Coincidences

[Agatha_C]

That's hitting below the belt, beck.

Yep, but then Beck's sporting ice bag and bandages too!

 

[SunnieRN]

That's hitting below the belt, beck.

Dave, I think that idi's telling us we are slandering and libeling the R's, telling us we are making up information, even though we provide links to back ourselves up, constantly putting words in our mouths or changing their statements, to try and change the meaning when someone calls them om their errors is also hitting below the belt.

For some reason idi's feel there is a double standard. That they can hurl insult after insult and we are supposed to just give them links and information in return. I am not in any way upset with you Dave, but I also think Beckys comment, taken after insults being served up, is understandable.

 

[MurriFlower]

That is much different than your last post which changes the wording to: "I'm not of the opinion that anyone should be able to wrongly accuse another of a crime. Written or spoken".

Maybe this is actually what you intended to write. But you didn't.

Originally Posted by MurriFlower View Post
Speech and writing are two separate things.

I'm not of the opinion that anyone should be able to wrongly accuse another of a crime. Written or spoken.

Kindly explain to me how the two bolded quotes are different?

Your continual badgering, misreading and inability to interpret anything I write is becoming quite weird. You seem to have gone completely off the rails.

 

[SunnieRN]

Kindly explain to me how the two bolded quotes are different?

Your continual badgering, misreading and inability to interpret anything I write is becoming quite weird. You seem to have gone completely off the rails.

I told you I was comparing them to you libel statements. 'Nuff said. I'm done with your Not arguing' arguing.

 

[MurriFlower]

Oh oh,

Looks like MF needs to go and read HOTYH, slander post, before she brings dishonor to her cow!

If you don't like our constitutional rights, than stop using them and more importantly stop perverting them to suit you and your own agenda. How about we just don't get that personal as to offend other peoples rights and laws.

Funny thing... I remember a murder in OZ, of a 9 week old baby, the dingo baby. She went missing and later determined to be dead. There was a media circus, and the public was forming opinions and many of them biased. She was found guilty by popular demand and the courts. Only, she wasn't, Ive included a link at the bottom. Maybe someones guilty conscience is getting in the way. With that said, I don't see OZ as the moral compass for the world.

n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azaria_Chamberlain_disappearance

We have courts of law here, and people are not "found guilty by popular demand". You will be amused I think to hear that is called "a kangaroo court" LOL. I think here, when someone is charged with and found guilty of a murder, then you are permitted to say 'they were a murderer'. The fact that she has now been cleared by another court of law, removes that privilige.

The difference with JBR's murder and RDI's accusations against the Rs, is that they have never been charged with, let alone convicted of murder in a court of law. In other words, there was never enough evidence to bring charges, with a reasonable expectation of a guilty outcome. But this doesn't seem to concern people who comit to print publicly their theory on how the Rs killed their daughter, which I believe would be considered libelous here.

 

[Agatha_C]

Murri,

I can pull up links that say different and I would do that but why do the leg work for you. RDI always has to, prove you are wrong, for once Murri, prove yourself right. You're worried about whats being said about the R's and the post before this, you accuse someone you dont even know, of basically being crazy. I find you hypocritical and anything I say or show you, will only be a cruel weapon for you turn on me. Practice what you preach Murri

 

[MurriFlower]

Murri,

I can pull up links that say different and I would do that but why do the leg work for you. RDI always has to, prove you are wrong, for once Murri, prove yourself right.

Well, you brought it up. There are some similarities, but many differences in these two cases. Anyway, it's OT.

You're worried about whats being said about the R's and the post before this, you accuse someone you dont even know, of basically being crazy. I find you hypocritical and anything I say or show you, will only be a cruel weapon for you turn on me. Practice what you preach Murri

I did not accuse anyone of being crazy. There were a lot of errors that appear to have been caused by overzealous enthusiasm to prove me wrong at any cost. There is nothing in this that helps the RDI case or makes that poster look clever, when they continually get it wrong. Going off the rails is a term you may not be familiar with, but it simply means they were persuing the wrong path.

I think you and your chums have been having a lovely time laughing at IDI, and it's ironic that you refer to my refuting your claims as a "cruel weapon for you (to) turn on me", so please don't preach to me Agatha_C or feign innocence.

 

[SunnieRN]

I think that's a great approach Agatha. Provide links during discussions where they will be appreciated and read. Not slandered.

I think that most courts, who are the judges on the bench, do their best to ensure that citizens are not found guilty due to 'popular demand', but instead by a jury of their peers they are indicted or acquitted. A perfect example is OJ.

Wiki is just the surface of the iceberg of the Australian case.

 

[Agatha_C]

We have courts of law here, and people are not "found guilty by popular demand". You will be amused I think to hear that is called "a kangaroo court" LOL. I think here, when someone is charged with and found guilty of a murder, then you are permitted to say 'they were a murderer'. The fact that she has now been cleared by another court of law, removes that privilige.

The difference with JBR's murder and RDI's accusations against the Rs, is that they have never been charged with, let alone convicted of murder in a court of law. In other words, there was never enough evidence to bring charges, with a reasonable expectation of a guilty outcome. But this doesn't seem to concern people who comit to print publicly their theory on how the Rs killed their daughter, which I believe would be considered libelous here.

Ummm you know what I meant, the public opinion Murri. Popular demand doesn't get you locked up here either unless its a jury. We are talking about your people, talking about the dingo woman like RDI talks about PR. Unless you all have wings and halo's and last I checked heaven wasnt in OZ, Only the wizard was.

 

[MurriFlower]

Ummm you know what I meant, the public opinion Murri. Popular demand doesn't get you locked up here either unless its a jury. We are talking about your people, talking about the dingo woman like RDI talks about PR. Unless you all have wings and halo's and last I checked heaven wasnt in OZ, Only the wizard is.

People can and do say privately (or write privately) whatever they want. This is a free country. Politicians can say in parliament under "parliamentary privilige" something that protects them from being sued, but it must be
in the public interest for them to do so.

BUT a person cannot commit to print and make publicly available, or say in public, something that cannot be proven, (in this case that someone murdered their child), without opening themselves up to a possible slander/libel suit.

However, when a person is convicted of murder then it can be publicly said/written. Again, when that conviction has been quashed, the person has the same rights as they had prior to being charged initially. However, previous history can be re-stated with qualifications for new developments.

It's not that complicated. The press is the same the world over.

 

[Agatha_C]

Well, you brought it up. There are some similarities, but many differences in these two cases. Anyway, it's OT.



I did not accuse anyone of being crazy. There were a lot of errors that appear to have been caused by overzealous enthusiasm to prove me wrong at any cost. There is nothing in this that helps the RDI case or makes that poster look clever, when they continually get it wrong. Going off the rails is a term you may not be familiar with, but it simply means they were persuing the wrong path.

I think you and your chums have been having a lovely time laughing at IDI, and it's ironic that you refer to my refuting your claims as a "cruel weapon for you (to) turn on me", so please don't preach to me Agatha_C or feign innocence.

Again, no proof of your laws or how the dingo case was treated by your citizen or your press. Just a failed attempt at belittling me, thats all you have, no proof, no links and no intruder.... You're in my prayers Murri, looks like you them.

 

[MurriFlower]

Again, no proof of your laws or how the dingo case was treated by your citizen or your press. Just a failed attempt at belittling me, thats all you have, no proof, no links and no intruder....

Hey, it's just my opinion, protected by your constitution.

You're in my prayers Murri, looks like you them.

Nighty, night. Maybe you them as well LOL.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

Kindly explain to me how the two bolded quotes are different?

Your continual badgering, misreading and inability to interpret anything I write is becoming quite weird. You seem to have gone completely off the rails.

MF Snip:

I did not accuse anyone of being crazy

I don't care where you are from, what language you speak or with what accent you speak it...."You seem to have gone completely off the rails" is saying that someone has gone crazy!

 

[SunnieRN]

It's not that complicated. The press is the same the world over.

Respectfully snipped by me.

mF, it is that complicated and more so. There are newspapers, tabloids, book authors, the Internet and so many other sources of written material. Then you have to take in the spoken word. Television, news casts, radio. The press varies from country to country, town to town. It is complicated. Very complicated.

 

[SunnieRN]

MF Snip:


I don't care where you are from, what language you speak or with what accent you speak it...."You seem to have gone completely off the rails" is saying that someone has gone crazy!

My tee, either way she meant it, it was just an additional insult, with clips corresponding to what MF wanted to say, vs the quotes attributed to her less than a mere day prior. Quotes I bothered to clip and show her, though she refused to address the words she had typed. Her own words. Written and posted on this very thread.

Thank you My Tee.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

My tee, either way she meant it, it was just an additional insult, with clips corresponding to what MF wanted to say, vs the quotes attributed to her less than a mere day prior. Quotes I bothered to clip and show her, though she refused to address the words she had typed. Her own words. Written and posted on this very thread.

Thank you My Tee.

Perhaps she took the Ramsey-ese speaking course?

 

[SunnieRN]

Would love to touch on that one, but already said my piece. What say you MF?

 

[wonderllama]

As a fellow Aussie, I feel I should clear up a few things about th Azaria Chamberlain story.

In 1980, in the Australian outback (this didn't happen in a city, it happened 600km from the nearest city Alice Springs which today only has a population in the 20,000s).
The local law enforcement was out of their depth, a dingo had never taken a child before and forensics were far from satisfactory.

Blood in the front seat of the family car turned out to be milkshake residue.

You can begin to see how ordinary this was...but the public wasn't told it was a milkshake, we were told it was blood. We were told the baby's jumpsuit had been CUT, not bitten....and so was the Court.

The family's demeanour was questionable, Mrs Chamberlain got pregnant during the trial, they were 7th Day Adventists (seen as a bit loopy) and there was no evidence that a dingo had taken anything.

The truth came out when the baby's bloody matinee jacket was found years later in a remote area, which proved that the parents couldn't have been involved.

The Chamberlain's were guilty in the eyes of the Public because the media told us they were. There was no internet to study facts ourselves...and anyone being presented with the evidence today would dismiss the case quite quickly.

The Chamberlain's, despite being arrested, sent to trial and found guilty...and even spending time in jail...cooperated with authorities. They genuinely had nothing to hide.

The Australian people have a relatively informal freedom of speech, in that it isn't specifically constitutional. Radio people are fond of adding "allegedly" to a lot of what they say, but the reality is, I can say what I like in a public forum as long as people realise it's my opinion.

It is why we have, compared to the USA, relaxed TV rules, relaxed Radio rules, very VERY low levels of bigotry and censorship. We don't sue people left, right and centre and we're happy.

Agatha_C said heaven wasn't in Oz...but it's based on it.

 

[MurriFlower]

As a fellow Aussie, I feel I should clear up a few things about th Azaria Chamberlain story.

In 1980, in the Australian outback (this didn't happen in a city, it happened 600km from the nearest city Alice Springs which today only has a population in the 20,000s).
The local law enforcement was out of their depth, a dingo had never taken a child before and forensics were far from satisfactory.

Blood in the front seat of the family car turned out to be milkshake residue.

You can begin to see how ordinary this was...but the public wasn't told it was a milkshake, we were told it was blood. We were told the baby's jumpsuit had been CUT, not bitten....and so was the Court.

The family's demeanour was questionable, Mrs Chamberlain got pregnant during the trial, they were 7th Day Adventists (seen as a bit loopy) and there was no evidence that a dingo had taken anything.

The truth came out when the baby's bloody matinee jacket was found years later in a remote area, which proved that the parents couldn't have been involved.

The Chamberlain's were guilty in the eyes of the Public because the media told us they were. There was no internet to study facts ourselves...and anyone being presented with the evidence today would dismiss the case quite quickly.

The Chamberlain's, despite being arrested, sent to trial and found guilty...and even spending time in jail...cooperated with authorities. They genuinely had nothing to hide.

The Australian people have a relatively informal freedom of speech, in that it isn't specifically constitutional. Radio people are fond of adding "allegedly" to a lot of what they say, but the reality is, I can say what I like in a public forum as long as people realise it's my opinion.

It is why we have, compared to the USA, relaxed TV rules, relaxed Radio rules, very VERY low levels of bigotry and censorship. We don't sue people left, right and centre and we're happy.

Agatha_C said heaven wasn't in Oz...but it's based on it.

We could have a separate forum to discuss this as there is a lot to be said. There are a lot of parallels between the C's and the R's. Here is a link to defamation laws and the press http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/fop/auspres.html

Here is a link about the internet for anyone who can be bothered to read it http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html

In part it says:

"Who is able to be sued and liable?

Defamation action may be brought, not only against the original publisher (writer/speaker), but also against anyone who takes part in the publication or re-publication of the material. Furthermore, re-publication by someone other than the original writer may result in an action against the original writer as well as the re-publisher.

In relation to defamatory material published on the Internet:

* Internet users may be sued in relation to material they write/publish themselves, or if they re-publish/distribute material written by someone else. They may also be sued if another person publishes something they wrote, for example, an email published without the writer's permission on a web site.

* Internet Service Providers (ISP) and Internet Content Hosts (ICH) may be sued in relation to information published by someone else, for example, published by a person who used an ISP's or ICH's system, web server, chat boards, etc, to make information available via the Internet.

However, the fact that a person can be sued does not necessarily mean they would be found liable by a court. There are numerous aspects relevant to liability. Addressing all of these is beyond the scope of this document. As one example, the liability of the original publisher for re-publication by someone else depends on matters such as whether the original publisher authorised or intended the re-publication, whether the re-publisher was under a duty to repeat the statement, and/or whether the re-publication is the "natural or probable" result of the original statement.

There are many circumstances in which persons who can be sued receive credible threats of defamation proceedings against them, but some are pure bluff, and some fall at the first hurdle. For example, some threats are dropped when it becomes apparent that the respondant is aware that they have a legitimate defence, or there is risk of a counter-claim such as 'abuse of process', etc. In any case, ultimately only the court can determine whether any one or other respondent is liable."

You really have to be careful lama because there are numerous folks who are very happy to sue and make a nice living out of it.

 

[joeskidbeck]

snip:
You really have to be careful lama because there are numerous folks who are very happy to sue and make a nice living out of it. quote by MurriFlower

Murri, the one person that BRAGGED about suing and getting rich off this story was the Ramsey's attorney, Lin Wood. I'm sure there are many who have gotten rich as a result of this little girl's death, but he is the only one that I've seen brag about it.