Marty Thomas suing Twitter — Page 3

I am not speaking for anyone (and I only think one person is advocating for a lack of all anonymity).

But, I do believe that if you defame someone, regardless of the forum, you should be held responsible.

The issue here is that someone stated a fact that Mr. Thomas is contending is not true (not an opinion, but a fact). In such instances, he should have the right to go after the person making the false statement. Most Website Terms of Use (including BWW) specifically state that people cannot post defamatory information. Additionally, many, including BWW include language that indicates:

"We reserve the right to track your IP address and contact your ISP to report abuse and violations of our policies. We also reserve the right to contact a local law enforcement agency to report violations that violate federal, state and local laws."

You defame someone, you should be exposed.

I'm for reality. You can't handle it, don't post.

And as for 'scoops', if it's not supposed to be known, then it shouldn't be.

What he said.

The only scoops worth protecting are those you get at a good ice cream store.

"Scoops"? That's just ridiculous.

I have spent much of the last ten years accompanying auditions in NY. I know more "inside information" about actors and projects and what's being said behind closed doors than just about anybody, especially since as an audition pianist I am not exclusive to any one production and get to be a fly on the wall for all sorts of different things.

Part of why I have done this successfully for the past ten years is because I know to keep my damn fool mouth shut. I have read so many things online that I knew for a fact were false because frequently I had been in the room with the people being "scooped about" hearing them discuss the very thing being "scooped", but as I said, I know to keep my damn fool mouth shut. The idea that reporting premature, unsourcable information is a good thing and we should protect the brave souls who do it is ludicrous.

One day I'll write a book and you can hear all about the "secret" audition to possibly replace Harry Connick in Pajama Game after his contract was up (they closed the show rater than cast this particular TV star who came in) and other such stories, but until my personal statute of limitations runs out I'm keeping my inside info to myself and anyone who wants to be taken seriously in this industry should do the same.

I don't think I would have changed a single post if they were under my own name.

There is a vast amount of difference between criticism, satire, snarkiness, bitchiness, what have you . . . and libel. They are simply not the same thing.

Nobody's saying you can't call me a silly, ignorant tw@t. What you can't do LEGALLY is defame me--say, for example, that I'm a child molestor or an embezzler. Unless you have proof, of course, that I am.

^^^^


What Reg said.

But, I am of the opinion that reading comprehension is not some of BWW's posters strong suit. (BTW - not defamatory since it is stated as opinion ...).

I've never read a "scoop" on here I couldn't have lived without.

I don't think I've ever defamed anyone on here (save for the time I got banned for saying ____ wore too much make-up), but I'd be leery of posting under my own name simply because I'm not sure I'd want some of crazies I've encountered on here to be able to find me.

All that said though, if this message board vanished into thin air today I wouldn't be losing any sleep over it anyway.

Hardly the full truth Joe, don't be disingenuous. There's definitely a whiff of the witch hunt in this thread, calling for litigation against online gags which are blown out of all realistic proportion.

Honestly - crabs? A rumor that a relatively unknown actor had crabs is in any way truly injurious? Really? Do you seriously believe that Thomas' life or career will suffer from a tongue-in-cheek rumor about body lice? Really?

This latest child-down-the-well fad will vanish, and the humorless and solemn will have another crisis to get up in arms about soon enough. I wonder what that one will be...

Updated On: 10/15/10 at 10:46 AM

New, How would you feel if YOU were in Marty's shoes? Would you feel it's just a gag? I have no idea how many people follow that twitter feed- 100? 1000? 10,000? How many people in the fairly insular world you live and work in "knowing" an untrue fact about your intimate behavior is too many? Which would be better- someone who you work with every day and know well being told you have crabs or someone you hardly know? A prospective employer or your date for this evening?

Wasn't there that model last year who sued Google because someone called her a skank? (And if I'm recalling correctly, she won, and they had to reveal the blogger's name.) This seems to be in the same vein.

I'm sorry it seems that way to you, Reginald; I guess we have differing points of view about what we're reading and writing here. I'm reading hysteria, over-reaction, and a call for censorship; I'm sure you feel that something else is being said.

PalJoey: “Asserting that someone has a sexually transmitted condition would fall under what the courts consider invading a person's right to privacy about ‘medical conditions.’”

PalJoey: ” a lot of actors would like to put an end to what they call ‘”anonymous defamation.’”

Bettyboy 72: “It's about time that all of this technology stop giving people free reign to be anonymous and say horrible things about others.”

Bk: “I hope they expose the jerk who did it … and I hope he has to pay.”

YouWantitWhen????: “…when you state a fact about someone, and it is not true, you are subject to legal action”

Bk: “any anonymous coward can say any malicious thing and cause hurt, loss of employment, and emotional distress”

And of course, the multiple references to idle gossip as “slander” or “libel.” If, of course, this tweeter had accused Thomas of being a war criminal, or a cockfight promoter, or an arsonist, I could understand the hoopla. But crabs?

So if you say at a party, :”I heard that Marty Thomas had crabs,” (a rather ridiculous piece of gossip in that crabs are so common, no one over the age of 15 should be shocked or even interested), would you call that slander? At what precise number of listeners does it change from mere gossip to a litigious statement? 10? 25? 100?

And this is why I call it over-reaction. Compared to the real sorrows we experience in life, the truly horrible actions of which humans are capable, this is trivial.

Joey’s earlier accusation in this thread that I have posted defamatory statements is another sign of this over-reaction, I think. I know I’m not the sunniest of posters, but I don’t recall ever writing anything that would cause anyone loss of employment or reduced standard of living.

So, stating a legal principal supported by statutory and case law is hysteria?

I think I am done wasting my time trying to explain well-established legal doctrine to someone who either refuses to or is incapable of processing information.

Good luck with your life newintown. I hope you get back from folks exactly what you give.

Update: Reg - yes, the original statement must be heard by some third party. If I say something untrue to Reg, that cannot be defamation. If I say it at a party to Reg and some other person it can be. In California, defamation is a false statement to a third party which attacks a persons professional character or standing, claims an unmarried person is unchaste, claims someone has a sexually transmitted disease, or has committed a crime of moral turpitude.

Updated On: 10/15/10 at 12:12 PM