vjohn82 wrote:Seth wrote:vjohn82 wrote:Seth wrote: I note that you no longer bother to deny that you outed his children. Truth hurts, doesn't it?
Simple questions for you.
Can you name a time, or demonstrate for anyone on this forum, when I denied "outing" his children (your words)?
Sure, right
here:
vjohn82 wrote:Again, you demonstrate that you are holding vitriolic views based on misinformation, lack of information and your own ability to invent things. Name me one place where you know that I mentioned his kids. Then people can take you seriously. Unless you can demonstrate this, your posts will come across as bullshit. It's really as simple as that.
That's a pretty clear attempt at denial, otherwise you would have simply admitted what you did, as you did in your blog. You're not big on internal consistency, are you? Do you have difficulty remembering which lies you just told?
I meant to say "Name me one place where you know that I mentioned his kids school" - it would be pretty ridiculous for me to deny mentioning his kids names when I have admitted it on my blog and considering that I did not need to volunteer that information. No lies, no dishonesty. If it was my intention to lie or be dishonest, why would I have posted anything at all?
Because you're stupid?
So I send the correctly phrased question back at you: "Name me one place where you know that I mentioned his kids school"?
Evasion. I've already clarified that.
Seth wrote: When you play to an audience of potentially deranged atheists who might wish harm to someone who writes negatively about their icon and High Priest, Richard Dawkins, posting personal information about that author's children you discovered as a part of a deranged and obsessive "investigation" of someone you clearly hate with passion on the Internet
What personal information did I post?
Their names, and their father's name and other locational information that allowed others to ferret out the children's school, which is quite enough information to constitute a legitimate threat to the kids, notwithstanding the UK copper's disinterest, and certainly enough to justify suing you. Members need to be aware that just because actions do not rise to the level of a criminal act, they may easily breach the civil laws and subject one to suit for damages, and rightfully so. [/quote]
So what is the cause of action then?
Intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defamation. Potentially, though unlikely, Nervous Shock.
I named his kids... ok, so what's the legal route? What constitutes a civil or criminal offence in naming kids? Is there a law against doing what I did? Or is it simply your wish that there was a law against that sort of behaviour?
From Wikipedia:
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.
“ A is liable for saying anything to C about B which would be apt to make the average citizen think worse of the latter. ”
A statement can include an implication; for instance, a photograph of Tony Blair accompanying a headline reading "Corrupt Politicians" could be held as an allegation that Tony Blair was personally corrupt. Once it is shown that a statement was published, and that it has a defamatory meaning, that statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant is able to raise a defence to his defamatory act.
The 2006 case of Keith-Smith v Williams confirmed that discussions on the Internet were public enough for libel to take place.[1]
Slander actionable per se
The following are actionable without proof of special damage/actual damage:
* Words imputing a crime punishable with imprisonment
* Words imputing certain diseases
* Words disparaging a person in his office, calling or profession, see section 2 of the Defamation Act 1952. Also at common law.
* Words imputing unchastity or adultery to a female, see the Slander of Women Act 1891
Intentional infliction of emotional distress:
Elements
1. Defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; and
2. Defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous; and
3. Defendant’s act is the cause of the distress; and
4. Plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress as a result of defendant’s conduct.[6]
[edit] Intentional or reckless act
The intent of the act need not be to bring about emotional distress. A reckless disregard for the likelihood of causing emotional distress is sufficient.[citation needed] For example, if a defendant refused to inform a plaintiff of the whereabouts of the plaintiff's child for several years, though that defendant knew where the child was the entire time, the defendant could be held liable for IIED even though the defendant had no intent to cause distress to the plaintiff.
[edit] Extreme and outrageous conduct
The conduct must be heinous and beyond the standards of civilized decency or utterly intolerable in a civilized society. Whether the conduct is illegal does not determine whether it meets this standard. IIED is also known as the tort of "outrage," due to a classic formulation of the standard: the conduct must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to exclaim "Outrageous!" in response.
Some general factors that will persuade that the conduct was extreme and outrageous (1) there was a pattern of conduct, not just an isolated incident; (2) the plaintiff was vulnerable and the defendant knew it; (3) the defendant was in a position of power; (4) racial epithets were used; and (5) the defendant owed the plaintiff a fiduciary duty.[7][8]
As I said before, at the time that you insulted, derogated and impugned the reputation of McGrath, and outed his children's names, you admit that you DID NOT KNOW whether McGrath was in fact the person behind the book or advertising campaign, and you admit that you DELIBERATELY and INTENTIONALLY used his children's names as "bait" to confirm your suspicions. Since the children were in NO WAY responsible for the book or the advertising campaign, you showed reckless disregard for the truth and for their well-being by using them as "bait" in your vendetta against the author of the book, who, once again, you DID NOT KNOW was McGrath when you posted the information about his children.
You've clearly met three of the four prongs of the test for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the fourth prong is met if the plaintiff can prove that he, or his children, or his wife, suffered emotional distress as a result of your callous actions.
I'm not going to justify what I did and why I did it because that would involve using evidence. I cannot disclose any evidence. The more bollocks you post the more it seems like a tactic to draw more information than I can give.
I guess you should have shut the fuck up about it in the first place then. You don't get a pass by pleading that you "cannot disclose any evidence." You have made admissions and unsubstantiated allegations about your actions and against McGrath, and you are now expecting me to accept them at face value and just agree that you're being victimized by Britain's tort laws? Sorry, but you don't get to expect that. You opened this can of worms, and now you're going to have to eat them.
Alternatively, you can suck it up, realize that you have made a MAJOR legal tactical error, and resolve to shut the fuck up about the case till it's been adjudicated. You might take a page from Dawkins on this. He seems to be smart enough not to attempt to try the case online. I suggest you do the same. Really. With your best interests in mind, please quit trying to defend your actions and shut the fuck up about it, you're only harming your case every time you post.
And don't expect me to stop being critical if you insist on perpetuating your part in this mess in this forum. You've already stepped on your dick, I suggest you step back before you do yourself permanent injury.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
