubbish to get a reaction.

The Masonic is a glorious and fine order and it's up to them to prove otherwise, and at the end of the day they can't!



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Thing is, to prove slander or libel, the law requires that a hypothetical "reasonable person" would take such slander or libel seriously and actually believe it, causing actual harm to the victim being libelled or slandered. It is assumed that the "reasonable person" will not take the average anti-Mason seriously.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
imo, this thread is a perfect exemple of masons' wolf pack, using fear mongering to control a conspiracy site.

You only succeeded to proved, that your desire, to control information about freemasonry in this site, is your only goal and you are ready to do what ever will be needed to succeed it.

contrary to conspiracy theorists, who would do what ever will be needed to expose conspiracies and the truth.

More and more, it's becoming obvious for everybody here, that freemasons wants to take control of all conspiracy sites and ATS is without a dout already conquered.

will a freemason moderator see this post and use is privilages to hide it before to many will have time to read it or it would be to late to erase it because it would look to suspicious, so they will use different strategies...

to be continued...



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Because we don't believe in censorship.

Freedom of speech is one of our basic beliefs.




top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join