I'd have to generally aree with Ain't That The Truth on this one. I would highly doubt any councilman will initiate a suit about comments made on the internet. First, most of our current councilman (Ward, O'Loughlin, McGuire, Woodward, Schratz and Kindel) don't even recognize the internet as a valid/legitimate medium for open communication. (That alone makes me suspicious of their ability to govern effectively in 2004!) More importantly, however, I suspect that the cliche about everyone having a skeleton in their closet is far more likely to be true with politicians. Therefore, the "floodgates" probably would be opened if daylight were to be shed on their financial backing and other "connections".Originally posted by AIN'T THAT THE TRUTH
The reason I can write what I do is because I'm right. I wish anyone of our board members trys to sue me for libel. It won't be done because I have the truth on my side. If any of your Town Board members like McGuire,Woodward, O'Louglin, Grelick try to sue me they would opened the floods gates. I have been waiting to take down this entire band of as you call them PUBLIUS, clean politicans. Publius don't act like a fool ,you know as well as I they don't want any floodgates open for the public to read and seewho and what they really are.
So, do some of the comments meet the textbook legal definition of libel? Maybe. But, wouldn't Publius have to agree that if the writer hasn't been indicted or arrested, he's clean. Hmmmm, doesn't that hold true, Publius?
Publius, as I said in a prior post, if the writer hasn't been indicted or arrested isn't he "clean"? I think I heard that somewhere on this very message board, maybe you can refresh my memory!Originally posted by Publius
...but I still call it libel
I don't know how much of the (linked information) will apply to the content of this conversation, but it's something that should be looked when discussing 'libel' .
From the site:
INTRODUCTION
This paper will examine the topic of defamatory speech as it relates to the quickly emerging and rapidly expanding resource known as the World Wide Web (WWW). We will present the concept of defamatory speech and its elements from a historical perspective, discuss current treatment of internet defamation in the United States and survey the international treatment of "cyberdefamation".
The site is a little older, but still outlines laws created in protecting people from internet slamming and other forms of slandering.
CYBER-DEFAMATION
This information is lengthy but very informative.
WNY, if you think that ain't is right then let him open the floodgates and let's see where it goes. Maybe he's afraid his buddy Ward will get caught in the flood! If he has proof that anybody on the board took a bribe for their vote then it should be reported to the Attorney General, not the ethics board. If he has information on a crime and he is not reporting it, doesn't that make him an accessory after the fact? That is a felony! Maybe I'll call the A.G. and have him read this thread. I don't want to see a crime go unreported.
By the way, I don't believe you think he's always right.
Depending on the "crime" -- ain't would at least be a co-conspirator, which he could add to his "priors."Originally posted by diogenes
If he has information on a crime and he is not reporting it, doesn't that make him an accessory after the fact? That is a felony! Maybe I'll call the A.G. and have him read this thread. I don't want to see a crime go unreported.
Alright, let's try to cool down a little. If I didn't know better this merry little band of posters is managing a nice little impersonation of a town board meeting.
To clarify, I've got no problem with Ain't it shouting from the rooftops that he thinks the boardmembers are accepting bribes (except for Dan Ward of course) but that he doesn't have evidence to prove it. I can't deny that's the truth that he feels that way. But when you make the declarative statement "so and so is taking bribes for their position on the moratorium vote" without a single shred of proof how can people take that seriously? So let's just calm down and start getting back on track with Amherst, not acting as a third rate cross-fire.
And Stakeholder, bad example to use about someone being "clean" if they haven't been arrested. Sorry Ain't It.
It is no less certain than it is important... that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government.
~Federalist 51~
Some crimes are tough to prove. Example is graft. What is considered boning hte tax payer graft versus honest graft. It's all opinion. All graft in my opinion is crime.Originally posted by diogenes
WNY, if you think that ain't is right then let him open the floodgates and let's see where it goes. Maybe he's afraid his buddy Ward will get caught in the flood! If he has proof that anybody on the board took a bribe for their vote then it should be reported to the Attorney General, not the ethics board. If he has information on a crime and he is not reporting it, doesn't that make him an accessory after the fact? That is a felony! Maybe I'll call the A.G. and have him read this thread. I don't want to see a crime go unreported.
By the way, I don't believe you think he's always right.
We are not getting paid as they do.Alright, let's try to cool down a little. If I didn't know better this merry little band of posters is managing a nice little impersonation of a town board meeting.
Some crimes are tough to prove.
It wouldn't be difficult in finding slander/slamming remarks on this message board, it's all in black & white text.
When one falls, will we all go down? I don't wanna be accused of libel because I am an active member on a forum website, then I don't also wanna prove my Innocence because of what someone else wrote.
did anyone get the chance to view the link I provided
it says:
Defamation is defined as an intentional false communication, either published or publicly spoken, that injures another's reputation or good name; a statement which exposes a person to contempt, hatred, or ridicule. Defamation, when in a written permanent form, is known as libel, and oral defamation is known as slander. While web pages can include sound files which, with the use of a sound card and speakers, can reproduce sounds, words, etc., the overwhelming majority of content on the internet is graphical in nature. As the internet, at least for the time being, is primarily a visual medium, and considering that the view from a screen is readily printable into a more permanent form, defamatory speech over the internet most probably falls under the rubric of libel.
If I were to say 'so and so is a crack head' on this site... guaranteed the admin gets an email questioning who I am by user name. It may not be as instant as sending a PM to a buddy... but eventually it will come to pass.
Oh, just so that everyone knows, I’m not out to pick on anyone. I am just doing the honest thing in reporting information to the public based on fact, not opinion.
Politicians are not exclusions to the cyber-slander rule; and ignorance is not an excuse in a court of law, unless deception can be proven. In that case there has to be a 100% accounting in someone being deceived into publicly humiliating/defamation of another’s character, by that point the better judgment of true journalistic intelligence should have kicked in, not allowing written statements on the internet to get carried away.
No one here posting falsified information/slanderous remarks is to be considered as ‘clean’ because they haven’t been caught, just lucky so far.
IMO- Take a gamble at either one of our Western New York casinos.
To Night Owl, you say you don’t want to be sued because you are part of a website group which I’m part of. Your only choice is to quit this group. Goodbye and the best of luck. I have been to federal, state, and local authorities with information of criminal matters There is no reason to disbelieve me but those I’ve made enemies of in this very corrupt admiration, do write on the message board. My only response to them is what I said the first day I wrote the Amherst Section of the message board. If you want to turn me in to the AG, please to it ,whatever police agency you want to turn in too, don’t hesitate. One of message on the message broad brought up my priors. I have explain that many times, I was arrested in Town Hall because I didn’t obey a lawful request to sit down during a Board meeting by the Chief of Police.
Any reporter who doesn’t have priors doesn’t take his job into his heart . Reporters like Ben Franklin, Bernstein, Sam Adams, Patrick Henry and Henry David Thoreau the list goes on and on. I feel you have to stand up for what you believe or you become like the fools that are controlled by other fools.
This topic has reach it end. Hopefully a new theme of topic will start.
If you want to turn me in to the AG, please to it ,whatever police agency you want to turn in too, don’t hesitate.
That was not my post you're replying to, I said nothing about the attorney general, go back and reread the posts for who said what. My postings were on internet laws not about your article/personality.
Your only choice is to quit this group.
Don't ever suggest that again.
---------------------------------------------
My posts were not mentioned towards anyone in particular. I clearly said that in the post before the one I am replying to. I'm sure many other will verify that. I pointed out laws of libel only because it was said by a few members in this thread. I no where in the post used your name or made comments that would be thought of in your direction.
Why end the thread now?
Internet libel laws are important especially in an open forum like this.
Oh Baby! Ain't is comparing himself to Ben Franklin etc.
What gall. What grandious feelings of his self importance. Let's set the record straight. Ain't is not a newsman and never has been. He has no press credentials. His attempts at investigative reporting are amatuerish at best.
His reply to this script will be it is an ad hominum attack. To which I reply -not any more then your attacks on the politicos who disagree with you.
Ain't does not add to the dialogue, he distorts it. As Winston Churchill noted Ain't is guilty of terminological inexactitudes.
dono
I'll have to say that I ain't Ain't and Dvoakley's comments certainly do smack of ad hominum [sic] attack characteristics. Anone that has read this board for more than a few periods recognizes that Dvoakley has a personal grudge against Ain't That The Truth. So let's not turn this forum into a personal jousting match... don't you both have the ability to carry out the jabs via personal e-mail?Originally posted by Dvoakley
Oh Baby! Ain't is comparing himself to Ben Franklin etc.
What gall. What grandious feelings of his self importance. Let's set the record straight. Ain't is not a newsman and never has been. He has no press credentials. His attempts at investigative reporting are amatuerish at best.
His reply to this script will be it is an ad hominum attack. To which I reply -not any more then your attacks on the politicos who disagree with you.
Ain't does not add to the dialogue, he distorts it. As Winston Churchill noted Ain't is guilty of terminological inexactitudes.
I believe that the actual topic here has to do with councilman's votes being "bought". First, I think "buying" votes can take many different forms. For example, I believe that - generally speaking - politicians have a greater than average need to be accepted into certain circles. A politician may be afraid of being excluded from a particular circle of people if they do not vote a certain way. For example,a developer may not "associate" with board members that do not favor the developer's projects. The politician may be afraid of that. The develop may take councilmembers to a Yankee's game (presumably out of friendship). Is that a sort-of bribe? I think so.
For example, it's no secret that Jane Woodward counts several developers among her personal friends. How friendly do you think they would be if she began voting no to everyone of their proposals?
Admittedly, these examples are not fully developed and detailed, but I think you get my point. Bribes do not ONLY come in the form of "campaign contributions".
NIght Owl, I agree .You started a good topic,we should get into it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote