Re: Re: Re: Conversation (fight?) starter


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by A Guy in Virginia on May 08, 2002 at 10:21:34:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Conversation (fight?) starter posted by thoughts on May 08, 2002 at 01:41:14:

The standard is not a shadow of a doubt, but the preponderance of the evidence.

The only problem, of course, is that you have to present that evidence in court as a result of a legal action against you. Even if you succeed in presenting the evidence, you will still have to write a fat check to your lawyer.

But the warnings are valid, it seems to me. A "crook" is defined as a criminal, and I have heard nothing about the dealer in question that suggests any laws have been broken. Therefore, his reputation, tarnished though it may seem to Doug, does not support his characterization. His only defense, it seems to me, would be to hide behind the humor, and claim his statement was satire. Again, he'd have to make this point in court, after hiring a lawyer and buying a new suit.

We should always keep in mind that this is a public forum, and freedom of speech does not extend to damaging the reputation of people, even in fun.


Follow Ups: