Street Agents, the Godfather and Tidewater 7 on 7 camps, Thoroughbreads

[TagAndBrag]

I'm not sure where his info was posted. In another post on the Wahoos247 thread about this, Cutler says that someone put out a lot of his personal information.

It looks like HE put out a lot of his personal information:

His s/n, his lack of intelligence and grammar, his idols, delusions, motivations...

 

[VT_Football_Fan]

Nothing good ever happens when people post personal info (addresses, phone #s etc) on the internet, even if it is public. Look at all the crap George Zimmermans family got at their own home. I'm glad it hasn't gotten that personal here. I don't know what has been posted on Rivals, TSL, 247, but I can't see CZY or Chris Coleman allowing that either. Lord knows who runs the Rivals site now LOL

 

[LT316]

Every time I think about what's happening, my mind always comes back thinking that most rumors start from something. Maybe it's been blown up more than it should, but does anyone think Mike London knows about this yet? I feel like someone on his staff, or friends or family have heard about this and have alerted him of it (assuming he is innocent and isn't behind all of this, which no evidence has come about detailing in any way that he is involved so I believe he is innocent). But is it possible that this is all just made up? Could someone be sitting at their computer at home, watching this and thinking, "wow look at those suckers! I got them with this prank!"

I for one don't know if this is true or not, but I don't think rumors are just started out of no where. Just thinking out-loud here.

 

[hoosrise]

Yes they are both forms of deformation. No, the rules are not the same and it would matter if a said party took legal action.

Deformation? LOL

Yes, rules are the same. Exactly the same.

If you "publish" a statement about someone either knowing it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it is true or not, you can be found guilty. Opinions are not defamatory, but statements of fact can be. If found guilty, the plaintiff would have to prove damages, which can be difficult. But if the defaming statements fall into certain categories, damages are presumed. Those categories include falsely accusing someone of a crime of moral turpitude, of having a communicable disease, being unfit for their occupation or profession, on being "unchaste" in the case of an unmarried woman (I think that is how it goes).

"Republication" in any manner is also covered by the same rules. That is where you can get into some trouble on the internet. In other words, I just posted what I got from over there doesn't work, though still the issues are falsity, knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of whether true or not.

That's the law. If the person defamed is a "public figure," the plaintiff would have to prove that the defamer acted with "actual malice," which is difficult to prove. That's why you can darn near say whatever you want about a politician or an elected official. But as to a private person who isn't a widely known person like that, the basic formula is used.

Websites generally are not responsible for what their posters post (but can be). Posters themselves are not so protected.

And whatever any other site has or has not had posted on it doesn't matter. While I understand that people get worked up over sports and sports rivalries, many of the posts in this thread are pretty dubious and dangerous. One of the accused has responded by saying all this stuff is flat out false. Smart people would back off and either wait to get something solid to work off of, but "I heard it from some guy who knows a guy who tweeted something about it" can be thin ice indeed.

Just to close the circle, as has been celebrated in this thread, it is actually a good thing that there have been all of these calls and emails to the Pilot, to ESPN, to other media. You see, those organizations are very experienced in this stuff and won't report a word unless they have, generally speaking, at least two solid sources with first hand factual information. If a news organization ran a blog post with 5% of what has been written here they would be paying out a fat settlement and a bunch of attorneys' fees and the reporter would be fired.

I'll send you a bill if you want. You can pay by Paypal.

 

[VT_Football_Fan]

Just to close the circle, as has been celebrated in this thread, it is actually a good thing that there have been all of these calls and emails to the Pilot, to ESPN, to other media. You see, those organizations are very experienced in this stuff and won't report a word unless they have, generally speaking, at least two solid sources with first hand factual information. If a news organization ran a blog post with 5% of what has been written here they would be paying out a fat settlement and a bunch of attorneys' fees and the reporter would be fired.

I actually agree with the Hoo. I think it'd be good for an outlet to dig deeper, maybe even pay for an audit. I don't think it'd be good for the Hoos, and truthfully I don't see it actually happening. If they were going to I think we'd have heard about it by now.

But what do you expect in an age where most papers just copy and paste AP articles.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

VTFF, email.....


As for the discussion. It should be happening if bad shit is happening. I hope it gets investigated before it gets too out of hand. I have my own opinion of what probably happened but no insider knowledge.

 

[Whatsupppppppp]

Deformation? LOL

Yes, rules are the same. Exactly the same.

If you "publish" a statement about someone either knowing it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it is true or not, you can be found guilty. Opinions are not defamatory, but statements of fact can be. If found guilty, the plaintiff would have to prove damages, which can be difficult. But if the defaming statements fall into certain categories, damages are presumed. Those categories include falsely accusing someone of a crime of moral turpitude, of having a communicable disease, being unfit for their occupation or profession, on being "unchaste" in the case of an unmarried woman (I think that is how it goes).

"Republication" in any manner is also covered by the same rules. That is where you can get into some trouble on the internet. In other words, I just posted what I got from over there doesn't work, though still the issues are falsity, knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of whether true or not.

That's the law. If the person defamed is a "public figure," the plaintiff would have to prove that the defamer acted with "actual malice," which is difficult to prove. That's why you can darn near say whatever you want about a politician or an elected official. But as to a private person who isn't a widely known person like that, the basic formula is used.

Websites generally are not responsible for what their posters post (but can be). Posters themselves are not so protected.

And whatever any other site has or has not had posted on it doesn't matter. While I understand that people get worked up over sports and sports rivalries, many of the posts in this thread are pretty dubious and dangerous. One of the accused has responded by saying all this stuff is flat out false. Smart people would back off and either wait to get something solid to work off of, but "I heard it from some guy who knows a guy who tweeted something about it" can be thin ice indeed.

Just to close the circle, as has been celebrated in this thread, it is actually a good thing that there have been all of these calls and emails to the Pilot, to ESPN, to other media. You see, those organizations are very experienced in this stuff and won't report a word unless they have, generally speaking, at least two solid sources with first hand factual information. If a news organization ran a blog post with 5% of what has been written here they would be paying out a fat settlement and a bunch of attorneys' fees and the reporter would be fired.

I'll send you a bill if you want. You can pay by Paypal.

wow, it learned how to google

your mom must be proud of hoo

Defamation of Character in Illinois | eHow.com

 

[VT_Football_Fan]

Back on the subject....


It will be interesting to see what kids from the Academy can make it this weekend and what kids cant. Might say a lot.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

wow, it learned how to google

your mom must be proud of hoo

Defamation of Character in Illinois | eHow.com

I like this guy!


Stick around and post more!

 

[Whatsupppppppp]

Back on the subject....


It will be interesting to see what kids from the Academy can make it this weekend and what kids cant. Might say a lot.

Treavonne Brandon will attend.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

hey whatsuuuup,

You need to get to 50 posts to send and receive PMs. Get there, ha ha.

What did Neibhur say that was said off camera in Brooklyn?

 

[VT_Football_Fan]

Treavonne Brandon will attend.

This is a new name to me. Details?

 

[Whatsupppppppp]

Ocean Lakes DB, by way of P.A., class of 13

5-11, 180

Still looking for his first. Tight with the academy kids

 

[hoosrise]

It doesn't know what state the people involved live in.

eHow for legal? LOL. Let's just say that have some reason to know a bit more than eHow. Just a little bit .... Ask one of your legal boys about whether I am right or not, and let's see if you have the nuts to fess up.

As to the media, here's what will happen (this ain't my first rodeo): they might call a few people they trust, including the VT staff, and ask if there is anything to it. Unless they get a solid factual confirmation, they move on.

On that front, have any of you checked with Coach Cav? He has an opinion on this. Check with him.

 

[VT_Football_Fan]

I know Stineys opinion on it, not Cavs. But I think i'll keep that to Hokies only

 

[hoosrise]

I know Stineys opinion on it, not Cavs. But I think i'll keep that to Hokies only

Check with Cav

 

[VT_Football_Fan]

Check with Cav

Maybe you'd be so kind to tell us?

 

[Whatsupppppppp]

It doesn't know what state the people involved live in.

eHow for legal? LOL. .

looks like it missed the irony of it all.

its where you got everything you posted, or a site just like it, capisce?

Thats Italian btw, ask the godfather what it means.

 

[VTimHokie85]

Deformation? LOL

Yes, rules are the same. Exactly the same.

If you "publish" a statement about someone either knowing it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it is true or not, you can be found guilty. Opinions are not defamatory, but statements of fact can be. If found guilty, the plaintiff would have to prove damages, which can be difficult. But if the defaming statements fall into certain categories, damages are presumed. Those categories include falsely accusing someone of a crime of moral turpitude, of having a communicable disease, being unfit for their occupation or profession, on being "unchaste" in the case of an unmarried woman (I think that is how it goes).

"Republication" in any manner is also covered by the same rules. That is where you can get into some trouble on the internet. In other words, I just posted what I got from over there doesn't work, though still the issues are falsity, knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of whether true or not.

That's the law. If the person defamed is a "public figure," the plaintiff would have to prove that the defamer acted with "actual malice," which is difficult to prove. That's why you can darn near say whatever you want about a politician or an elected official. But as to a private person who isn't a widely known person like that, the basic formula is used.

Websites generally are not responsible for what their posters post (but can be). Posters themselves are not so protected.

And whatever any other site has or has not had posted on it doesn't matter. While I understand that people get worked up over sports and sports rivalries, many of the posts in this thread are pretty dubious and dangerous. One of the accused has responded by saying all this stuff is flat out false. Smart people would back off and either wait to get something solid to work off of, but "I heard it from some guy who knows a guy who tweeted something about it" can be thin ice indeed.

Just to close the circle, as has been celebrated in this thread, it is actually a good thing that there have been all of these calls and emails to the Pilot, to ESPN, to other media. You see, those organizations are very experienced in this stuff and won't report a word unless they have, generally speaking, at least two solid sources with first hand factual information. If a news organization ran a blog post with 5% of what has been written here they would be paying out a fat settlement and a bunch of attorneys' fees and the reporter would be fired.

I'll send you a bill if you want. You can pay by Paypal.

This post just shows your hooness.

I never said you were wrong. However I am not wrong in classifying it as libel. Plus a hoo having a scholarly discussion by using the copy and paste technique without at least citing his source is pure hilarity and probably looked down upon by "The University". Thomas Jefferson and "that other black guy" from Not Another Teen Movie must be proud. You can send them the bill in my behalf.

Fwiw deformation was my iPods autoword for defamation.

 

[VTscores]

This post just shows your hooness.

I never said you were wrong. However I am not wrong in classifying it as libel. Plus a hoo having a scholarly discussion by using the copy and paste technique without at least citing his source is pure hilarity and probably looked down upon by "The University". Thomas Jefferson and "that other black guy" from Not Another Teen Movie must be proud. You can send them the bill in my behalf.

Fwiw deformation was my iPods autoword for defamation.

Why feed the troll? Hoosrise is just trying to get a rise out of someone, but really has nothing to add to this conversation. I know this, because I fed it earlier in an honest attempt to correct it's misconceptions. The mistake is the belief that it is looking for truth, as opposed to a different agenda. (i.e. trolling)