Real World--Austin

[tunatartare]

I was just thinking about this, but couldn't Gamma Phi Beta nationals sue Johanna for wearing their letters in the show, especially she does anything on the show that they wouldn't want their letters associated with? If there was a written agreement between GPhiB and Johanna, there is clear proof that Johanna violated her part of the agreement.

[Sister Havana]

Woo-hoo, alumnae bashing! I am always up for a good Ann Coulter bashfest.

I had no idea who the person roqueemae was talking about was until she was named either. So it wasn't super obvious!

[33girl]

Originally posted by KLPDaisy
I was just thinking about this, but couldn't Gamma Phi Beta nationals sue Johanna for wearing their letters in the show, especially she does anything on the show that they wouldn't want their letters associated with? If there was a written agreement between GPhiB and Johanna, there is clear proof that Johanna violated her part of the agreement.

Well yeah, but you can't get blood from a turnip. I.E. if she doesn't have any $$$ it would really be pretty pointless to sue her. They'd be better off suing MTV for wrongful use of symbols or something of the like. Although I'm sure MTV can claim ignorance on this one.

[GoneGreek]

Originally posted by KLPDaisy
I was just thinking about this, but couldn't Gamma Phi Beta nationals sue Johanna for wearing their letters in the show, especially she does anything on the show that they wouldn't want their letters associated with? If there was a written agreement between GPhiB and Johanna, there is clear proof that Johanna violated her part of the agreement.

The First Ammendment allows Johanna to wear the shirt and act however she wants -- even if she's no longer a member. You may not like it, but if organizations could sue people for misbehaving while wearing their logos/letters/emblems/jerseys, we'd all be in trouble.

The First Ammendment is the same protection that allows alumni to come on these boards and post nasty rumors about anonymouse people from their own schools or organizations.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally posted by GoneGreek
The First Ammendment allows Johanna to wear the shirt and act however she wants -- even if she's no longer a member. You may not like it, but if organizations could sue people for misbehaving while wearing their logos/letters/emblems/jerseys, we'd all be in trouble.

The First Ammendment is the same protection that allows alumni to come on these boards and post nasty rumors about anonymous people from their own schools or organizations.

Actually, no.

Free speech isn't the end-all and be-all when it comes to such topics.

Nor should the "goings on" of this public message board be a comparison. However if you insist on making a comparison, what occurs in cyberland isn't completely immune from legal action, either.

[GoneGreek]

Originally posted by DSTCHAOS
Actually, no.

Free speech isn't the end-all and be-all when it comes to such topics.

Nor should the "goings on" of this public message board be a comparison. However if you insist on making a comparison, what occurs in cyberland isn't completely immune from legal action, either.

This post isn't a challenge or a flame -- I want to know your honest opinion if you are experienced with First Ammendment Law:

Please explain your viewpoint further. Are you saying that people aren't allowed to wear greek letters on television shows if they aren't members?

Also, could someone/Greekchat members be sued for posting things about unamed members -- true or not true? Such as stuff about "gang bang" rooms being named after members? I know that is tip-toeing along the lines of libel -- but I thought that there were different rules when it came to public figures.

Please elaborate.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally posted by GoneGreek
Please elaborate.

It's pretty self-explanatory.

[GoneGreek]

OK,
If you don't want to give others a better explanation of your post or knowledge, fine.

I was just asking, in a very respectful way, for you to give those who aren't as familiar with slander/libel/First Ammendment issues a better explanation of what is acceptable and what isn't. Some people might not be as knowledgeable as you, so I was just hoping you could enlighten all of us. No need to be so arrogant.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally posted by GoneGreek
OK,
If you don't want to give others a better explanation of your post or knowledge, fine.

Cool.

If you now admit to not being completely knowledgeable, you should avoid swooping in to provide insight and remind people of the First Amendment. No harm and no foul.

[GoneGreek]

I would never say that I'm 100% knowledgable on any subject, or claimed that I'm always right. But if you're going to shoot holes in my post, I'd just ask you to explain your position to others so they can understand the different interpretations of our laws. If you're not prepared to do this, don't flame people.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally posted by GoneGreek
don't flame people.

Don't be so sensitive and do not make this about you.

[GoneGreek]

I don't think asking you to participate in a healthy discussion about online postings is being "sensitive" Just wanted to know your opinion, that's all. People on this forum are talking about what can be done about members who poorly represent others on national televison while wearing their letters.

[Lindz928]

*PMs were invented for a reason.*

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

Real World Austin, what?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally posted by GoneGreek
I don't think asking you to participate in a healthy discussion about online postings is being "sensitive" Just wanted to know your opinion, that's all. People on this forum are talking about what can be done about members who poorly represent others on national televison while wearing their letters.

There is a quote feature.

Do not use the phrase "flame people" if you do not want to appear sensitive or as if you are taking it personally.

It is not about my opinion. It is about the fact that freedom of speech is not the end-all and be-all. If the sorority so chooses, they will attempt some sort of recourse. If they have no legal ground to stand on, they will be informed as such. Until that point, we have laws of the land and organizational mandates that supercede aspects of freedom of speech. No one in this country is truly free to say and do whatever they want, especially if they are wearing symbols that are legally protected and reserved to some extent.

So there, wasn't that self-explanatory?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally posted by Lindz928
*PMs were invented for a reason.*

shut up