Michelle "I am for Violence" Williams: Opposite of Civility

[BigBallinStalin]

If Zimmerman was murdered by someone who discovered his address via Spike Lee's tweet (assuming that the msg was actually Zimmerman's address), then could Spike Lee be tried as an accomplice of murder? What's people's moral stance on this situation?



EDIT: I guess it's his retweet, which is essentially the same thing. The information is being distributed by Spike Lee.

What if Zimmerman was murdered by a CC player, inspired by you having drawn attention to his address being posted on twitter?

Hmmm

Chances are:

(a) Zimmerman wont get murdered.

(b) If someone murders Zimmerman they will possibly kill themselves afterwards, leaving insufficient evidence as to whether Spike Lee or BigBallStalin are to blame.

http://nooooooooooooooo.com/

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh, and it appears that the whole thing has been settled out of court between the two parties. Lee apologized and gave the couple monetary compensation over the incident.

Case closed.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nati ... 3902.story

What an awesome story! Not even courts were involved, and the dispute was settled.


<dons outrageous hat>
ANARCHO-CAPITALISM, HERE WE GOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[saxitoxin]

"If they did sue Spike Lee, is it wrong of them to do so?"

No, it's not wrong of them to do so. That's what the courts were created for, to solve disputes between people.

Now, will they win or not? Who knows, they'll have to take it to court and find out. Or the two parties could settle the matter out of court.

I don't quite understand why people disparage so much about lawsuits and such.

That's a great observation. I remember hearing Ralph Nader speak a couple years ago in which he said (I have no idea if this is true or not) that there were more lawsuits, per capita, filed in the United States in 1840 than in 2000.

People should sue whomever they want, whenever they want. An actively used process of litigation is the mark of a society ruled by law. When George Bush authorized illegal wiretaps, an aggrieved member of the public had two options: (1) raise $100 million, organize a large popular movement, stage a 2 year election campaign and possibly change the government, or, (2) sue (at a likely cost of $0 since most attorneys would take a case like that on contingency).

(Unfortunately, Barack Obama voted to eliminate option #2 by banning lawsuits against the AT&T corporation in exchange for a $1 million payoff.)

[Evil Semp]

As far as I can tell, from another poster in the one of the other threads on this, the couple whose address was given, received a letter. That letter doesn't seem to have contained a threat. Nonetheless, they lawyered up, and will likely sue Spike Lee for as much as they can get. As far as I can tell, they will not be taking any kind of action against the person who originally published the information. Presumably, the dude isn't rich, but, of course, that has nothing to do with it.

If they did sue Spike Lee, is it wrong of them to do so?

Seems like the American way, lawyer up and see what you can get. Who can argue with the American dream? I suspect they'd have to provide a bit more evidence than receiving a letter that mentioned skittles if they wanted to win though.

Why would they need evidence? It seems like nobody else in this whole situation needs evidence.

[Symmetry]

As far as I can tell, from another poster in the one of the other threads on this, the couple whose address was given, received a letter. That letter doesn't seem to have contained a threat. Nonetheless, they lawyered up, and will likely sue Spike Lee for as much as they can get. As far as I can tell, they will not be taking any kind of action against the person who originally published the information. Presumably, the dude isn't rich, but, of course, that has nothing to do with it.

If they did sue Spike Lee, is it wrong of them to do so?

Seems like the American way, lawyer up and see what you can get. Who can argue with the American dream? I suspect they'd have to provide a bit more evidence than receiving a letter that mentioned skittles if they wanted to win though.

Why would they need evidence? It seems like nobody else in this whole situation needs evidence.

Turns out they didn't in the end. They just needed a lawyer and a guy who was rich, and could afford to pay them off. Again, as far as I know, they're not actually suing the person who published the info.

[saxitoxin]

As far as I can tell, from another poster in the one of the other threads on this, the couple whose address was given, received a letter. That letter doesn't seem to have contained a threat. Nonetheless, they lawyered up, and will likely sue Spike Lee for as much as they can get. As far as I can tell, they will not be taking any kind of action against the person who originally published the information. Presumably, the dude isn't rich, but, of course, that has nothing to do with it.

If they did sue Spike Lee, is it wrong of them to do so?

Seems like the American way, lawyer up and see what you can get. Who can argue with the American dream? I suspect they'd have to provide a bit more evidence than receiving a letter that mentioned skittles if they wanted to win though.

Why would they need evidence? It seems like nobody else in this whole situation needs evidence.

Turns out they didn't in the end. They just needed a lawyer and a guy who was rich, and could afford to pay them off. Again, as far as I know, they're not actually suing the person who published the info.

If Spike Lee retweeted it, Spike Lee published it.

If I posted a three paragraph diatribe on Conquer Club about how we should organize a mob to kill Andy Abraham, which would be read by all of maybe 25 people, and the Washington Post printed it verbatim in tomorrow's issue where it was read by a million people all the residents of the Bethesda Senior Center, the Washington Post would be hard-pressed to defend themselves by saying it was ol' Saxi's fault Andy got impaled on a stop sign just because Ol' Saxi published it first.

edit: I doubt 1 million people still read the Washington Post

Treyvon Martin's parents aren't suing the Homeowner's Association because they think the association itself got together to kill Martin.They're suing the HOA because Zimmerman obviously doesn't have enough cash from which to recoup damages. It's reasonable to choose not to waste one's energy suing people who can't pay.

[patches70]

That's a great observation. I remember hearing Ralph Nader speak a couple years ago in which he said (I have no idea if this is true or not) that there were more lawsuits, per capita, filed in the United States in 1840 than in 2000.

Ha, Nader (I think it was) a few years back fell in the Capitol building and broke a tooth. He sued and won something like 100 grand or more (which was ultimately paid by the taxpayer). I remember people giving grief over it but hell, he broke a tooth and won a decision. More power to him.

It's the right of citizens to sue to address grievances between each other (and the government if need be) and it's the job of the government to establish that system for the addressing of said grievances. Without courts we'd end up fighting it out on the streets over every little thing.

Or even worse, live in a nation where your right to seek compensation is banned or severely restricted. A la-

sue (at a likely cost of $0 since most attorneys would take a case like that on contingency).

(Unfortunately, Barack Obama voted to eliminate option #2 by banning lawsuits against the AT&T corporation in exchange for a $1 million payoff.)

Of course there is always the cynical asswipe who says- "Pfffttt, that's not worth suing for. Those people shouldn't be allowed to do that". In order to have a just and legal system (in so much as we simple carbon units can muster) we have to let all the cases through and work it out. Otherwise there are all types of unintended consequences for eliminating the supposed "frivolous" lawsuits. If it's frivolous then the courts will determine it through due process. If the suing side wins then it turns out to be not so frivolous after all. Not that some still won't understand that.....

[Symmetry]

That's a great observation. I remember hearing Ralph Nader speak a couple years ago in which he said (I have no idea if this is true or not) that there were more lawsuits, per capita, filed in the United States in 1840 than in 2000.

Ha, Nader (I think it was) a few years back fell in the Capitol building and broke a tooth. He sued and won something like 100 grand or more (which was ultimately paid by the taxpayer). I remember people giving grief over it but hell, he broke a tooth and won a decision. More power to him.

It's the right of citizens to sue to address grievances between each other (and the government if need be) and it's the job of the government to establish that system for the addressing of said grievances. Without courts we'd end up fighting it out on the streets over every little thing.

Or even worse, live in a nation where your right to seek compensation is banned or severely restricted. A la-

sue (at a likely cost of $0 since most attorneys would take a case like that on contingency).

(Unfortunately, Barack Obama voted to eliminate option #2 by banning lawsuits against the AT&T corporation in exchange for a $1 million payoff.)

Of course there is always the cynical asswipe who says- "Pfffttt, that's not worth suing for. Those people shouldn't be allowed to do that". In order to have a just and legal system (in so much as we simple carbon units can muster) we have to let all the cases through and work it out. Otherwise there are all types of unintended consequences for eliminating the supposed "frivolous" lawsuits. If it's frivolous then the courts will determine it through due process. If the suing side wins then it turns out to be not so frivolous after all. Not that some still won't understand that.....

Huh, I find myself weirdly in Saxi's corner on this. The threat to sue vs the actual cost of defending that kind of litigation are disproportionate, indeed, it encourages frivolousness.

[saxitoxin]

That's a great observation. I remember hearing Ralph Nader speak a couple years ago in which he said (I have no idea if this is true or not) that there were more lawsuits, per capita, filed in the United States in 1840 than in 2000.

Ha, Nader (I think it was) a few years back fell in the Capitol building and broke a tooth. He sued and won something like 100 grand or more (which was ultimately paid by the taxpayer). I remember people giving grief over it but hell, he broke a tooth and won a decision. More power to him.

It's the right of citizens to sue to address grievances between each other (and the government if need be) and it's the job of the government to establish that system for the addressing of said grievances. Without courts we'd end up fighting it out on the streets over every little thing.

Or even worse, live in a nation where your right to seek compensation is banned or severely restricted. A la-

sue (at a likely cost of $0 since most attorneys would take a case like that on contingency).

(Unfortunately, Barack Obama voted to eliminate option #2 by banning lawsuits against the AT&T corporation in exchange for a $1 million payoff.)

Of course there is always the cynical asswipe who says- "Pfffttt, that's not worth suing for. Those people shouldn't be allowed to do that". In order to have a just and legal system (in so much as we simple carbon units can muster) we have to let all the cases through and work it out. Otherwise there are all types of unintended consequences for eliminating the supposed "frivolous" lawsuits. If it's frivolous then the courts will determine it through due process. If the suing side wins then it turns out to be not so frivolous after all. Not that some still won't understand that.....

Huh, I find myself weirdly in Saxi's corner on this. The threat to sue vs the actual cost of defending that kind of litigation are disproportionate, indeed, it encourages frivolousness.

That's not my corner. I support as liberal of a lawsuit and counter-suit regime as possible. The system self-corrects; people who engage in frivolous lawsuits can be prosecuted for barratry or, themselves, sued for abuse of process. When informal agreements can't be reached, everyone should sue everyone else for any reason.

It should be easier to sue people, not harder, and we should have more lawsuits, not less. This is infinitely better than every alternative. Almost every assault or murder represents a lawsuit that was never filed because one party thought a knife would work faster than a summons.

[patches70]

That's a great observation. I remember hearing Ralph Nader speak a couple years ago in which he said (I have no idea if this is true or not) that there were more lawsuits, per capita, filed in the United States in 1840 than in 2000.

Ha, Nader (I think it was) a few years back fell in the Capitol building and broke a tooth. He sued and won something like 100 grand or more (which was ultimately paid by the taxpayer). I remember people giving grief over it but hell, he broke a tooth and won a decision. More power to him.

It's the right of citizens to sue to address grievances between each other (and the government if need be) and it's the job of the government to establish that system for the addressing of said grievances. Without courts we'd end up fighting it out on the streets over every little thing.

Or even worse, live in a nation where your right to seek compensation is banned or severely restricted. A la-

sue (at a likely cost of $0 since most attorneys would take a case like that on contingency).

(Unfortunately, Barack Obama voted to eliminate option #2 by banning lawsuits against the AT&T corporation in exchange for a $1 million payoff.)

Of course there is always the cynical asswipe who says- "Pfffttt, that's not worth suing for. Those people shouldn't be allowed to do that". In order to have a just and legal system (in so much as we simple carbon units can muster) we have to let all the cases through and work it out. Otherwise there are all types of unintended consequences for eliminating the supposed "frivolous" lawsuits. If it's frivolous then the courts will determine it through due process. If the suing side wins then it turns out to be not so frivolous after all. Not that some still won't understand that.....

Huh, I find myself weirdly in Saxi's corner on this. The threat to sue vs the actual cost of defending that kind of litigation are disproportionate, indeed, it encourages frivolousness.

[Symmetry]

That's a great observation. I remember hearing Ralph Nader speak a couple years ago in which he said (I have no idea if this is true or not) that there were more lawsuits, per capita, filed in the United States in 1840 than in 2000.

Ha, Nader (I think it was) a few years back fell in the Capitol building and broke a tooth. He sued and won something like 100 grand or more (which was ultimately paid by the taxpayer). I remember people giving grief over it but hell, he broke a tooth and won a decision. More power to him.

It's the right of citizens to sue to address grievances between each other (and the government if need be) and it's the job of the government to establish that system for the addressing of said grievances. Without courts we'd end up fighting it out on the streets over every little thing.

Or even worse, live in a nation where your right to seek compensation is banned or severely restricted. A la-

sue (at a likely cost of $0 since most attorneys would take a case like that on contingency).

(Unfortunately, Barack Obama voted to eliminate option #2 by banning lawsuits against the AT&T corporation in exchange for a $1 million payoff.)

Of course there is always the cynical asswipe who says- "Pfffttt, that's not worth suing for. Those people shouldn't be allowed to do that". In order to have a just and legal system (in so much as we simple carbon units can muster) we have to let all the cases through and work it out. Otherwise there are all types of unintended consequences for eliminating the supposed "frivolous" lawsuits. If it's frivolous then the courts will determine it through due process. If the suing side wins then it turns out to be not so frivolous after all. Not that some still won't understand that.....

Huh, I find myself weirdly in Saxi's corner on this. The threat to sue vs the actual cost of defending that kind of litigation are disproportionate, indeed, it encourages frivolousness.

That's not my corner. I support as liberal of a lawsuit and counter-suit regime as possible. The system self-corrects; people who engage in frivolous lawsuits can be prosecuted for barratry or, themselves, sued for abuse of process. When informal agreements can't be reached, everyone should sue everyone else for any reason. This is infinitely better than every alternative.

Ah, that's why it's called a Mexican stand off.

[Symmetry]

That's a great observation. I remember hearing Ralph Nader speak a couple years ago in which he said (I have no idea if this is true or not) that there were more lawsuits, per capita, filed in the United States in 1840 than in 2000.

Ha, Nader (I think it was) a few years back fell in the Capitol building and broke a tooth. He sued and won something like 100 grand or more (which was ultimately paid by the taxpayer). I remember people giving grief over it but hell, he broke a tooth and won a decision. More power to him.

It's the right of citizens to sue to address grievances between each other (and the government if need be) and it's the job of the government to establish that system for the addressing of said grievances. Without courts we'd end up fighting it out on the streets over every little thing.

Or even worse, live in a nation where your right to seek compensation is banned or severely restricted. A la-

sue (at a likely cost of $0 since most attorneys would take a case like that on contingency).

(Unfortunately, Barack Obama voted to eliminate option #2 by banning lawsuits against the AT&T corporation in exchange for a $1 million payoff.)

Of course there is always the cynical asswipe who says- "Pfffttt, that's not worth suing for. Those people shouldn't be allowed to do that". In order to have a just and legal system (in so much as we simple carbon units can muster) we have to let all the cases through and work it out. Otherwise there are all types of unintended consequences for eliminating the supposed "frivolous" lawsuits. If it's frivolous then the courts will determine it through due process. If the suing side wins then it turns out to be not so frivolous after all. Not that some still won't understand that.....

Huh, I find myself weirdly in Saxi's corner on this. The threat to sue vs the actual cost of defending that kind of litigation are disproportionate, indeed, it encourages frivolousness.

Patches, you will enjoy this:

[patches70]

That's a great observation. I remember hearing Ralph Nader speak a couple years ago in which he said (I have no idea if this is true or not) that there were more lawsuits, per capita, filed in the United States in 1840 than in 2000.

Ha, Nader (I think it was) a few years back fell in the Capitol building and broke a tooth. He sued and won something like 100 grand or more (which was ultimately paid by the taxpayer). I remember people giving grief over it but hell, he broke a tooth and won a decision. More power to him.

It's the right of citizens to sue to address grievances between each other (and the government if need be) and it's the job of the government to establish that system for the addressing of said grievances. Without courts we'd end up fighting it out on the streets over every little thing.

Or even worse, live in a nation where your right to seek compensation is banned or severely restricted. A la-

sue (at a likely cost of $0 since most attorneys would take a case like that on contingency).

(Unfortunately, Barack Obama voted to eliminate option #2 by banning lawsuits against the AT&T corporation in exchange for a $1 million payoff.)

Of course there is always the cynical asswipe who says- "Pfffttt, that's not worth suing for. Those people shouldn't be allowed to do that". In order to have a just and legal system (in so much as we simple carbon units can muster) we have to let all the cases through and work it out. Otherwise there are all types of unintended consequences for eliminating the supposed "frivolous" lawsuits. If it's frivolous then the courts will determine it through due process. If the suing side wins then it turns out to be not so frivolous after all. Not that some still won't understand that.....

Huh, I find myself weirdly in Saxi's corner on this. The threat to sue vs the actual cost of defending that kind of litigation are disproportionate, indeed, it encourages frivolousness.

That's not my corner. I support as liberal of a lawsuit and counter-suit regime as possible. The system self-corrects; people who engage in frivolous lawsuits can be prosecuted for barratry or, themselves, sued for abuse of process. When informal agreements can't be reached, everyone should sue everyone else for any reason.

It should be easier to sue people, not harder, and we should have more lawsuits, not less. This is infinitely better than every alternative. Almost every assault or murder represents a lawsuit that was never filed because one party thought a knife would work faster than a summons.

Yep, don't interfere with people suing. Let 'em fight it out in court, peacefully, rather than taking it out back and punching/knifing/shooting a solution.

There is no such thing as a frivolous lawsuit unless the judge determines it to be. Then sue the frivolous suing bastard back!

[patches70]

Patches, you will enjoy this:

lol, that's awesome.

[Phatscotty]

Who was the one saying it wasn't even Spike Lee that tweeted the address? well, Spike Lee is buying the home of these people who's lives he ruined. Maybe they can find peace now, but what about anyone else who moves into the house that Lee Tweeted.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nati ... 3902.story

Spike Lee has reached an agreement with the Florida couple forced to flee their home after the film director retweeted their home address and they fled to a hotel to avoid problems associated with the shooting of Trayvon Martin, it was announced Thursday.

Elaine and David McClain, in their 70s, left their Sanford, Fla., home after their address was tweeted by a man who thought he had found the home of George Zimmerman, the 28-year-old who shot Martin, 17. Lee then retweeted the McClains’ address to his followers on Twitter.

The McClains have a son, William George Zimmerman, who is not related to the George Zimmerman who shot Martin and whose arrest is being sought by Martin’s family and civil rights supporters.

“The McClains’ claim is fully resolved,” Matt Morgan, their attorney, said in an email. “Mr. Lee personally called them to give a very heartfelt apology. Further, he agreed to compensate them for their loss and the disruption to their lives.

[Phatscotty]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/ ... ets-893416

Roseanne Barr Joins Twitter Vigilante Crew
Star tweeted home address of George Zimmerman's parents

MARCH 29--The comedian Roseanne Barr last night tweeted the home address of George Zimmerman’s parents to her 110,000-plus Twitter followers, only to delete the posting after “not fully understanding that it was private not public.”

Barr’s posting of the correct Florida address of Robert and Gladys Zimmerman came at the same time Spike Lee was issuing an apology for erroneously disseminating a tweet that purportedly contained the home address of George Zimmerman, who last month killed teenager Trayvon Martin.

The residence cited by Lee is actually the home of an elderly couple with no connection to Zimmerman.

Barr, who deleted her tweet in the face of criticism from some Twitter followers, noted that she first thought it “was good to let ppl know that no one can hide anymore.” That stance quickly changed, with Barr reporting, “But vigilante-ism is what killed Trayvon. I don’t support that.”

But while Barr deleted her original posting, the Zimmermans’s address remains in messages in her Twitter stream. Barr’s original tweet was a retweet of a post by a new Twitter user who appears devoted to disseminating the Zimmermans’s address and phone number, as well as contact information for Joseph Oliver, who has made numerous TV appearances in support of Zimmerman, a friend and former coworker.

Still, the entertainer left open the possibility that she would again circulate the Seminole County address of Zimmerman’s parents. “If Zimmerman isn’t arrested I’ll rt his address again.” She added, “maybe go 2 his house myself.”

There is no indication that Zimmerman, who is reportedly in hiding, is holed up in his parents’s residence.

By tweeting the Zimmermans’s address, Barr appears to have violated Twitter rules that state, “You may not publish or post other people's private and confidential information, such as credit card numbers, street address or Social Security/National Identity numbers, without their express authorization and permission.”

[Symmetry]

Who was the one saying it wasn't even Spike Lee that tweeted the address? well, Spike Lee is buying the home of these people who's lives he ruined. Maybe they can find peace now, but what about anyone else who moves into the house that Lee Tweeted.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nati ... 3902.story

Spike Lee has reached an agreement with the Florida couple forced to flee their home after the film director retweeted their home address and they fled to a hotel to avoid problems associated with the shooting of Trayvon Martin, it was announced Thursday.

Elaine and David McClain, in their 70s, left their Sanford, Fla., home after their address was tweeted by a man who thought he had found the home of George Zimmerman, the 28-year-old who shot Martin, 17. Lee then retweeted the McClains’ address to his followers on Twitter.

The McClains have a son, William George Zimmerman, who is not related to the George Zimmerman who shot Martin and whose arrest is being sought by Martin’s family and civil rights supporters.

“The McClains’ claim is fully resolved,” Matt Morgan, their attorney, said in an email. “Mr. Lee personally called them to give a very heartfelt apology. Further, he agreed to compensate them for their loss and the disruption to their lives.

Seriously? You read that article in full and somehow got from it that Spike Lee has purchased their home? Dude, you're at the point where even the evidence you quote directly disproves your arguments.

[Phatscotty]

he agreed to compensate them for their loss and the disruption to their lives.

Must have heard somewhere else about him buying the house.

[Symmetry]

he agreed to compensate them for their loss and the disruption to their lives.

Must have heard somewhere else about him buying the house.

Indeed. I'm guessing you feel no need to apologise to Spike Lee, or provide any financial compensation for posting such false information.

[Phatscotty]

he agreed to compensate them for their loss and the disruption to their lives.

Must have heard somewhere else about him buying the house.

Indeed. I'm guessing you feel no need to apologise to Spike Lee, or provide any financial compensation for posting such false information.

Just because the the part about him buying the house is not specifically in the article I shared means it's false?

Why you crackin up in this thread son?

[Symmetry]

he agreed to compensate them for their loss and the disruption to their lives.

Must have heard somewhere else about him buying the house.

Indeed. I'm guessing you feel no need to apologise to Spike Lee, or provide any financial compensation for posting such false information.

Just because the the part about him buying the house is not specifically in the article I shared means it's false?

Why you crackin up in this thread son?

Sigh, ok- post your evidence for your claim.

[patches70]

he agreed to compensate them for their loss and the disruption to their lives.

Must have heard somewhere else about him buying the house.

Indeed. I'm guessing you feel no need to apologise to Spike Lee, or provide any financial compensation for posting such false information.

Just because the the part about him buying the house is not specifically in the article I shared means it's false?

Why you crackin up in this thread son?

Sigh, ok- post your evidence for your claim.

Jesus, he doesn't need to do anything like that.

Listen, Lee was right and wise to make restitution to that couple. He'd have gotten his butt handed to him in court and I'm sure his lawyer told him to that affect. Not to mention the hopefully Lee isn't a complete asshole and he should apologize and compensate that couple for his stupid mistake.

You see that couple is just some regular ole people who aren't in the public eye and there is a great amount of latitude in court over this stuff in their case. Lee, on the other hand, is a public figure, a celebrity who puts himself out there often enough. This is how rags like the National Enquirer can get away with a lot of their weird stories about the stars but if they tried it with a regular citizen they'd get busted for libel quick.

For a celebrity to win a case of libel, not only do they have to prove that it was a lie printed about them but they must also prove that the lie actually harmed them be it monetary or other wise. Hell, when the Enquirer prints lies about the stars it doesn't very often harm them at all but actually gets people talking about them. You see celebrities seek out the limelight as it's part of their job and since they put themselves out there everyone is blabbity blab about them.

For the regular private citizen it's another matter all together. It's best to be sure of your facts. That's why the news always uses the term "allegedly" even if they got the poor bastard on tape doing whatever it is that they did.

So, Scotty ain't gotta apologize for crap. Lee on the other hand had a big shit storm staring him in the face and wisely made amends. What those amends were, I don't think has been made public that I am aware of. I doubt anyone will know except the parties involved. Lee apologized, gave the couple some type of monetary compensation (he might have bought their house, IDK) and the couple signed a document promising they wouldn't sue.

That couple could have easily proved to a court that Lee falsely represented them as living in the domicile that Zimmerman lived. They could have shown easily that this misrepresentation caused some type of consternation and disruption of their lives that stemmed directly from Lee's actions. Sure, Lee could have fought it in court if he so desired but it was not a good proposition for him to do so. Better to resolve it quickly. He did.
Case closed.

Scotty can say Lee bought the couples house. Doesn't matter if it's true or not like you comparing that to what Lee did and that Scotty should do the same. If what Scotty said is not true, then show how it could possibly harm Lee or his reputation or livelihood. It doesn't. So Scotty not only doesn't have to apologize, Lee himself couldn't even begin to complain about it anyway even if he did care.

You don't understand the privacy laws and such in the US I'm betting. I hear the UK it's a different story, but I don't know nor do I care.
But to say Scotty has to go to the lengths that Lee did is stupid and shows a complete lack of understanding about the public and private figures in US society and how it relates to the law.

Find another line to blabber about.

[Symmetry]

Sigh, ok- post your evidence for your claim.

Jesus, he doesn't need to do anything like that.

Listen, Lee was right and wise to make restitution to that couple. He'd have gotten his butt handed to him in court and I'm sure his lawyer told him to that affect. Not to mention the hopefully Lee isn't a complete asshole and he should apologize and compensate that couple for his stupid mistake.

You see that couple is just some regular ole people who aren't in the public eye and there is a great amount of latitude in court over this stuff in their case. Lee, on the other hand, is a public figure, a celebrity who puts himself out there often enough. This is how rags like the National Enquirer can get away with a lot of their weird stories about the stars but if they tried it with a regular citizen they'd get busted for libel quick.

For a celebrity to win a case of libel, not only do they have to prove that it was a lie printed about them but they must also prove that the lie actually harmed them be it monetary or other wise. Hell, when the Enquirer prints lies about the stars it doesn't very often harm them at all but actually gets people talking about them. You see celebrities seek out the limelight as it's part of their job and since they put themselves out there everyone is blabbity blab about them.

For the regular private citizen it's another matter all together. It's best to be sure of your facts. That's why the news always uses the term "allegedly" even if they got the poor bastard on tape doing whatever it is that they did.

So, Scotty ain't gotta apologize for crap. Lee on the other hand had a big shit storm staring him in the face and wisely made amends. What those amends were, I don't think has been made public that I am aware of. I doubt anyone will know except the parties involved. Lee apologized, gave the couple some type of monetary compensation (he might have bought their house, IDK) and the couple signed a document promising they wouldn't sue.

That couple could have easily proved to a court that Lee falsely represented them as living in the domicile that Zimmerman lived. They could have shown easily that this misrepresentation caused some type of consternation and disruption of their lives that stemmed directly from Lee's actions. Sure, Lee could have fought it in court if he so desired but it was not a good proposition for him to do so. Better to resolve it quickly. He did.
Case closed.

Scotty can say Lee bought the couples house. Doesn't matter if it's true or not like you comparing that to what Lee did and that Scotty should do the same. If what Scotty said is not true, then show how it could possibly harm Lee or his reputation or livelihood. It doesn't. So Scotty not only doesn't have to apologize, Lee himself couldn't even begin to complain about it anyway even if he did care.

You don't understand the privacy laws and such in the US I'm betting. I hear the UK it's a different story, but I don't know nor do I care.
But to say Scotty has to go to the lengths that Lee did is stupid and shows a complete lack of understanding about the public and private figures in US society and how it relates to the law.

Find another line to blabber about.

Hint: I didn't actually think that Scotty would, or should pay Spike Lee compensation for a post he made on the off topic forums of an online computer game website.

Still, an epic rant, especially seeing as it merely followed a request for a source.

[patches70]

Hint: I didn't actually think that Scotty would, or should pay Spike Lee compensation for a post he made on the off topic forums of an online computer game website.

Still, an epic rant, especially seeing as it merely followed a request for a source.

Dude, here is your statement-

Indeed. I'm guessing you feel no need to apologise to Spike Lee, or provide any financial compensation for posting such false information

You see there how you are holding scotty to the same level that Lee was held to? All you did was ask for a source? That's all huh? You didn't try to paint Scotty as doing the same thing Lee did when it's not even close to the same thing.

You have no integrity and are just a stupid troll. And a very poor troll at that. I show you the exact difference between scotty and Lee and all you come back with "Oh...uhhh...I didn't mean it like that". What a putz you are.

Hey, forward this to Spike Lee for me if you would.
Did you know that Spike Lee likes to set a cantaloupe in the window sill for a few days until it gets nice and gummy. Then he cuts a hole in it and makes sweet love to the melon. He does other freaky stuff as well with horses. Lets just say that where most people show up to the horse stables with riding boots and a crop, Spike Lee shows up with a bouquet of flowers and a footstool. He's a freak.

So, go ahead and forward that to him and lets see if he'd like to sue me for vicious lies or try to force me to recant my "story".
LMAO.

Your pretentiousness is pathetic. Is this a trait all people from the UK share or are you just an asshole?

Epic rant, I try to educate you on the difference between public and private individuals in US society in regards to legal matters and obligations, responsibilities and instead of you even beginning to comprehend you just call it a rant. Silly Brit, the world doesn't revolve around the Union Jack anymore.

[Symmetry]

Hint: I didn't actually think that Scotty would, or should pay Spike Lee compensation for a post he made on the off topic forums of an online computer game website.

Still, an epic rant, especially seeing as it merely followed a request for a source.

Dude, here is your statement-

Indeed. I'm guessing you feel no need to apologise to Spike Lee, or provide any financial compensation for posting such false information

You see there how you are holding scotty to the same level that Lee was held to? All you did was ask for a source? That's all huh? You didn't try to paint Scotty as doing the same thing Lee did when it's not even close to the same thing.

You have no integrity and are just a stupid troll. And a very poor troll at that. I show you the exact difference between scotty and Lee and all you come back with "Oh...uhhh...I didn't mean it like that". What a putz you are.

Hey, forward this to Spike Lee for me if you would.
Did you know that Spike Lee likes to set a cantaloupe in the window sill for a few days until it gets nice and gummy. Then he cuts a hole in it and makes sweet love to the melon. He does other freaky stuff as well with horses. Lets just say that where most people show up to the horse stables with riding boots and a crop, Spike Lee shows up with a bouquet of flowers and a footstool. He's a freak.

So, go ahead and forward that to him and lets see if he'd like to sue me for vicious lies or try to force me to recant my "story".
LMAO.

Your pretentiousness is pathetic. Is this a trait all people from the UK share or are you just an asshole?

Epic rant, I try to educate you on the difference between public and private individuals in US society in regards to legal matters and obligations, responsibilities and instead of you even beginning to comprehend you just call it a rant. Silly Brit, the world doesn't revolve around the Union Jack anymore.

Weird, and slightly racist stuff. This is merely rant part 2. Part 1 was more amusing. Now you seem a little creepy.