Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
I do agree it's over 'the line' - which is part of why she's a moron. The truth is an absolute defense to libel, but not to social awkwardness - and this crosses one of those 'lines' but clearly not the other.
It's absolutely not the same, for quite a few reasons (start with "plausible deniability" - she very well could be lying, embellishing, misconstruing, whatever). If she had published photos of coitus, then you'd be onto something.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
I just want this thing to become a real live case and go to trial. The .5/10 guy sues based on libel... she uses truth as a defense.
On the truth issue, would the trial be about this dude's sexual prowess not measuring up? Would she call witnesses who can testify as to the objectivity of her research and the large and diverse sample size from which she derived her conclusions? Does her research pass Daubert? These are things the public needs to know.
I want that on CourtTV. I would pay PPV for that.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
So many "pro bono" jokes, so little time.
|
I surrender. These posts have made me laugh so hard I now have a stitch in my side. You guys are really funny! If I ever get in trouble...
__________________
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision." Bertrand Russell, The Triumph of Stupidity
|
Threaded Mode
