People want to kill me?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Shelley sounds angry. She needs a teddy to hug I think.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Shelley sounds angry. She needs a teddy to hug I think.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/ ... 1246669075[/imgc]

[Transgirlofnofaith]

Shelley sounds angry. She needs a teddy to hug I think.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/ ... 1246669075[/imgc]

Or a big vibe and a dog-sized container of lube.

[Lozzer]

Guys, I'm writing this to my newspaper. Undoubtedly they will be tempted to publish the debate, and not in its full form.

To whom this may regard,

By all normal expectations, It is most probable that you'll publish some of the comments on the debate which took place on the Journal's Facebook (the one about the Paedophile Landlord).

If this is done, Id most appreciate it if you publish the argument in FULL. My position and advocacy has been grossly misconstrued as it is and I don't particularly like the idea of correcting peoples misapprehensions again. There is no possible way to understand my argument if it isn't in full detail. If it comes to be that you neglect to publish my dispute in full, you will have misrepresented both the integrity of my polemic and my own character.

Having knowledge of this now, I hope you take my concerned request seriously. However, if you do in fact publish only a minute portion of what I said and real-world consequences follow then I shan't hesitate to begin a lawsuit under libel.

First off, is my grammar OK and could this be considered blackmail? Be serious, thanks.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Guys, I'm writing this to my newspaper. Undoubtedly they will be tempted to publish the debate, and not in its full form.

To whom this may regard,

By all normal expectations, It is most probable that you'll publish some of the comments on the debate which took place on the Journal's Facebook (the one about the Paedophile Landlord).

If this is done, Id most appreciate it if you publish the argument in FULL. My position and advocacy has been grossly misconstrued as it is and I don't particularly like the idea of correcting peoples misapprehensions again. There is no possible way to understand my argument if it isn't in full detail. If it comes to be that you neglect to publish my dispute in full, you will have misrepresented both the integrity of my polemic and my own character.

Having knowledge of this now, I hope you take my concerned request seriously. However, if you do in fact publish only a minute portion of what I said and real-world consequences follow then I shan't hesitate to begin a lawsuit under libel.

First off, is my grammar OK and could this be considered blackmail? Be serious, thanks.

I'm not sure how the libel laws stand on statements being taken out of context. I doubt you'd have any kind of case unless they specifically stated something untrue about you and then used such statements as 'proof'. If they merely printed a portion of the argument with no further comment, there would be no case, I think.

[Lozzer]

Guys, I'm writing this to my newspaper. Undoubtedly they will be tempted to publish the debate, and not in its full form.

To whom this may regard,

By all normal expectations, It is most probable that you'll publish some of the comments on the debate which took place on the Journal's Facebook (the one about the Paedophile Landlord).

If this is done, Id most appreciate it if you publish the argument in FULL. My position and advocacy has been grossly misconstrued as it is and I don't particularly like the idea of correcting peoples misapprehensions again. There is no possible way to understand my argument if it isn't in full detail. If it comes to be that you neglect to publish my dispute in full, you will have misrepresented both the integrity of my polemic and my own character.

Having knowledge of this now, I hope you take my concerned request seriously. However, if you do in fact publish only a minute portion of what I said and real-world consequences follow then I shan't hesitate to begin a lawsuit under libel.

First off, is my grammar OK and could this be considered blackmail? Be serious, thanks.

I'm not sure how the libel laws stand on statements being taken out of context. I doubt you'd have any kind of case unless they specifically stated something untrue about you and then used such statements as 'proof'. If they merely printed a portion of the argument with no further comment, there would be no case, I think.

False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being.".If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading, then a tort of false light might have occurred--False light by Professor Edward C. Martin - Cumberland School of Law, Samford University

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Guys, I'm writing this to my newspaper. Undoubtedly they will be tempted to publish the debate, and not in its full form.

To whom this may regard,

By all normal expectations, It is most probable that you'll publish some of the comments on the debate which took place on the Journal's Facebook (the one about the Paedophile Landlord).

If this is done, Id most appreciate it if you publish the argument in FULL. My position and advocacy has been grossly misconstrued as it is and I don't particularly like the idea of correcting peoples misapprehensions again. There is no possible way to understand my argument if it isn't in full detail. If it comes to be that you neglect to publish my dispute in full, you will have misrepresented both the integrity of my polemic and my own character.

Having knowledge of this now, I hope you take my concerned request seriously. However, if you do in fact publish only a minute portion of what I said and real-world consequences follow then I shan't hesitate to begin a lawsuit under libel.

First off, is my grammar OK and could this be considered blackmail? Be serious, thanks.

I'm not sure how the libel laws stand on statements being taken out of context. I doubt you'd have any kind of case unless they specifically stated something untrue about you and then used such statements as 'proof'. If they merely printed a portion of the argument with no further comment, there would be no case, I think.

False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being.".If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading, then a tort of false light might have occurred--False light by Professor Edward C. Martin - Cumberland School of Law, Samford University

A lawyer and a doctor, impressive!

I still think it would be a lot harder to get a case based on that. It depends on how misleading the snippet chosen was, I suppose. It also comes down to whether you can get a lawyer to take the case on.

I would change the last line of your letter to something like, "I shan't hesitate to seek legal advice." It is a little less threatening in tone. up to you of course.

[Lozzer]

Guys, I'm writing this to my newspaper. Undoubtedly they will be tempted to publish the debate, and not in its full form.

To whom this may regard,

By all normal expectations, It is most probable that you'll publish some of the comments on the debate which took place on the Journal's Facebook (the one about the Paedophile Landlord).

If this is done, Id most appreciate it if you publish the argument in FULL. My position and advocacy has been grossly misconstrued as it is and I don't particularly like the idea of correcting peoples misapprehensions again. There is no possible way to understand my argument if it isn't in full detail. If it comes to be that you neglect to publish my dispute in full, you will have misrepresented both the integrity of my polemic and my own character.

Having knowledge of this now, I hope you take my concerned request seriously. However, if you do in fact publish only a minute portion of what I said and real-world consequences follow then I shan't hesitate to begin a lawsuit under libel.

First off, is my grammar OK and could this be considered blackmail? Be serious, thanks.

I'm not sure how the libel laws stand on statements being taken out of context. I doubt you'd have any kind of case unless they specifically stated something untrue about you and then used such statements as 'proof'. If they merely printed a portion of the argument with no further comment, there would be no case, I think.

False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being.".If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading, then a tort of false light might have occurred--False light by Professor Edward C. Martin - Cumberland School of Law, Samford University

A lawyer and a doctor, impressive!

I still think it would be a lot harder to get a case based on that. It depends on how misleading the snippet chosen was, I suppose. It also comes down to whether you can get a lawyer to take the case on.

I would change the last line of your letter to something like, "I shan't hesitate to seek legal advice." It is a little less threatening in tone. up to you of course.

Wkipedia

I agree, but I wont know until its actually published next Friday. If its the case they do misrepresent me, then they will be in severe trouble.

And awesome, I'll change it

[Chinaski]

I'd write to the newspaper with your position reformulated as eloquently as possible, rather than just as an appendage to the facebook discussion.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I'd write to the newspaper with your position reformulated as eloquently as possible, rather than just as an appendage to the facebook discussion.

+1

[videoreverend]

I'd suggest looking at the Terms of Use for the forum on which the debate was held. If at any time you checked a box that said something to the effect of "by proceeding I agree to the Terms of Use" (or however they acquire your consent and agreement; there are other ways) and then proceeded to engage in this discussion on the forum, they may well have the right -- depending on the verbiage in the Terms -- to take snippets of your posts completely out of context and use them however they wish.

I have a limited bit of experience in this regard; in a past life, I worked on "reality" TV productions. The folks who participated signed releases that allowed the producers to construct sentences the participants never uttered from various words they said. On at least one occasion, I saw an editor create a new word by editing together syllables from other words. It's a shameless endeavor (part of the reason I no longer work on those kinds of shows).

If you agreed to the Terms of Use, your rights -- and therefore your recourse moving forward -- is likely limited by that contract.

[Lozzer]

I'd suggest looking at the Terms of Use for the forum on which the debate was held. If at any time you checked a box that said something to the effect of "by proceeding I agree to the Terms of Use" (or however they acquire your consent and agreement; there are other ways) and then proceeded to engage in this discussion on the forum, they may well have the right -- depending on the verbiage in the Terms -- to take snippets of your posts completely out of context and use them however they wish.

I have a limited bit of experience in this regard; in a past life, I worked on "reality" TV productions. The folks who participated signed releases that allowed the producers to construct sentences the participants never uttered from various words they said. On at least one occasion, I saw an editor create a new word by editing together syllables from other words. It's a shameless endeavor (part of the reason I no longer work on those kinds of shows).

If you agreed to the Terms of Use, your rights -- and therefore your recourse moving forward -- is likely limited by that contract.

But it was Facebook, I don't think their terms of use are that incisive

[videoreverend]

But it was Facebook, I don't think their terms of use are that incisive

The Terms link (http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=ho ... php?ref=pf) is at the bottom of every Facebook page. I'm no lawyer, and it's really, really long, so I won't pretend to know if your right to legally pursue the newspaper that hosts its forum on Facebook (am I getting this right?) is limited by all those words. Nor do I know if the non-Facebook entity (again, for some reason I'm thinking a newspaper) can ascribe its own additional layer of Terms atop the Facebook terms. It's all legal mumbo jumbo to me. I just know that sometimes entities that frequently edit content often indemnify themselves contractually prior to acquiring raw footage/statements. Based on space limitations, they almost always have to edit things down, and they want to make sure they don't get sued every time they don't publish stuff verbatim.

Bottom line: I don't know. But you might do well to peruse the Terms prior to making threats on which you cannot legally follow through.

You seem to have taken on a worthy battle. It's when they must apply to the rights of those that most offend us that we find out whether or not we are truly committed to our "core principles." Good luck, Lozzer.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I'd suggest looking at the Terms of Use for the forum on which the debate was held. If at any time you checked a box that said something to the effect of "by proceeding I agree to the Terms of Use" (or however they acquire your consent and agreement; there are other ways) and then proceeded to engage in this discussion on the forum, they may well have the right -- depending on the verbiage in the Terms -- to take snippets of your posts completely out of context and use them however they wish.

I have a limited bit of experience in this regard; in a past life, I worked on "reality" TV productions. The folks who participated signed releases that allowed the producers to construct sentences the participants never uttered from various words they said. On at least one occasion, I saw an editor create a new word by editing together syllables from other words. It's a shameless endeavor (part of the reason I no longer work on those kinds of shows).

If you agreed to the Terms of Use, your rights -- and therefore your recourse moving forward -- is likely limited by that contract.

It is against the law to include conditions in a contract that contradict the law of the land - in fact, the whole contract is invalidated by such a clause IIRC. For example, no contract that claims that your life is forfeit, or that you have to have sex with a minor is valid. Similarly, if a false statement about someone was made by a newspaper, that paper would still be subject to the libel laws, even if a condition in the contract stated that they were allowed to quote people out of context without recourse to law.

As I said earlier, it all comes down to whether a lawyer thinks there is enough of a case to take it on.

[videoreverend]

I'd suggest looking at the Terms of Use for the forum on which the debate was held. If at any time you checked a box that said something to the effect of "by proceeding I agree to the Terms of Use" (or however they acquire your consent and agreement; there are other ways) and then proceeded to engage in this discussion on the forum, they may well have the right -- depending on the verbiage in the Terms -- to take snippets of your posts completely out of context and use them however they wish.

I have a limited bit of experience in this regard; in a past life, I worked on "reality" TV productions. The folks who participated signed releases that allowed the producers to construct sentences the participants never uttered from various words they said. On at least one occasion, I saw an editor create a new word by editing together syllables from other words. It's a shameless endeavor (part of the reason I no longer work on those kinds of shows).

If you agreed to the Terms of Use, your rights -- and therefore your recourse moving forward -- is likely limited by that contract.

It is against the law to include conditions in a contract that contradict the law of the land - in fact, the whole contract is invalidated by such a clause IIRC. For example, no contract that claims that your life is forfeit, or that you have to have sex with a minor is valid. Similarly, if a false statement about someone was made by a newspaper, that paper would still be subject to the libel laws, even if a condition in the contract stated that they were allowed to quote people out of context without recourse to law.

As I said earlier, it all comes down to whether a lawyer thinks there is enough of a case to take it on.

Very good clarification, XC.