CARE system

[ChriswUfGator]

That's the thing about libel per se, you don't have to prove special damages as with traditional defamation.

But wouldn't you have to prove damages? Seems to me, Doug used the terms such as "irresponsible property owners" "delinquent property owners and slumlords" I don't recall him saying which one he directly referred to the court document he listed. I might add, that with the situation having gone through the court system, then something was wrong with said owner and their property....

Give it a rest. He posted a link with my name on it saying here's an "example".

You're the one blasting off about libel and such....

Because it is.

[Springfielder]

I think you need to dig out that law book again and re-read that section....

[ChriswUfGator]

I think you need to dig out that law book again and re-read that section....

Think whatever you want.

[Dan B]

Whatever. Chris is acting like a whiny baby. He can dish it out all day long, and talk about what a 'sack' someone else is, and how everone at an organization is corrupt, but when some one suggests he is upset due to his own lack of ability to keep his own properties safe and clean, he melts down and threatens lawsuit.

Very weak.

SPAR is a public organization, and is accordingly open to public comment. I am not.

And while I don't have a high opinion of SPAR and its crew, I've said nothing untrue about them. If an organization violates its bylaws by refusing to hold elections, or disregards its mandate by helping destroy historic housing stock, then my saying so isn't libelous.

But this personal B.S. needs to stop. The comments here crossed a line.

SPAR may be public, but the officers on the board are not. By calling someone a 'sack' or calling into question their decision making by suggesting corruption, and outright saying that they are personally gaining wealth by kowtowing to a developer, to me is WAY more libelous both to the person your accusing, and of the developer.

Aside from that, this whole act of calling someones employer, or volunteer organization, as the case may be, is so freaking beyond any reasonable line that its sickening, and anyone who does it should be ashamed of themselves.

[Springfielder]

Consequences, for voicing ones opinion? Give me a break

[Dan B]

Chris, several of the posters have gained confidence in the tactics of personal attacks. 

They have been ignored so frequently that they have come to believe they are immune from any consequences.

Nobody knows more about personal attacks, and outing other posters than you Stephen.

[ChriswUfGator]

Whatever. Chris is acting like a whiny baby. He can dish it out all day long, and talk about what a 'sack' someone else is, and how everone at an organization is corrupt, but when some one suggests he is upset due to his own lack of ability to keep his own properties safe and clean, he melts down and threatens lawsuit.

Very weak.

SPAR is a public organization, and is accordingly open to public comment. I am not.

And while I don't have a high opinion of SPAR and its crew, I've said nothing untrue about them. If an organization violates its bylaws by refusing to hold elections, or disregards its mandate by helping destroy historic housing stock, then my saying so isn't libelous.

But this personal B.S. needs to stop. The comments here crossed a line.

SPAR may be public, but the officers on the board are not. By calling someone a 'sack' or calling into question their decision making by suggesting corruption, and outright saying that they are personally gaining wealth by kowtowing to a developer, to me is WAY more libelous both to the person your accusing, and of the developer.

Aside from that, this whole act of calling someones employer, or volunteer organization, as the case may be, is so freaking beyond any reasonable line that its sickening, and anyone who does it should be ashamed of themselves.

No, Dan, they are public figures serving in a public capacity. I don't know Louise personally, or at all, outside of her role as SPAR director, and my criticism was plainly directed towards her in that capacity. In fact, that comment related to the bogus petition they tried to circulate as a "sign in sheet", which was a SPAR action that occurred at a SPAR meeting. I have no capacity, other than as a private individual. You're comparing apples and oranges.

I don't have any problem whatsoever with any normal poster saying whatever they want about me, good, bad, or indifferent. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of me, and of anything else. You included.

What I have a serious problem with is the SHADCO Chairman coming here and wrongfully stating that I am a "slumlord" on a public forum, and then posting links to COJ fines while failing to mention they were bogus and already vacated. Ridiculous.

[nvrenuf]

So if I'm the President and CEO of Logic International and also the co-captain of my neighborhood rugby team. When I say to my fellow rugby players 'we are going to kick Avondale's asses, those Prius loving pricks, we're going to f'ing murder them', a normal person not part of the team would think that my words carry more weight due to my business stature and therefore presume I am also speaking on behalf of my company?

I understand your emotional tie to the statements made but the law is not emotional, it is expected to be logical. Libel per se claims must be "so obviously harmful" in order to obtain judgment. The paragraph/sentence structure would not appear to have enough ties to meet that burden of proof, worded differently well that might be another story. So I guess, as usual, it really comes down to the judge one would draw.

[ChriswUfGator]

Chris, several of the posters have gained confidence in the tactics of personal attacks. 

They have been ignored so frequently that they have come to believe they are immune from any consequences.

Normally, they are immune. Everyone's entitled to their random opinion, without it being libel, especially when discussing public figures (which is usually what happens around here).

But the Chair of SHADCO is not entitled to cross this line, disclosing someone's full name and declaring that private person a "slumlord" on a public forum. I am offended, and I believe rightfully so.

[Springfielder]

I don't have any problem whatsoever with any normal poster saying whatever they want about me, good, bad, or indifferent. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of me, and of anything else. You included.

What I have a serious problem with is the SHADCO Chairman coming here and wrongfully stating that I am a "slumlord" on a public forum, and then posting links to COJ fines while failing to mention they were bogus and already vacated. Ridiculous.

I don't know you, so the only persona I have to reference is the one you display here....however, I didn't read where Doug referred to you as a slumlord. Again I quote what he did use "irresponsible property owners" "delinquent property owners and slumlords" Even though he posted a link to a court document, he still did not single you out by using one of those terms to you directly.

[Springfielder]

Consequences, for voicing ones opinion? Give me a break

Why not just stop libelling and personally attacking people you don't agree with?  That seems like a better solution, and Im not addressing this to you springfielder, but several of your acquaintances seem to feel the same sense of entitlement to other people's reputation that they feel for controlling their property and living choices.

Its not very effective anyways.

Just stick to the topic.

So now you're accusing me of libel? Because I'm voicing my opinion on this issue that's currently being discussed?

[cindi]

Proving the point.

When you cannot win on the merits you attack the person Dan.

Try and stick to the subject at hand, if you don't mind.  Bullying is no way to try and lead.

that was a vapid what?

[Springfielder]

try rereading the post.  All of this should be handled in privates.  I would have sent it as a private message, but the group has proven time and time again that they cannot respect the intent behind sending private messages.

Well given that I didn't receive a pm, and all I'm doing is responding to what's being discussed...

[ChriswUfGator]

So if I'm the President and CEO of Logic International and also the co-captain of my neighborhood rugby team. When I say to my fellow rugby players 'we are going to kick Avondale's asses, those Prius loving pricks, we're going to f'ing murder them', a normal person not part of the team would think that my words carry more weight due to my business stature and therefore presume I am also speaking on behalf of my company?

I understand your emotional tie to the statements made but the law is not emotional, it is expected to be logical. Libel per se claims must be "so obviously harmful" in order to obtain judgment. The paragraph/sentence structure would not appear to have enough ties to meet that burden of proof, worded differently well that might be another story. So I guess, as usual, it really comes down to the judge one would draw.

That isn't even close to what happened here.

That screen name has a total of 6 posts, with 4 of them in his official capacity as SHADCO Chair, where he is providing public notice of an upcoming meeting, etc., and the other 2 are about what a "slumlord" I am. There is no distinction, and I'm offended.

To change your example to fit the facts, instead of a rugby game you'd be a corporate meeting. You'd make 4 comments about how the board of directors meeting is coming up, you want to see the 4th quarter numbers, yada, yada, and then without skipping a beat you say "Oh, and Ellen in accounting's a convicted child molester".

[ChriswUfGator]

I don't have any problem whatsoever with any normal poster saying whatever they want about me, good, bad, or indifferent. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of me, and of anything else. You included.

What I have a serious problem with is the SHADCO Chairman coming here and wrongfully stating that I am a "slumlord" on a public forum, and then posting links to COJ fines while failing to mention they were bogus and already vacated. Ridiculous.

I don't know you, so the only persona I have to reference is the one you display here....however, I didn't read where Doug referred to you as a slumlord. Again I quote what he did use "irresponsible property owners" "delinquent property owners and slumlords" Even though he posted a link to a court document, he still did not single you out by using one of those terms to you directly.

Again, give this one a rest. He posted a link with my name on it and said here's an "example".

Who exactly do you think he was referring to then?