Can someone be sued for making libelous posts about a movie with the sole intent of hurting its business?



 Sociology > Education > Can someone be sued for making libelous posts about a movie with the sole intent of hurting its business?

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Sociology > Education
User: ""
Date: 31 Dec 2005 10:38:27 AM
Object: Can someone be sued for making libelous posts about a movie with the sole intent of hurting its business?
Narnia Film to Rise Above King Kong?
It just hit me last night: The Fool isn't just lying about King Kong:
he's *libelling* the film, with the sole intent of hurting its
business. Exactly seven days after it opened, he posted that, "Over
the past week, a lot of people have been talking about how King Kong is
decreasing in sales and will likely not make a profit."
Now, here are the grosses. Keep in mind they're reported THE NEXT DAY:
Wed 14 $9,755,745
Thurs 15 $6,295,755
Fri 16 $14,468,240
Sat 17 $20,105,680
Sun 18 $15,556,225
Mon 19 $5,638,125
Tue 20 $5,244,960
On Thursday, definitely part of "the past week," Wednesday's gross
would have been reported. Since it was opening day, Kong is hardly
"decreasing in sales."
On Friday, Thursday's gross would have been reported. Not a sharp
decrease, definitely to be expected, and definitely *not* something
that'd prompt a statement like Kong "will likely not make a profit,"
but we'll let Friday slide.
On Saturday, Friday's grosses are reported. They've gone up. Fool's
claim is definitely a lie for today.
Sunday, ditto.
On Monday, Sunday's grosses are reported. Again the decrease is
slight, and definitely wouldn't prompt a statement that Kong won't make
a profit.
On Tuesday, Monday's grosses come in. Decrease.
So, on Wednesday Fool makes his claim. It seems that rather than "over
the past week," though, he means YESTERDAY, and possibly LAST FRIDAY.
It seems clear that on at least FIVE of the days of the "past week,"
NOBODY was talking about how Kong was "decreasing in sales," because IT
WASN'T. And NOBODY was talking about how Kong "will likely not make a
profit," because IT WILL.
The Fool has posted his lies repeatedly, and when confronted he refuses
to retract them. He desperately wants to boost Narnia by any means
necessary -- including libeling about a competing film in public
newsgroups with the sole intent of hurting its business. Isn't he
guilty of libel, and can't he be sued for this?
(By the way, if somebody wants to contact him -- say, a lawyer --
here's his sig line:
Ken Clifton
christianjedi.com
christiancelebrity.com
somebodysaveme.com )
.

User: ""

Title: Re: Can someone be sued for making libelous posts about a movie with the sole intent of hurting its business? 01 Jan 2006 05:29:21 AM
.......no..........
.

User: "perc2100"

Title: Re: Can someone be sued for making libelous posts about a movie with the sole intent of hurting its business? 31 Dec 2005 03:37:44 PM
Not to get in the middle of all of this BS, but there is absolutely no
way that what The Fool has been doing would be considered libel in
court.
Not even close to the legal realm of libel or slander, or anything
else.
Besides, who cares what a troll posts on a newsgroup? Why bother
feeding?
--
doug
.
User: "Ar Q"

Title: Re: Can someone be sued for making libelous posts about a movie with the sole intent of hurting its business? 01 Jan 2006 07:57:37 AM
"perc2100" <perc2100@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136065064.306524.236040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Not to get in the middle of all of this BS, but there is absolutely no
way that what The Fool has been doing would be considered libel in
court.
Not even close to the legal realm of libel or slander, or anything
else.

And I hope The Fool keep posting the box office regarding Narnia vs. King
Kong. By the way, I did not go to see King Kong. I planned to since the
trailer is interesting, especially King Kong fighting dinasours. But before
the opening, all I heard from the CNBC financial analysts, Jay Reno of
Tonight Show as well as many TV personalities not related to movie critics
at all but controlled by Universals is that I have to see King Kong at least
10 times, so I decided not to. Instead, I went to see Narnia twice.
.


User: "Yada yada yada"

Title: Re: Can someone be sued for making libelous posts about a movie with the sole intent of hurting its business? 01 Jan 2006 12:25:39 AM
On 31 Dec 2005 08:38:27 -0800,
wrote:

Narnia Film to Rise Above King Kong?
It just hit me last night: The Fool isn't just lying about King Kong:
he's *libelling* the film, with the sole intent of hurting its
business. Exactly seven days after it opened, he posted that, "Over
the past week, a lot of people have been talking about how King Kong is
decreasing in sales and will likely not make a profit."

Quick, run to mummy and have a good sook.
Lots of people talking about the "flop" that was Kong hype, and all those
figures and news reports showing Narnia has taken back the top spot off
Kong must be too much for you.
Can't face facts eh? Must be a hard life for you...
.
User: "BTR1701"

Title: Re: Can someone be sued for making libelous posts about a movie with the sole intent of hurting its business? 01 Jan 2006 08:55:09 AM
On 31 Dec 2005 08:38:27 -0800,
wrote:

Narnia Film to Rise Above King Kong?
It just hit me last night: The Fool isn't just lying about King Kong:
he's *libelling* the film, with the sole intent of hurting its
business.

Under the law, a film can't be libeled. Only a person can.
.
User: "trotsky"

Title: Re: Can someone be sued for making libelous posts about a movie withthe sole intent of hurting its business? 01 Jan 2006 09:56:53 AM
BTR1701 wrote:

On 31 Dec 2005 08:38:27 -0800,

wrote:


Narnia Film to Rise Above King Kong?
It just hit me last night: The Fool isn't just lying about King Kong:
he's *libelling* the film, with the sole intent of hurting its
business.



Under the law, a film can't be libeled. Only a person can.

Unless there's terrorism involved, in which case all current laws are
thrown out the window.
.



User: "Captain Infinity"

Title: Re: Can someone be sued for making libelous posts about a movie with the sole intent of hurting its business? 31 Dec 2005 04:14:16 PM
Once Upon A Time
wrote:

Narnia Film to Rise Above King Kong?
It just hit me last night: The Fool isn't just lying about King Kong:
he's *libelling* the film, with the sole intent of hurting its
business. Exactly seven days after it opened, he posted that, "Over
the past week, a lot of people have been talking about how King Kong is
decreasing in sales and will likely not make a profit."

Now, here are the grosses. Keep in mind they're reported THE NEXT DAY:

Wed 14 $9,755,745
Thurs 15 $6,295,755
Fri 16 $14,468,240
Sat 17 $20,105,680
Sun 18 $15,556,225
Mon 19 $5,638,125
Tue 20 $5,244,960

On Thursday, definitely part of "the past week," Wednesday's gross
would have been reported. Since it was opening day, Kong is hardly
"decreasing in sales."

On Friday, Thursday's gross would have been reported. Not a sharp
decrease, definitely to be expected, and definitely *not* something
that'd prompt a statement like Kong "will likely not make a profit,"
but we'll let Friday slide.

On Saturday, Friday's grosses are reported. They've gone up. Fool's
claim is definitely a lie for today.

Sunday, ditto.

On Monday, Sunday's grosses are reported. Again the decrease is
slight, and definitely wouldn't prompt a statement that Kong won't make
a profit.

On Tuesday, Monday's grosses come in. Decrease.

So, on Wednesday Fool makes his claim. It seems that rather than "over
the past week," though, he means YESTERDAY, and possibly LAST FRIDAY.
It seems clear that on at least FIVE of the days of the "past week,"
NOBODY was talking about how Kong was "decreasing in sales," because IT
WASN'T. And NOBODY was talking about how Kong "will likely not make a
profit," because IT WILL.

The Fool has posted his lies repeatedly, and when confronted he refuses
to retract them. He desperately wants to boost Narnia by any means
necessary -- including libeling about a competing film in public
newsgroups with the sole intent of hurting its business. Isn't he
guilty of libel, and can't he be sued for this?

(By the way, if somebody wants to contact him -- say, a lawyer --
here's his sig line:

Ken Clifton
christianjedi.com
christiancelebrity.com
somebodysaveme.com )

You need a hobby. Or a girlfriend. Or *any* friend.
**
Captain Infinity
..."That robot reminds me of you: tell it to stop, it turns.
Tell it to turn, it stops. Tell it to take out the garbage,
it watches reruns of Firefly." --"Bones"
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Can someone be sued for making libelous posts about a movie with the sole intent of hurting its business? 01 Jan 2006 06:41:41 PM

You need a hobby. =A0Or a girlfriend. =A0Or *any* friend.

You need to develop some depth, because this isn't about just some
idiot lying about some movie. It's easy to generalize from the Fool to
what's happening in the U. S. today.
The time has come for us to realize that, almost by definition,
fundamentalist Christians are amoral. They answer to a "higher
authority" -- which overrules the earthbound ones, like etiquette,
ethics or THE LAW. There's a direct connection from the Fool lying
about "King Kong" to promote the pseudo-Christian "Narnia" to
Republican tactics in political campaigns.
As we saw in the last two presidential campaigns, Democrats -- that is,
people whose identities aren't fixed around God -- deal with facts.
They talk about WMDs, about torture, about the Kyoto agreement. They
criticize their opponent based on their political positions.
Republicans, on the other hand, have an agenda, and that is to bring
God and morality and good old time religion to America. Which means
they have to position themselves as God-fearing Christians, with their
opponents the direct opposite. They hire private investigators to dig
up dirt, but since they're not always running against draft-dodging
homosexuals, they've got to grasp at straws. And so they intentionally
mislead people (i.e., the ACLU and NAMBLA, or all those urban legends
about teachers paddling kids who *mention* God). They pose in front of
the flag slandering their opponents' morals, with even members of their
party becoming philanderers, communists, and liars. And, they just
plain make up stuff: when Bush ran against John McCain, for instance,
Karl Rove started rumors that McCain's wife was a crack-addicted *****,
and that McCain had fathered a half-black child.
It's a sad, ironic state of affairs when the "religious" faction is
dishonest, the so-called "moral" candidate making up lies to win.
(And, frankly, this is why John McCain is a has-been, if not a laughing
stock: he took a load of horseshit from George W. Bush, and after Bush
won he ran straight around to kiss Bush's *****.)
So, my point: We need to realize that the end justifies ANY means for
fundamentalist Christians. We need to get them out of our lives and
out of our government, because they'll sink to any depths necessary to
get what they want, whether that's lying about "Kong" to promote
"Narnia" or lying about WMDs and bankrupting America to bring "God" to
Iraq.
.
User: "George Peatty"

Title: Re: Can someone be sued for making libelous posts about a movie with the sole intent of hurting its business? 02 Jan 2006 09:22:50 AM
On 1 Jan 2006 16:41:41 -0800,
wrote:

The time has come for us to realize that, almost by definition,
fundamentalist Christians are amoral. They answer to a "higher
authority" -- which overrules the earthbound ones, like etiquette,
ethics or THE LAW. There's a direct connection from the Fool lying
about "King Kong" to promote the pseudo-Christian "Narnia" to
Republican tactics in political campaigns.

This is an oxymoron.
.

User: "Captain Infinity"

Title: Re: Can someone be sued for making libelous posts about a movie with the sole intent of hurting its business? 01 Jan 2006 08:11:41 PM
Once Upon A Time
wrote:

You need a hobby. r a girlfriend. r *any* friend.


You need to develop some depth, because this isn't about just some
idiot lying about some movie. It's easy to generalize from the Fool to
what's happening in the U. S. today.

The time has come for us to realize that, almost by definition,
fundamentalist Christians are amoral. They answer to a "higher
authority" -- which overrules the earthbound ones, like etiquette,
ethics or THE LAW. There's a direct connection from the Fool lying
about "King Kong" to promote the pseudo-Christian "Narnia" to
Republican tactics in political campaigns.

As we saw in the last two presidential campaigns, Democrats -- that is,
people whose identities aren't fixed around God -- deal with facts.
They talk about WMDs, about torture, about the Kyoto agreement. They
criticize their opponent based on their political positions.

Republicans, on the other hand, have an agenda, and that is to bring
God and morality and good old time religion to America. Which means
they have to position themselves as God-fearing Christians, with their
opponents the direct opposite. They hire private investigators to dig
up dirt, but since they're not always running against draft-dodging
homosexuals, they've got to grasp at straws. And so they intentionally
mislead people (i.e., the ACLU and NAMBLA, or all those urban legends
about teachers paddling kids who *mention* God). They pose in front of
the flag slandering their opponents' morals, with even members of their
party becoming philanderers, communists, and liars. And, they just
plain make up stuff: when Bush ran against John McCain, for instance,
Karl Rove started rumors that McCain's wife was a crack-addicted *****,
and that McCain had fathered a half-black child.

It's a sad, ironic state of affairs when the "religious" faction is
dishonest, the so-called "moral" candidate making up lies to win.
(And, frankly, this is why John McCain is a has-been, if not a laughing
stock: he took a load of horseshit from George W. Bush, and after Bush
won he ran straight around to kiss Bush's *****.)

So, my point: We need to realize that the end justifies ANY means for
fundamentalist Christians. We need to get them out of our lives and
out of our government, because they'll sink to any depths necessary to
get what they want, whether that's lying about "Kong" to promote
"Narnia" or lying about WMDs and bankrupting America to bring "God" to
Iraq.

I stand corrected. You don't need a hobby or a girlfriend or a friend.
You need a psychiatrist with some strong psychoactive drugs.
**
Captain Infinity
..."That robot reminds me of you: tell it to stop, it turns.
Tell it to turn, it stops. Tell it to take out the garbage,
it watches reruns of Firefly." --"Bones"
.
User: "Dave Thompson"

Title: Re: Can someone be sued for making libelous posts about a movie with the sole intent of hurting its business? 02 Jan 2006 11:45:05 AM
"Captain Infinity" <Infinity@captaininfinity.us> wrote in message
news:ct2hr1hfcg33k91ft46asjteumq1ea13gp@4ax.com...

Once Upon A Time

wrote:

You need a hobby. r a girlfriend. r *any* friend.


You need to develop some depth, because this isn't about just some
idiot lying about some movie. It's easy to generalize from the Fool to
what's happening in the U. S. today.

The time has come for us to realize that, almost by definition,
fundamentalist Christians are amoral. They answer to a "higher
authority" -- which overrules the earthbound ones, like etiquette,
ethics or THE LAW. There's a direct connection from the Fool lying
about "King Kong" to promote the pseudo-Christian "Narnia" to
Republican tactics in political campaigns.

As we saw in the last two presidential campaigns, Democrats -- that is,
people whose identities aren't fixed around God -- deal with facts.
They talk about WMDs, about torture, about the Kyoto agreement. They
criticize their opponent based on their political positions.

Republicans, on the other hand, have an agenda, and that is to bring
God and morality and good old time religion to America. Which means
they have to position themselves as God-fearing Christians, with their
opponents the direct opposite. They hire private investigators to dig
up dirt, but since they're not always running against draft-dodging
homosexuals, they've got to grasp at straws. And so they intentionally
mislead people (i.e., the ACLU and NAMBLA, or all those urban legends
about teachers paddling kids who *mention* God). They pose in front of
the flag slandering their opponents' morals, with even members of their
party becoming philanderers, communists, and liars. And, they just
plain make up stuff: when Bush ran against John McCain, for instance,
Karl Rove started rumors that McCain's wife was a crack-addicted *****,
and that McCain had fathered a half-black child.

It's a sad, ironic state of affairs when the "religious" faction is
dishonest, the so-called "moral" candidate making up lies to win.
(And, frankly, this is why John McCain is a has-been, if not a laughing
stock: he took a load of horseshit from George W. Bush, and after Bush
won he ran straight around to kiss Bush's *****.)

So, my point: We need to realize that the end justifies ANY means for
fundamentalist Christians. We need to get them out of our lives and
out of our government, because they'll sink to any depths necessary to
get what they want, whether that's lying about "Kong" to promote
"Narnia" or lying about WMDs and bankrupting America to bring "God" to
Iraq.


I stand corrected. You don't need a hobby or a girlfriend or a friend.

You need a psychiatrist with some strong psychoactive drugs.

Wow, it's like he didn't even need to ask for an example. One just showed up
all by hisself.
.

User: ""

Title: Re: Can someone be sued for making libelous posts about a movie with the sole intent of hurting its business? 01 Jan 2006 08:36:24 PM

I stand corrected. =A0You don't need a hobby or a girlfriend or a friend.
You need a psychiatrist with some strong psychoactive drugs.

Great post! I'd applaud your intellect . . . if I thought you had the
brains to be sarcastic. Because your post is a perfect example of what
I was talking about: religious people who can't deal with facts, and
so -- lookout! -- here comes a nasty name.
And so, as I said, you get written off as an idiot. Adios.
.
User: "Captain Infinity"

Title: Re: Can someone be sued for making libelous posts about a movie with the sole intent of hurting its business? 01 Jan 2006 08:51:39 PM
Once Upon A Time
wrote:

I stand corrected. ou don't need a hobby or a girlfriend or a friend.
You need a psychiatrist with some strong psychoactive drugs.


Great post! I'd applaud your intellect . . . if I thought you had the
brains to be sarcastic. Because your post is a perfect example of what
I was talking about: religious people who can't deal with facts, and
so -- lookout! -- here comes a nasty name.

And so, as I said, you get written off as an idiot. Adios.

LOL! That's right, I'm religious. Hee hee hee.
What a myopic fool. Please post some more; I could make fun of you all
day.
**
Captain Infinity
..."That robot reminds me of you: tell it to stop, it turns.
Tell it to turn, it stops. Tell it to take out the garbage,
it watches reruns of Firefly." --"Bones"
.




User: "RichA"

Title: Re: Can someone be sued for making libelous posts about a movie with the sole intent of hurting its business? 01 Jan 2006 12:10:07 AM
Girlfriend? Notice the screename?
.



  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
 

NEWER

pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER