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.

 

Man arrested after online rant against Liverpool and Hillsborough disaster victims

page: 14
23
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Perhaps the fairest way is not to arrest people for being offensive, idiotic or wind up merchants...but also don't arrest anyone who loses their rag and stomps them.
Problem solved.




posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 





He clearly defamed identifiable individuals. In this instance it was the disaster victims. I seriously have no idea how you are not understanding this -very- straightforward concept.


Moving the goal posts, are we?

You were first claiming that the libel part was calling people from Liverpool drug addicts. He didn''t identify a single person there.

Now it's offending the disaster victims. Offending people is not even considered libel.

Again, give it up man.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 


Obviously it is because there wouldn’t be any kind of case against him. What he said there is not punishable here in the US. If he was arrested here in the US for that recording he could sue the state.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SprocketUK
 


not really. the first is annoying wordplay. the second is assault and battery.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by RogueMcChronic
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 





He clearly defamed identifiable individuals. In this instance it was the disaster victims. I seriously have no idea how you are not understanding this -very- straightforward concept.


Moving the goal posts, are we?

You were first claiming that the libel part was calling people from Liverpool drug addicts. He didn''t identify a single person there.

Now it's offending the disaster victims. Offending people is not even considered libel.

Again, give it up man.


Nope, didn't move anything. Fairly consistent with my responses. You seem to not understand the difference between illustrating points with examples and what 'moving the goalposts' entails. Again, it seems that you are either willfully or ignorantly misunderstanding what is being posted, and seeing as I don't actually care if you understand it, I will stop trying, because I think the other readers will have already figured out my point, whether they agree with it or not.

To simply deny the point exists is pretty pathetic.
edit on 30-12-2012 by DoYouEvenLift because: Clarified a point



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 


Obviously it is because there wouldn’t be any kind of case against him. What he said there is not punishable here in the US. If he was arrested here in the US for that recording he could sue the state.


I've actually already posted the United States Code on Libel which is just one of a litany of charges that could be leveled against him under USC, if even one of those charges were to stick, he could ALSO be charged with an entirely new onslaught of charges detailing his use of electronic communication while in a criminal act.

He would probably go to jail because of poor legal representation regardless. The United States legal process is very expensive.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 





Nope, didn't move anything. Fairly consistent with my responses.


Yes you did, and no you aren't.

Fist this,




It would have been easier for him to protect his person if he HAD named someone specifically. By saying "they" he opened himself up to needing to prove every single person was a drug addict.





I don't have to prove that any of them are NOT drug addicts. The man making the claim has to prove that ALL of them are drug addicts.





This is how libel works.





This would be like someone saying that the victims of the World Trade Center attacks were killed because they were all drug addicts.





You working under an incomplete understanding of the law. This man cited a group of individuals and called them drug-addicts without evidence.


To this,




He clearly defamed identifiable individuals. In this instance it was the disaster victims. I seriously have no idea how you are not understanding this -very- straightforward concept.


You kept going on about him calling liverpool people drug addicts, and how this warranted a libel case.

When you realized that this viewpoint had been debunked and had become unholdable, you moved the goal posts to defamation of disaster victims.

Give it up man.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
One thing I don't understand, maybe someone can enlighten me.

How does a rant from a 25 year old kid gain so much notoriety?

Unless one is actively seeking out these kinds of slanderous videos, how does one become offended?



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
They are using public emotions to do thier bidding. Typical behaviour. This is what people mean when they are feeding of peoples emotions.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by dogstar23
 


I appreciate your response, but my post was tounge in cheek.

Let's not get off on the wrong foot!



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoYouEvenLift

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 


Obviously it is because there wouldn’t be any kind of case against him. What he said there is not punishable here in the US. If he was arrested here in the US for that recording he could sue the state.


I've actually already posted the United States Code on Libel which is just one of a litany of charges that could be leveled against him under USC, if even one of those charges were to stick, he could ALSO be charged with an entirely new onslaught of charges detailing his use of electronic communication while in a criminal act.

He would probably go to jail because of poor legal representation regardless. The United States legal process is very expensive.


I guess you have never heard of Westborough Baptist Church.

There is your big argument. If if if. I am telling you there is no charge that would stick against him. People record much worse here in the US a no charges. If cows can fly. Sorry no dice. I guess our freedom of speech is just a bit more free.

BTW lawyers will do cases probono here. They are a dime a dozen.
edit on 30-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by DoYouEvenLift

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 


Obviously it is because there wouldn’t be any kind of case against him. What he said there is not punishable here in the US. If he was arrested here in the US for that recording he could sue the state.


I've actually already posted the United States Code on Libel which is just one of a litany of charges that could be leveled against him under USC, if even one of those charges were to stick, he could ALSO be charged with an entirely new onslaught of charges detailing his use of electronic communication while in a criminal act.

He would probably go to jail because of poor legal representation regardless. The United States legal process is very expensive.


I guess you have never heard of Westborough Baptist Church.

There is your big argument. If if if. I am telling you there is no charge that would stick against him. People record much worse here in the US a no charges. If cows can fly. Sorry no dice. I guess our freedom of speech is just a bit more free.

BTW lawyers will do cases probono here. They are a dime a dozen.
edit on 30-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)


Oh, I have heard of Westborough Baptist Church. Margie Phelps is an incredibly powerful civil rights attorney and helps to keep them within the bounds of legality, and she is incredibly good at her job. Their money comes from litigation when other people violate the rights of the WBC.

You are comparing an incredibly well organized hate machine with a below average 25 year old spouting hate on the internet, and you don't believe there would be even a single charge that could be leveled against him? I feel you are being disingenuous to try to prove an unprovable point.

Not only are there pro bono attorneys that will take case, but there are also public defenders. As you say, they are a dime a dozen, as are bad lawyers.

EDIT: OF course my entire argument is based on "IF" because your entire premise started with "IF". IF this happened in the states.. it would be wrongful prosecution. This is your claim. So the entire conversation becomes an exercise in conjecture based on the few details of the case we actually have.
edit on 30-12-2012 by DoYouEvenLift because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-12-2012 by DoYouEvenLift because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 


But he did not name a specific person though?!?! He can't be sued for libel in this case surely because he has not targeted anyone specifically?



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 





conversation becomes an exercise in conjecture based on the few details of the case we actually have.


We all heard what he said and it doesn't fit the UK criteria of libel.

They have no case of libel.

Give it up.
edit on 30-12-2012 by RogueMcChronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 


I also changed my if to a definitely once the details of the case was posted. I am stating as a fact that no prosecutor would touch that case in my country because it wouldn’t be illegal here. Just so we are clear on that. No ifs about it.

Prosecuting him for that recording on the other hand here would get the prosecutor fired and the state sued.
It is true WBC has a great layer but they are not breaking the law and neither is that guy by US standards.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by clintdelicious
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 


But he did not name a specific person though?!?! He can't be sued for libel in this case surely because he has not targeted anyone specifically?


The letter of the libel law on the books in the UK doesn't specifically address your concerns. If the individuals he is referring to can be identified -by anyone- then he can be charged with libel. In this instance, even a self identification would be enough.

Someone could literally walk into a police station and say, "This guy is talking about me on the internet" and because he self identified as one of the victims, he would have a case.

I cannot say whether this has happened, because I do not know.

EDIT: Usually the prosecution wouldn't bother with it, and it might get kicked to civil court, where you can sue directly without government prosecution.
edit on 30-12-2012 by DoYouEvenLift because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 


I also changed my if to a definitely once the details of the case was posted. I am stating as a fact that no prosecutor would touch that case in my country because it wouldn’t be illegal here. Just so we are clear on that. No ifs about it.

Prosecuting him for that recording on the other hand here would get the prosecutor fired and the state sued.
It is true WBC has a great layer but they are not breaking the law and neither is that guy by US standards.


That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. You are also wrong, as I have laid out with the letter of the law.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 





Someone could literally walk into a police station and say, "This guy is talking about me on the internet" and because he self identified as one of the victims, he would have a case.


No he wouldn't.


English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual (or individuals) in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.


If he is self identified, no other people know, so it can't cause loss in trade or profession, or cause othrs to think worse of that individual.

Stop making stuff up.

Give it up man.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by RogueMcChronic
 


I have tried to converse with you. You are either a troll or are not intelligent enough or educated in any type of critical thought. If you wish to continue to attack my points, please do so with the full understanding that I will not be acknowledging you any further.

Good day.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 


Then show me a similar US case where someone was prosecuted.

If you can’t then I will take it you concede.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join