Slashdot Mirror
School District Threatens Suit Over Parent's Blog
penguin_dance writes "A Texas School District is threatening to sue a parent over what it terms 'libelous material' or other 'legally offensive' postings on her web site and are demanding their removal. Web site owner Sandra Tetley says they're just opinions. The legal firm sending the demand cited 16 items, half posted by Tetley, the rest by anonymous commentators to her blog. The alleged libelous postings 'accuse Superintendent Lynne Cleveland, trustees and administrators of lying, manipulation, falsifying budget numbers, using their positions for "personal gain," violating the Open Meetings Act and spying on employees, among other things.' The problem for the district is that previous courts have ruled that governments can't sue for libel. So now, in a follow-up story, the lawyers say the firm 'would file a suit on behalf of administrators in their official capacities and individual board members. The suit, however, would be funded from the district's budget.' So far, Tetley hasn't backed down, although she said she'll 'consult with her attorneys before deciding what, if anything, to delete.'"
Delete the part where you ask them to not eat your shorts. Then add a bit saying "see you in court". And get ready with the counter-suit.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
First, why not link to the blog, you dumbass editors?
Second, from just what's written in the summary, it's a pretty clear case of someone using their blog to accuse school officials of wrongdoing. It doesn't sound at all like "opinions". It sounds like accusations and innuendo. I'm not sure how responsible this person is for the comments, but the articles themselves are pretty libelous if untrue.
I'm shocked.
Since it's not linked in the op, the site in question is http://www.gisdwatch.com/
The suit, however, would be funded from the district's budget.'
Isn't truth an absolute defense to an accusation of libel ?
Just because its a blog doesnt it make any less real than posting it as leaflets on lampposts.
If the accusations are true, than they will lose.
If they arent, they have every right to defend themselves against this libel.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Only if your a criminal, I hear
I also find it interesting that the district... Considering (according to TFA) the libelous material is targeted at individuals not the School District. Obviously when you're in charge of a government department you can do what you like with the monay[sic].
this post is now diamonds!
Just so you know, Texas is bigger than all the other states, combined !! and everyone's a millionaire !!
And don't you look at my girlfriend
Cause she's the only one I got !!
Not much of a girlfried
I never seem to get a lot
And can the government sue even if he does?
War for Oil.
Bush Lied, Thousands Died.
That Shambling Ape in the White House.
Chimpy McHaliburton.
Ok, I'm convinced. That lady should be sued by the government for libel.
As should the above traitorous fools.
They know that previous rulings prevent the district from suing so they are doing a run around. It is my belief that if this actually makes it to court and the district loses then the money MUST be repaid by everyone on the board that brought the suit.
Frankly, posting anything about government officials, other than death threats or personal information, should not be discouraged. If the public cannot voice their disagreements with local officials then we are no longer free. The fact is, the public officials don't have to like what is posted about them, thats their choice. It is not their choice to silence people who post such.
while that sites forum is a pain to read it does appear that most of the people complaining are doing so with good maturity. The problem for the district is that people are connecting the dots, adding up the numbers, and then questioning it.
That the district would use a back door method to skirt a previous court ruling about suing only lends more credit to those posting on the blog.
Whats next? Suing people who start recall drives? Perhaps the members of the blog should try that next.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I don't know the details of this story, whether there's any merit in the school's arguments or not, because I haven't read the original blog (and even if I did, I'd be reading a one-sided biased view), but they are being seen to have gone in heavy-handed with the lawyers, and the result is that a small local dispute has been syndicated in Slashdot, and probably plenty of places elsewhere. Effectively by calling in the lawyers, they've turned a small amount of bad publicity into a very large amount of much worse publicity. This is something I've noticed happening a lot lately (most obviously with the RIAA etc). So regardless of the merits of the case, the lesson seems to be if you're considering calling the lawyers, you'd be wise to try less drastic steps first to get your point across. And if you're on the receiving end of a nasty letter from the lawyers, blog about it in a way that focuses on how it affects your rights, and make sure Slashdot gets to hear it.
These are elected officials we are talking about. School board members are chosen by election. The rules for libel are far different for public figures than for private individuals. This might get interesting. The defendent's speech is political in nature so we're talking First Amendment issues here.
after I RTFA i didn't see where they mentioned the actual content in dispute. Could someone point out where this libel actually is on the site? I would like to read what GSID is actually trying to remove before I form an opinion on the matter.
http://greenobyl.com/ please.... think of the children!!
The blog is at http://www.gisdwatch.com/
Informative
(would do it, but I've already posted to this topic)
If they use the district's money to file the lawsuit with the individuals as plaintiff will make the statements that they use district funds for personal gain a true statement.
Shame on everyone else here. You all forgot the part about CDA immunity.
Fight Spammers!
One might almost say, it sounds like Tetley's bitter.
"falsifying budget numbers, using their positions for "personal gain," violating the Open Meetings Act and spying on employees,"
These are all very serious accusations of criminal behaviour from members of the school board. Unless Tetley has any proof of these accusations I can see why they could be considered libelous.
Whether or not it is good publicity to sue is another matter.
Note: I am not a lawyer.
Just read the usual replies on a pro-microsoft comment and it is proof that this is ridiculous. When will people learn that I could accuse anyone of doing anything and it wouldn't necessarily be worthy of a law suit. Lets say I accuse Hilary Clinton of selling her soul to the devil, but I never put out conclusive proof that she did. Now if she provided conclusive proof that she didn't, I would be obligated to withdraw my remarks or people will assume I am just trying to ruin her reputation. The only time I personally think the suit would stick is if they publicly provided evidence against this and she continued accusing them, but that is just my opinion and I am not a lawyer.
>If the accusations are true, than they will lose.
Should be "If the accusations are true, then they will lose."
The site of the blog: http://gisdwatch.com/index.php
I have not read the blog but did the poster mention at all that "This is expressly my OPINION"?? - I would think that the "opinion clause" would help CYA him from trouble. In a similar story, I remember when Dunkin Donuts was getting upset at a website/blog that had people posting all negative experiences about the food chain. They told the owner to cease and desist and yelled slander, etc. The owner of the blog/website did not back down because there was no merit to do so. It was his and thousands of posters opinion of their experience with the company. Eventually, Dunkin Donuts found the only way to stop the bleeding was to cut it off. They bought the website/blog from the owner and then shut it down.
Stop by and watch a Christmas movie, commercial or cartoon! -->http://www.XmasDVD.com
Those aren't serious allegations. These are run of the mill things. Who doesn't fudge budgets? Who doesn't use their position to advance themselves or their relatives (ie., nepotism)? Who doesn't spy on their employees (ie., read employee email or go hunting for personal webpages)? I'm not sure what the Open Meeting Act is, but if it's anything like the Freedom of Information Act, who follows that to the letter?
The thing is, unless these administrators are angels (and they're probably human, not angel), the allegations are probably true. These are things people of average moral character do on a normal basis. People of good moral character usually don't do this, but then again, I doubt they'd make it into a management position. Management usually goes to 'yes' people, not people with strong morals.
I registered the name, made my parody site, and within 24 hours I wasn't allowed to use the computers at school. I was even restricted from using my assigned computer in my computer science class. As soon as the principle found out I was in her office and the person in charge of the parish (county) computer system for the school threatened to sue me.
Needless to say, I kept using the name www.ponchatoulahigh.com and I still own it today. They have never sued me and I lived happily every after.
I dont think a school should have the right to penalize a student for whatever activity occurs at his or her home. Plain and simple.
As they come from a chronic speeder who fails to take seriously our great nation's speed limit laws, I see no reason to consider your argument seriously.
These lawsuits have a chilling effect on others who might want to expose wrong-doing.
I have seen this too many times in too many places. People in power or in fame somehow believe they have an entitlement above others... actually, I have seen that in people without power and fame as well.
I would love to see this one go to court. I would love to see these anti-free-speech government employees ousted from their elected, self-serving positions.
When I read through the blogs, there are definitely some serious issues that need to be addressed. Unfortunately, there aren't enough state and federal officials to clear out the corruption. Just look at how long it has been taking the FBI to bring charges against people in Dallas. That couldn't happen soon enough either!
It's more than people doing secret back-room deals for their personal gain and benefit. It's that they do so with impunity and they believe they are somehow entitled to this! It's their sense of entitlement that really enrages me. The corruption itself is, more or less, an eventuality and in small doses, no one really cares that much. But the arrogance displayed in trying to skirt law while using public money to fund legal activities for personal legal attacks? Are the defendants allowed to use public money to defend against these attacks?
If the poster can prove that any factual statements he made, are true, then he has a strong defense.
But, at what cost? Any well financed institution can easily run your legal expenses into the the tens of thousands - and very possibly more.
Then there is the issue of your time, if you have a full-time job, or if you are full time student, or parent; you just may not the time to spend the next few years in the court room. Big institutions know this.
This dispute is hardly surprising if you know something about the background issues. For anyone interested, here's a link to a 20/20 report called "Stupid in America"; a little over 40 minutes long, but very informative. After watching the report, it seems to me teacher's unions are mostly to blame; they don't take shit from anyone and resist making any changes at all to the system. All they ever seem to want is more money, even when it's clear to everyone else that private schools, and schools in other countries, can achieve far better results with a lot less. Unfortunately, most parents in the U.S. can't afford private schooling for their kids. IMHO, the U.S. public schooling system is a waste of tax dollars, it unforgivably condemns bright minds to lives of ignorance and manual labor, and I believe it's one of the main reasons why America is fast losing it's dominant economic position in the world today.
who has a 8-yo and a 1-yo, if I go to a store with a 3-yo, and he/she starts screaming at the top of its lungs, I couldn't care less unless he/she is in danger of damaging any goods at the store, in which case I would physically restrain him/her, which would make him/her scream even louder ;-) I wouldn't call this keeping under control, but... Yeah, you have a point. Editors could (should) have linked to the damn blog (and yes, it would be too much to expect that...)
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
This is most likely the latest in a string of unpleasantness, so I would say there is more to it than just one group clamping down on another's blog - more of a straw that broke the donkey's back.
You know, right wrong or indifferent, when someone threatens a blog all it ever does is attain a wider interest in reading the material they're trying to suppress. I can wholeheartedly say I had no idea of this until it hit Slashdot and although it doesn't directly affect me I'll wager there are many who it does that didn't know of it before.
A thistle is a fat salad for an ass's mouth...
the second you graduate!
"Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
http://gisdwatch.com/
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
I know this Australia we are talking about and not the US, but I thought most countries don't see blogs as journalism, and in the states, they haven't allowed blogs to be protected the same way journalism is (protecting sources and such). If blogs aren't journalism, then why are blogs considered libel?
This is just one parent expressing their opinion, and God help us if you can be sued simply for expressing your opinion.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I'm probably going to regret this, but: what on earth are you talking about?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Unfortunately, suing doesn't get the job done. There are other drastic measures that have to be taken for Govt to open their ears. In America, it's the 2nd Amendment, but with the aid of the media, it's usually squashed and kept HUSH-HUSH. Funny, how the media is PRO-1st Amendment, but forgets #2.
-------- Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. --Ozzy
This is why you need an independent judiciary. A judge should look at the kind of legal flim-flammery the district is attempting and smack them down hard for abuse of process. Of course this is Texas, so who knows what will happen.
Sometimes, you can get away with breaking the spirit of the law on a technicality. Sometimes. But when you can, it is because in our system, the entity whose illegal actions are the highest priority to restrain is presumptively the government. It is better for a citizen to get off on a technicality than for the government to claim an iota more power over his life than it is strictly allowed to. But this doesn't go the other way. The government can't use a technicality to claim more power of the citizens' lives than it actually has.
This is why "running government like a business" doesn't work. The government has duties that a business does not, and things that individuals can sometimes get away with the government can't, or at least shouldn't. One of the duties the government has is to respect the right of individuals to criticize it.
Even individuals aren't allowed to evade their legal duties by legal fictions. You have a legal duty to pay taxes. You can shelter income by taking advantage of quirks in the tax code, but you cannot shelter it by creating ficticious transaction that create the appearance of losses. That's fraud.
What the school committee is doing here is fraud. It is managing this lawsuit and even paying for it, under the fraudulent pretenses that it is not a government action. It makes accusation of fraud against the officials involved all the more credible. It would be one thing (still dubious) if they took legal action as individuals; perhaps it would be simply misguided. But they're playing a shell game here, using their official powers but hiding them under an unconvincing cloak.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
... does not surprise me. Galveston is a small island which seems to be single-handedly controlled by one person. From what I heard, he is controlling 70% of the jobs on the island. People I talked to also described Galveston as a "very different place" than the rest of Texas.
Now please do not sue me... what I said here is only opinion and unsubstantiated facts : )
We need some way to do something other than just complain. Ideas?
You don't take a photograph. You ask, quietly, to borrow it.
I am sorry, that should have read "unsubstantiated allegations, not facts"
I admire this school's efforts, undermining the threat of freedom of speech.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Paedophile is an overused and frequently incorrectly used term in the USA (and probably the world). Doing so cheapens the seriousness of the allegations when it is used correctly. The first part of that age range (12) depending on the young person, the violator *might* still be a paedophile, but in that mid to later age range, the appropriate term for the violator is pederast.
Howdy all, been on /. for while but just registered and is my first post so bear with me.
Maybe it has been addressed before but does anyone else know if some sort of pre-blog reading fine print (saying everything within is opinion and the reader must agree to not take legal action before continuing) could prevent lawsuits on a blog?
Just a thought.
"It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
Mr. Dennit: What did you just say to me?
Ricky: What? I said it with all due respect!
Mr. Dennit: Just because you say that doesn't mean you get to say whatever you want to me!
Ricky: Yes, it does!
Mr. Dennit: No, it doesn't!
Ricky: It's in the Geneva Conventions, look it up!
I am unfamiliar with the term Pederast (this is, in fact, the first time I have heard it), and hence looked it up on wikipedia, and it doesn't seem to mean what you think it does. From the first paragraph of the article: "Pederasty or paederasty (literally 'boy-love', see Etymology below) refers to an intimate or erotic relationship between an adolescent boy and an adult male outside his immediate family. It has found expression from earliest times through a variety of customs and practices within different cultures." Considering that the children were female (teenage girls), and that the "creepy teacher" was male, Pederast is certainly not the correct word to use, unless you want to argue with wikipedia (which I would understand, as wikipedia is often ... inaccurate, I suppose one could say, or not a perfect source).
A better term to use might be Ephebophilia or Lolita Complex, as both of those refer to an attraction to adolescents, and one of those might be the term that you were thinking of -- but it is certainly not Pederast.
Everything is subjective.
I live in Houston but my brother lives in Sante Fe, TX which is in Galveston county. I can attest to the type of tactics that are used by many on the school board as well as the local law enforcement. I do not know the parties in question but after reading the blog I can believe most of the accusations happening without much arm twisting. Is there proof? Probably but that proof is in the hands of the very people it would condemn. Is that a ShredCo truck i see rounding the corner? My brother spent 3 years defending himself against bogus charges and being picked up by GC sheriff deputies every other week because he made a snide remark to a neighbor who happened to know a GC sheriff. He eventually had to appeal to the state to step in because of the constant harassment. I don't know that he ever got that cleared up.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Don't use all them high-fallootin words. He's a kiddy-diddler.
Keep the whitehouse white, vote Trump & Palin 2020.
Those seem to be pretty serious charges. Unless you have some basis, you can't just go around accusing people of those things and expect to not have problems.
Now if she wrote about the quality of education or other opinion based it would be different, but accusing them of financial gain via the budget, that is a tiny bit different.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
The details of this case are unclear to me, but I think other posters here have hit most of the key points. One thing to pay attention to, though, is the asymmetry and double standard people will apply between themselves and others. For example, this woman claims that her posts are "just opinions." Well, I can assure you that if one of the teachers and school administrators had a blog (www.dumbassparentsinmydistrict.com) and listed this parent as incompetent ("hell, just look at the way she raised her kids for crissakes!") then claimed that they were "just opinions", those opinions would become more than "just opinions" to that parent. Similarly, students feel the right to rag on their school, teachers, and professors publicly. Various web sites, including the student's own blogs, provide an active forum to do so. But, if professors and teachers in their personal time started a web site to publicly rail on students and their performance issues in class, naming people by name, in an effort to warn other professors, I again assure you that this would be viewed as unfair by the students. I think the Golden Rule has something to say about this kind of behavior. Think before you publicly rail against individuals. Would you want someone to do the same to you? If you are really serving in an actual whistle-blower capacity, then be prepared to defend yourself with hard evidence, not just an "opinion" defense.
It is OK to be offensive. That's right. Racial slurs, ethnic slurs and religious slurs are all better than censorship. Do society a favor. Act incensitive. Even if you think you can mild it down, don't. People have gotten too used to the idea that their right not to be offended stand in the way of other people's rights to tell the truth. Time to give the "niceness lobby" a verbal slap in the face. Because so far they have set the world's greatest democracy on a way to becoming a tyranny. Have you offended someone's religion or race today? Time to start.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Actually, I hear that Google is so rich they're considering buying the whole city of Nome to house the next Googleplex. Something about cooling the racks of servers.
In other news the boys at TrollTech aren't happy about Google's plans to acquire a city.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I read an article about the overuse of the term paedophile and the damage it is doing legally and to our culture (i.e. labeling the older adolescent in similar age consenting relations a paedophile and putting them on sex crimes lists for life). That article claimed pederast is more appropriate and I thought I looked it up in the dictionary and agreed at the time. Unfortunately I was unable to locate the article with a quick search. Anyway I agree you are right, ephebophilia is the appropriate term.
I used to run a regularly updated blog that covered, among other things, a situation in the town I live in. Basically, a group of local politicians (or their cronies) hijacked the offices they were voted out of by filling the open spots of mayor and city council that were conveniently vacated by the people that won the election. Those people who had been elected (not the ones who were voted out and later appointed) left under a series of very suspicious circumstances, leaving the impression that they were bullied out of office. The ones that came back served local business interests. The locals, fed up with what was going on, decided that the best way out was to dissolve the city and be annexed into the city next door. Upon following the state law, this group of locals was successful in their efforts and were supposed to have a vote on the annexation. The town "leaders" didn't want that to happen, so they fought the election in courts-- which they lost. So they racked up a large amount of debt for the town, the town that agreed to annex pulled out because they didn't want the debt, and our town never saw an election.
The local media picked up very little of the story, so I called the town out on its actions on my blog. It got quite a bit of attention from the locals.
The town officials didn't dare come after me, but one of the local business leaders (and a friend of the council and mayor) did. He showed up on my doorstep, came inside my home, and raised his voice in front of my toddler daughter and paid no attention to the fact that he was scaring the crap out of her. While I used no names or businesses or people, and there was more that one person who could have fit the description, the business owner told me that he had the right to sue me. I spoke with no less than four lawyers who told me that he was delusional. The owner's rationale was this: If I wrote a convincing blog that affected the outcome of a local election, the town would be absorbed into another town that has building codes and zoning laws, and he'd have to spend money to get his buildings up to code. So he would sue me for the money he "lost". During the meeting, he fiddled with his pocket and asked me questions like, "What was your intent in publishing this?" Yes, I was being recorded, and I suspect he was fishing for something because someone told him he had nothing.
Nevertheless, he said that I'd incorrectly stated someone else's opinion. (This person was also never named.) While I'd talked to the person previously and published their correct opinion, that opinion changed when I spoke to them afterward-- leading me to believe that he'd had a similar visit. I had no way to back up my claims, so I went ahead and corrected the statement with an editor's note. I was also told that I'd incorrectly identified the mayor as being the owner of a particular business, but there were no defaming statements made, so it was no big deal. I've since been told that the mayor IS the owner, so I just took the sentence out altogether to avoid confusion. They even tried to say that I'd misquoted the mayor, but the quote I'd published was a quote from the local newspaper and was noted as such. Not to mention, the reporter had a taped recording of what the mayor said, regardless as to what he meant to say.
My little meeting actually DID change the way I wrote, and it made me an even bigger thorn in their side. Since they were going to play hardball, I started collecting paperwork to back up every single thing I wrote, and they could no longer tell people I was lying. I even published pictures of the "park" they claimed to have on their publicity website and turned some heads, and they had to change the wording to say that they were going to have a park in the future. (I got a couple of phone calls from state legislators about that one.) When they passed a city ordinance to discourage a peaceful demonstration at a town event, I published the ordinance and pointed out in the wording that they could still prot
This happened recently, where the anonymous blogger "orthomom" got sued by a School Board member for saying nasty things about her. The suit was thrown out of court. Some details are available here.
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
Which means that you've never seen The Big Lebowski... what is happening to the state of education on this planet???
they're defending their personal reputations by paying lawyers using public funds? Do I have that right? Such behavior, in itself, ought to be worthy of some legal action (and kinda makes you think the lady may not be too far off the mark.) If they feel they've been wronged let them put their money where their mouth is, and pay the attorneys from their own pockets. No reason for the taxpayers to foot the bill.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I think school uniforms are awesome. It forces students to develop their personalities in order to stand out. Naturally, people who are used to being materialistic and superficial hate it.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
what.
This is the Internet, folks. Who made these postings? Sure, they are on her web page and that may imply responsibility at some level, but by no means is that a settled point of law. Had she denied making the postings the plantiffs would be in the same position as the RIAA - having an IP address and little else. Probably not even that, just the postings claiming to be from someone on a blog.
Who knows who could have made them? Isn't this the whole point - some level of deniability for everything so there are no consequences?
Silly person, it sounds like she is standing up for her opinions and will get sued because of it.
It was mostly intended to be funny. But there were actually several serious points it was trying to make with its humor. The main one is that just because a rule is commonly violated (such as speeding) one cannot just accuse a random person of it. For all I know, you are 11 years old and have never driven a car.
Srsly. Existing laws will take care of this. Nothing new to see here, no new special laws required. Have it out in court as a libel suit, and a counter suit if necessary, and everyone move along.
Please cite this law. The First Amendment trumps all.
"Legally Offensive"
Am I to understand that the "I'm offended!" tactic, which is commonly used by the intellectually dishonest and morally corrupt to prevent the discussion of issues and ideas they do not agree with, has now become a legal principle?
Better not say something that other people don't want to hear. They might claim to be offended. Offending someone is legally actionable don't you know? Inducing cognitive dissonance in the deluded or dishonest is a hate crime...or soon will be under the new politically correct rules of jurisprudence.
Political Correctness: Because living with the truth is just too hard.
I think these school administrators have gotten far too used to dealing with students who do not have the power to question their authority...or their adequacy as human beings.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
And all the accusations they make about Bush and Cheney?
It's not like the DUmmies have any evidence...
I find this sad and serious at the same time.
mainly because this shouldn't happen period. I'm from Washington and we have issues like this in Oregon and Cali as well. But nothing this big.
I also feel your pain Austrailian guy. You didn't deserve to have the half baked idiots at your school do that to you.
If this were happening in Iran or some other place where the fundamentalist wackjobs live I'd laugh and just hope that we can bomb them.
But the thing is, this is Texas, I'd be less surprised if it happened in North Carolina, just because their all slightly inbred there and the school systems all suck anyhow.
I personally don't think that the school board will do anything. they said she wrote incriminating correct? they read her blog correct? so what else? the fact that they're challenging her for it. She's right. She's the mother of a child who could be hurt by this.
Folks, this is what happens when we let nuts run our school systems, they actually don't get the hint that they're stupid. they pay off people so as they can run, just for the fact that they get easy money. GEEESH.
http://files.roo-kie.com/Uploads/Blogs/Infamous%20Blog/index.cfm.htm
I am sorry, but can't let this go by. 20/20 is trash and John Stossel is a fucktard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stossel
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=19&media_outlet_id=19
http://www.crooksandliars.com/category/abc/john-stossel/
The man comes off like he is working for the little guy, nothing gets him more sprung than private enterprise. Mo money! Mo money! Mo money!
A beginner's course in deceptive reporting, http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2894
The shotgun approach where you fire off dozens of accusations in the hope that at least some of them will stick suggests a malicious or reckless disregard for the truth.
As long as they're all related to the same cause of action, then it's more commonly a fear of res judicata which is a doctrine that, simply put, prevents you from being sued twice for the same cause of action.
Take the case Manego v. Orleans Board of Trade (1985). A black guy wants to build a disco next to a skating rink owned by a bank but is shot down after a local business group opposes the construction. He later sues on grounds of a racial conspiracy after a white guy gets nearly all the same permits for the skating rink which he wanted to build the disco next to. His initial case is thrown out on lack of evidence.
He then sues again over the denial of permits alleging that there was an anti-trust violation since the the president of the Board of Trade was also an officer of the bank that owned the rink and the general manager of the rink. He also noted that several of the Selectmen (city government officers) who turned down his permits were members of the Board of Trade who only did so after the board voted.
Despite having much stronger evidence of a conspiracy, his case was thrown out against two of the defendants he sued on grounds of res judicata. (A third defendant was never named in the first case and had to deal with the lawsuit, but that's another story entirely.)
Basically, you throw everything you can against the wall in the hopes that something will stick because you can face an automatic loss if you didn't think of it at the time. The doctrine of res judicata is meant to keep defendants from the fear of being perpetually dragged into court until a plaintiff finds a sympathetic judge and jury as well as to keep the courts from being bogged down with cases that should have already been decided. The side-effect is laundry list pleadings that try to hit every tort in the book.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
That term only applies if he is attracted exclusively to such girls. It sounds like the proper term, given what has been said, is probably "creepy."
How important is this exam to your future?
While we don't have these in the U.S., I know in Germany and England at least there are exams at various levels that literally determine whether you are allowed to continue on to college or not.
If this is one of those those tests and it really is going to affect the rest of your life, it may behoove you to do anything possible. Is there any precedent for people being able to retake the tests?
They are not defending. They would be the plaintiff and asking for MONEY! Unless this money is going to the school district, then they are gaining.
Fight Spammers!
I am quite satisfied with the fact that my 8yo son behaves appropriately in public and does not indicate any sign of carelessness, and with the progress that my 1 1/2 yo daughter is doing... but then again, I know anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all.
And no, this is not a flamebait (informative maybe? offtopic, sure!)
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I dunno...when I was small...my folks would take me out...give me a bit of an ass-whupping, and when I calmed down, I learned very quickly that I was to behave in public.
A bit of strict discipline goes a LONG way. The parent is in charge....I'm amazed today with parents I see actually trying to argue a point with their kids...it is one thing to let a kid learn to discuss subjects, argue their point, etc, but, at a point, the parent should say, "NO..it is this way because "I" say so.....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
What are you, stupid?
Of course it's frustrating being "taught" by someone who doesn't understand the subject... how the hell can you claim to be teaching someone something if you don't understand it yourself?!?
Imagine you are a student, forced to listen to some dillhole who can't tell the difference between a past participle and a potato... and this is your English teacher. Imagine being taught Geography by someone who thinks the UK is east of Egypt.
Now, let's take it a step further... if "just anyone" can teach, why not have "just anyone" do other things they're not qualified for? Fire fighting, policing, ambulance drivers, EMTs... I know, let's have Joe Sixpack do your next abdominal surgery!
This behavior is abhorrent, and should result in school administrators being caned until they can't walk, and then fired.
Anyone who thinks the school administration is not to blame should be slung up next to them to receive the same.
Sorry, but I get offended by people telling me that advanced algebra can be taught by someone who can't add 3-digit numbers correctly without resorting to a calculator.
And if you accept a position you're not qualified for, you deserve every bit of the resulting ridicule.
--
</rant>
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
if what tetley's saying is true, then it's back to the days of the spoils system. if not, then tetley is not responsible for the fact that the people from the board don't like it. while i'm not familiar with the term "libel" i do believe that you can not prevent people from saying pretty much whatever they want. theonion.com, if this suit goes through (incredibly unlikely), could be sued as well, and it's been around for a while now (to my knowledge)
Epic. Just epic.
Since when have english speakers ever spelled anything right? I mean how the heck did they get Japan out of Nippon anyway? Personally I think the metal does fine without the two extra wasted syllables. It's not like anyone confuses it with anything else.
I'd like to see a cite to a case where someone was convicted of libel in any U.S. jurisdiction where the truth of the matter was established in favor of the accused libeler, but the court said it was still libelous. The Restatements still say truth is always a defense.
A non-libelous matter might leave someone open to an invasion of privacy suit, but if it's correct, it's not libel. If it's true, it's not defamatory.
Best,
Ed Darrell
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub
(www.timpanogos.wordpress.com)