Dan Yorke about to wage war on message boards

[Runrigger]

Heard Dan after the 5PM news this evening talking about a message board (obviously not this one) where there were anonymous slanderous postings about him. He contacted the administrators & was asked if he filed some sort of grievance via the website, which he thought was idiotic. Anyway the result seems to be he intends to fight this his own way & if need be, change Internet law to get this resolved & the postings removed. I say kudos to him. Our moderators have always been responsible enough to remove anything slanderous posted by jackasses who think technology gives them license to say anything they like. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Hopefully he'll keep listeners posted & take it as far as he can.

And no, I don't want to know what the website is since I probably wouldn't be interested in reading the nonsense posted on it.

 

[morescrapple]

sounds like Dan has a thin skin..

> Heard Dan after the 5PM news this evening talking about a
> message board (obviously not this one) where there were
> anonymous slanderous postings about him. He contacted the
> administrators & was asked if he filed some sort of
> grievance via the website, which he thought was idiotic.
> Anyway the result seems to be he intends to fight this his
> own way & if need be, change Internet law to get this
> resolved & the postings removed. I say kudos to him. Our
> moderators have always been responsible enough to remove
> anything slanderous posted by jackasses who think technology
> gives them license to say anything they like. It'll be
> interesting to see how this plays out. Hopefully he'll keep
> listeners posted & take it as far as he can.
>
> And no, I don't want to know what the website is since I
> probably wouldn't be interested in reading the nonsense
> posted on it.
>

 

[Runrigger]

> sounds like Dan has a thin skin..

No. Thin skin would be if I had a fit if you said I sucked on the air & you'd rather squat on a jellyfish than listen to me.

Justifiable outrage occurs when people post personal attacks & lies.

People who don't know the difference need to have their computers confiscated.

 

[chattypattyri]

And I hope he wins!

> > sounds like Dan has a thin skin..
>
> No. Thin skin would be if I had a fit if you said I sucked
> on the air & you'd rather squat on a jellyfish than listen
> to me.
>
> Justifiable outrage occurs when people post personal attacks
> & lies.
>
> People who don't know the difference need to have their
> computers confiscated.
>
I believe Dan said this board had some posts about Dan having a criminal
record. Assaulting his wife. Dan Yorke is with in his rights to sue.
This sounds like Guy Dufault and Laffeys friends tring to get at Yorke.
My best to you.
Chatty.

 

[morescrapple]

> > sounds like Dan has a thin skin..
>
> No. Thin skin would be if I had a fit if you said I sucked
> on the air & you'd rather squat on a jellyfish than listen
> to me.
>
> Justifiable outrage occurs when people post personal attacks
> & lies.

Sorry, it comes with the territory when in the public eye...

>
> People who don't know the difference need to have their
> computers confiscated.
>

 

[missdj]

Re: And I hope he wins!

> > > sounds like Dan has a thin skin..
> >
> > No. Thin skin would be if I had a fit if you said I sucked
>
> > on the air & you'd rather squat on a jellyfish than listen
>
> > to me.
> >
> > Justifiable outrage occurs when people post personal
> attacks
> > & lies.
> >
> > People who don't know the difference need to have their
> > computers confiscated.
> >
> I believe Dan said this board had some posts about Dan
> having a criminal
> record. Assaulting his wife. Dan Yorke is with in his rights
> to sue.
> This sounds like Guy Dufault and Laffeys friends tring to
> get at Yorke.
> My best to you.
> Chatty.


do you think dufault and laffey's friends (hmmm) would actually do that??
>

 

[tonyfarr]

Re: And I hope he wins!

> > > > sounds like Dan has a thin skin..
> > >
> > > No. Thin skin would be if I had a fit if you said I
> sucked
> >
> > > on the air & you'd rather squat on a jellyfish than
> listen
> >
> > > to me.
> > >
> > > Justifiable outrage occurs when people post personal
> > attacks
> > > & lies.
> > >
> > > People who don't know the difference need to have their
> > > computers confiscated.
> > >
> > I believe Dan said this board had some posts about Dan
> > having a criminal
> > record. Assaulting his wife. Dan Yorke is with in his
> rights
> > to sue.
> > This sounds like Guy Dufault and Laffeys friends tring to
> > get at Yorke.
> > My best to you.
> > Chatty.
>
>
> do you think dufault and laffey's friends (hmmm) would
> actually do that??
> >
>Dufalt is capable of anything (cumattas comment) .So, yes could be .
Laffey ,I doubt it. When the State Police look at it ,then we'll know.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!
Tony!

 

[morescrapple]

Re: And I hope he wins!

> >
> > do you think dufault and laffey's friends (hmmm) would
> > actually do that??
> > >
> >Dufalt is capable of anything (cumattas comment) .So, yes
> could be .
> Laffey ,I doubt it. When the State Police look at it ,then
> we'll know.
> HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!
> Tony!
>
nothing for police to look at, public persons have little recourse against critics...

 

[TXengineer]

Re: And I hope he wins!

> public persons have little
> recourse against critics...

There is a difference between criticizim and slander.

Criticizim: "Your show stunk on the air and your boring as hell"

Slander: "You were going home with the intern while your wife was at work".

There is a HUGE difference.

If someone said that he went to jail when he didn't, then absolutley he has the ability to sue for Defimation of charector (yes I know I can't spell...), however if they just call him a pompus windbag, he has nothing to sue about.

Public eye or not.

 

[liveallnite]

Re: And I hope he wins!

> > public persons have little
> > recourse against critics...
>
> There is a difference between criticizim and slander.
>
> Criticizim: "Your show stunk on the air and your boring as
> hell"
>
> Slander: "You were going home with the intern while your
> wife was at work".
>
> There is a HUGE difference.
>
> If someone said that he went to jail when he didn't, then
> absolutley he has the ability to sue for Defimation of
> charector (yes I know I can't spell...), however if they
> just call him a pompus windbag, he has nothing to sue about.
>
>
> Public eye or not.

Now if someone said your wife is boring as hell & the intern she went home with said you're a pompous windbag it gets really complicated

 

[iSalty]

Re: And I hope he wins!

I seem to remember Dan Porke saying that he had credible evidence that Hilary Clinton was a lesbian.

Last time I looked she was still married to a man.

Looks like Porke looses.

I guess when you used to hanging up the phone on a caller like a little baby you get bent out of shape when you don't get it your way.





> > public persons have little
> > recourse against critics...
>
> There is a difference between criticizim and slander.
>
> Criticizim: "Your show stunk on the air and your boring as
> hell"
>
> Slander: "You were going home with the intern while your
> wife was at work".
>
> There is a HUGE difference.
>
> If someone said that he went to jail when he didn't, then
> absolutley he has the ability to sue for Defimation of
> charector (yes I know I can't spell...), however if they
> just call him a pompus windbag, he has nothing to sue about.
>
>
> Public eye or not.
>

 

[odomski]

Re: And I hope he wins!

I'm not defending Mr. Yorke, however, I hope he wins this slander/libel/defamation of character thing he has going on.

The same thing was happening to me a few months back on an unmoderated message board, operated by EZBoard. A former co-worker of mine started a war against me, calling me a pedophile and a child molestor. He claimed a while back that I made slanderous comments against him, which are untrue to this day. After complaints to EZBoard, they did nothing about it, because the "moderator" who pays for the site would not delete threads. Another person was being made fun of (he still posts on here and the EZBoards under several different names), bitched to EZBoard and the moderators had to ask people to stop making fun of him. My complaints about far worse comments went unanswered. At least this site seems to deal with troublemakers.

And I know the former co-worker of mine and his cronies still post on these boards (even though he's claimed he doesn't) and I know they are probably going to read this too. You know what? I don't care.

 

[syscrusher]

I would be interested if anyone has the link...

>
> And no, I don't want to know what the website is since I
> probably wouldn't be interested in reading the nonsense
> posted on it.
>

 

[Les]

Re: And I hope he wins!

> I seem to remember Dan Porke saying that he had credible
> evidence that Hilary Clinton was a lesbian.
>
> Last time I looked she was still married to a man.

Which proves nothing.

Not uncommon for gays or lesbians to marry members of the opposite
sex, even some have children. For some it's self-denial. For
some it's a belated understanding of their sexuallity. For others,
usually childless, it's a means of concealment. Especially among
those with high public profiles. Now, the most crafty are those
who carry concealment to the extent of having a child, usually just
one, to "prove" a point.

Ooooohhhh! Does that raise any suspicious about what an aggressive
politician might do under the circumtances?

Does make one wonder whether Yorke might actually have the alleged
evidence. Under what circumstances might he use it on the air?
I would imagine that use of such an allegation and evidence on the
air would result in a lawsuit IF the target were an ordinary
person. Probably much more lawsuit potential for such a person...
but for a public figure? I doubt it!<P ID="signature">______________
In government, as in gardens:

Moles are far more intelligent than are gophers!</P>

 

[iSalty]

Re: And I hope he wins!

So let me get this right. You think that openly accusing a married woman of being a lesbian on the public airways is somehow different than someone inquireing on a message board as to weather the public figure in question has been arrested for whatever infraction is at issue?

Unless there is evidence of criminal wrong doing, (threats to harm, etc). I don't see this going very far.

In all due respect. Last time I looked, the state police had allot more pressing matters than someone posting questions about public figures on craigslist.









> > I seem to remember Dan Porke saying that he had credible
> > evidence that Hilary Clinton was a lesbian.
> >
> > Last time I looked she was still married to a man.
>
> Which proves nothing.
>
> Not uncommon for gays or lesbians to marry members of the
> opposite
> sex, even some have children. For some it's self-denial.
> For
> some it's a belated understanding of their sexuallity. For
> others,
> usually childless, it's a means of concealment. Especially
> among
> those with high public profiles. Now, the most crafty are
> those
> who carry concealment to the extent of having a child,
> usually just
> one, to "prove" a point.
>
> Ooooohhhh! Does that raise any suspicious about what an
> aggressive
> politician might do under the circumtances?
>
> Does make one wonder whether Yorke might actually have the
> alleged
> evidence. Under what circumstances might he use it on the
> air?
> I would imagine that use of such an allegation and evidence
> on the
> air would result in a lawsuit IF the target were an ordinary
>
> person. Probably much more lawsuit potential for such a
> person...
> but for a public figure? I doubt it!
>
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by iSalty on 11/25/05 07:31 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[iSalty]

After reading this I have little doubt that Porke has any leagal footing to stand on.

Make sure to click the Link. It goes into great detail as to why Porke has no case.


http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#3

Public Figures
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.




> Heard Dan after the 5PM news this evening talking about a
> message board (obviously not this one) where there were
> anonymous slanderous postings about him. He contacted the
> administrators & was asked if he filed some sort of
> grievance via the website, which he thought was idiotic.
> Anyway the result seems to be he intends to fight this his
> own way & if need be, change Internet law to get this
> resolved & the postings removed. I say kudos to him. Our
> moderators have always been responsible enough to remove
> anything slanderous posted by jackasses who think technology
> gives them license to say anything they like. It'll be
> interesting to see how this plays out. Hopefully he'll keep
> listeners posted & take it as far as he can.
>
> And no, I don't want to know what the website is since I
> probably wouldn't be interested in reading the nonsense
> posted on it.
>
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by iSalty on 11/25/05 07:44 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[Les]

Re: And I hope he wins!

> So let me get this right. You think that openly accusing a
> married woman of being a lesbian on the public airways is
> somehow different than someone inquireing on a message board
> as to weather the public figure in question has been
> arrested for whatever infraction is at issue?

An accusation, which happens to have a basis in fact, against
a private person is slander--regardless whether true or false.

The same accusation made against a person who has made him/her self
a public figure is treated entirely differently. With evidence
presented along with the accusation it's something entirely
different; it's called "journalism". Whether on an AM, FM,
TV, Cable News, or Blog....even if it's in one of those archaic
tree-killing newspapers. This is why most libel suits against
even the lowest of supermarket tabloids (absent malice) are
thrown out of court. And why libel insurance for broadcast
costs much less than malpractice insurance for ob/gyns.

> In all due respect. Last time I looked, the state police had
> allot more pressing matters than someone posting questions
> about public figures on craigslist.

Now did "the state police" get into this? Any action for libel
or slander is a private, civil action. Has nothing to do
with "the state police".

Now a threat of violence against a person, public or private,
might well involve "the state police" but NOT a threat of
"outing" unless, of course, the threat were made privately and
accomanied by a demand for payment for silence. I'd hardly
call a broadcast accusation extortion. Of course if the
accusation could not be proven, it might be actionable. In
civil court.
<P ID="signature">______________
In government, as in gardens:

Moles are far more intelligent than are gophers!</P>

 

[morescrapple]

yep, something every educated talk show host outta know!!

> After reading this I have little doubt that Porke has any
> leagal footing to stand on.
>
> Make sure to click the Link. It goes into great detail as to
> why Porke has no case.
>
>
http:/> /www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#3
>
>
> Public Figures
> Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution,
> as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New
> York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to
> bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove
> an additional element: That the statement was made with
> "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person
> making the statement knew the statement to be false, or
> issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its
> truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over
> allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the
> Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded
> that the Time story included false allegations, they found
> that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not
> award any damages.
>
>
>
>
> > Heard Dan after the 5PM news this evening talking about a
> > message board (obviously not this one) where there were
> > anonymous slanderous postings about him. He contacted the
> > administrators & was asked if he filed some sort of
> > grievance via the website, which he thought was idiotic.
> > Anyway the result seems to be he intends to fight this his
>
> > own way & if need be, change Internet law to get this
> > resolved & the postings removed. I say kudos to him. Our
> > moderators have always been responsible enough to remove
> > anything slanderous posted by jackasses who think
> technology
> > gives them license to say anything they like. It'll be
> > interesting to see how this plays out. Hopefully he'll
> keep
> > listeners posted & take it as far as he can.
> >
> > And no, I don't want to know what the website is since I
> > probably wouldn't be interested in reading the nonsense
> > posted on it.
> >
>

 

[morescrapple]

Re: And I hope he wins!

> > public persons have little
> > recourse against critics...
>
> There is a difference between criticizim and slander.
>
> Criticizim: "Your show stunk on the air and your boring as
> hell"
>
> Slander: "You were going home with the intern while your
> wife was at work".
>
> There is a HUGE difference.
>
> If someone said that he went to jail when he didn't, then
> absolutley he has the ability to sue for Defimation of
> charector (yes I know I can't spell...), however if they
> just call him a pompus windbag, he has nothing to sue about.
>
>
> Public eye or not.
>
no, there's no distinction when a public figure, n.y. times vs. sullivan, 1964.