In a comment regarding my, um, comment policy, billo wrote:
You can, of course, do whatever you want with your own blog. But even on your own blog, libel remains libel. And libel created by knowingly forging someone else is almost impossible to defend.
Interesting that you'd assume I would indulge in libel.
Let's look at what "libel" is, shall we?
There are various official definitions, of course, but they all tend to reference the same language, like this:
= a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person
= print slanderous statements against; "The newspaper was accused of libeling him"
= the written statement of a plaintiff explaining the cause of action (the defamation) and any relief he seeks
Defamation. Malice. False publication with intent to defame.
Now let's look at my comment policy, the relevant portion of which is:
I also reserve the right to edit it. Change it. Alter it. Turn it into something other than what the commenter intended.
As I said, I find it interesting that you'd automatically assume that I would alter the text so as to maliciously present a defamatory characterization of the person whose comment went against my clearly p ublicized comment policy.
But that's not what my comment policy states I will be doing, now, is it?
How does one "forge someone else"??????
Is calling me "markey-mark" a form of libel??? Can I sue???
Yes, the world does revolve around you, Gek. At least here it does!
My view, for what it's worth, is that editing what someone said is the kind of lying I expect a repugnicunt to indulge in. The truth is something to fear for you.
[And on my own blog] I welcome comments, particularly given that I
have the ability to edit them so that they are all complimentary.
Message-ID:
I mean Snarky Mark. Yeah. That's it.
Well hi there, Zenners! I find your view very worthwhile, and I thank you for offering it.
I take it, then, that you hold this same view for all people who edit what someone says? Even if they're not associated with the political ideology like that of the whiny childish term you've used?
What if a fairly liberal Democrat edited what someone said? Changed the meaning of what they said to something other than what they intended? Is it still "repugnicuntish"? A fear of the truth?
"Snarky Mark"
My attorney will be contacting you forthwith.
I. Ken Scroom of the firm Dewey, Scroom and Howe.
"Repugnicant". Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
"cunt", that is.
Are you, like, just sitting there, hitting "refresh" over and over again? Hmmm? :-)
You want I should edit your previous comment to correct your typo? I'd do it in a flash, but then billo would wave his "libel" stick at me, and Zenners would call me a nasty name because editing someone else's words is eeevvvilll.
So the flipside, really, is that you can make a retarded piece of gose comment seem bright and smart?
Gee. Why would anyone complain about that?
Z has at least once edited a comment someone else left on his blog.
Excerpt from gollyg.blogspot.com's article Letters to the editor, dated Friday, Nov 12, 2004 at 1:15 PM:
A sharpeyed, time-rich reader might have noticed that a comment has been refactored. I did it for fun. The comment was for me, so I made it a communication from me. It's a wiki thing, if you like. I've said before I won't be trolled on my own blog and I won't be. Usually, I would ignore a troll. I know enough about how trolling works to know that that really is the only way to deal with them. But it's a kindness to the boy not to leave him swinging.
Now. Someone has told me they feel this doesn't square with my firm belief in free speech, which I've often stated. I don't agree. I haven't banned any users from commenting. Anyone is free to.
.
I expect if of you if you forge people's words because it is unavoidable. It is not necessary that you *want* to cost someone a job or misrepresent them in a way that is harmful. It is simply inevitable.
Why? Because you do not know the context of the other person's life. You do not know how it will be presented. One of the biggest problems for a person in public view, for instance, is that of humor. Humor, by its nature involves hyperbole, exaggeration, misrepresentation, etc. When it's done between friends, it's all very funny. When that is dragged out in public, people who *want* to take offence, who *want* to use that to hurt, will do so. The examples of politicians and celebrities who have been harmed by having otherwise innocent things taken and exploited are innumerable.
Now, let's say you think you have a cute way of rephrasing what someone says in a funny manner that misrepresents what they really mean. You just want to be a little snarky. But, since you signed the other person's name, it's not you being "funny" in an offending manner and it's not *you* being snarky. It's the original author, as far as the world is concerned. Someone takes that and uses it to cause them to lose their job, smear them in the press, etc.
It's libel. You may not have meant the *specific* harm that was done, but you will be hard pressed to show that you didn't mean ill, and you can't claim you didn't know you were misrepresenting them.
I expect [it] of you if you forge people's words because it is unavoidable. It is not necessary that you *want* to cost someone a job or misrepresent them in a way that is harmful. It is simply inevitable.
No, Billo. It is not unavoidable. What is very interesting is the assumptions you are making regarding the form the word change would take.
Hmm. Now I've seen everything. Peeps fighting over comments.
What's next? Whether gekko's lizard is an offensive color?
Yeah,,man, ban the green lizard. And Christmas. And Christians. And Jews. Ban everything. I hate it all.
Ban the intolerant!
Could you get big bucks for suing gekko re: comment section of her blog?? Keeping in mind that 'big bucks' is a relative term. Is $500 big bucks? $500 for me is big bucks, right now.
If she sends me $500, via paypal, by 11:59 Christmas Day, I will not sue.
Donna
P.S. What the hell is a TypeKey identify?