Marty Thomas suing Twitter- Page 3

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 9:33pm

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.

[wonderwaiter]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 9:34pm

I personally wouldn't have a problem posting under my real name, but please, WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE SOCK PUPPETS?

[Q]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 9:43pm

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.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 10:10pm

What about when some of us have legitimate "scoops" that can't be revealed because of the loss of anonymity? Can you all asking for our identities to be revealed legitimately say that you would all continue on as usual?

Do you not hear how ludicrous and pompous that self-absorbed, self-important drivel sounds? "Scoops"? What "scoops"?

Knowing that an understudy is going on? Hearing that so-and-so has been cast before an offer is accepted or that a show is going to close before the closing notice is posted?

Do you REALLY think BroadwayWorld would cease to exist if you couldn't post your silly "inside-sources-tell-me" gossip? Do you thing Broadway would cease to exist? Do you think the WORLD would cease to exist?

Get over yourself. Your scoops are worth nothing. I would gladly put aside the anonymity of my PalJoey screen name if BroadwayWorld were to decide to follow the Facebook model of real names rather than the Twitter model of screen names.

I have only ever said one thing anonymously on BroadwayWorld the veracity of which I would be unable to stand behind in a court of law: my assertion that Arthur Laurents is a vampire.

Since vampirism can only be proven with things like wooden stakes through the heart---which would be inadmissible as evidence--I suspect that, under cross-examination, Mr. Laurents's attorney would get me to say that, no, there are no vampires in real life.

The jury, however, might still side with me. because I would be able to produce a parade of actors, directors, designers, dancers, composers, writer and former friends, all of whom would gladly testify--under oath--that, YES! Arthur Laurents drank their blood and sucked the very souls out of them.

Your Honor, I would say, I rest my case.

But back on topic, Woodward and Bernstein you ain't, everythingtaboo. You ain't even Michael Riedel. Your "scoops" are not worth protecting.

[bk]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 11:31pm

What he said.

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

[Patti LuPone FANatic]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 11:36pm

PalJoey... that bit about Arthur Laurents was too funny for words! On the subject of Marty Thomas....bravo! The dumbbutt who insinuated that awful thing should be held accountable for his actions. Best of luck to you Marty! from Roman in Austin, Texas (visiting NYC from March 15-18, 2011). P.S. PalJoey... I still haven't forgotten how you "forgot" to meet up to see "Xanadu" in 2008.

[temms]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 7:29am

"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.

[newintown]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 10:01am

If everyone had to post under their real names, this board would be a dull place indeed, filled with nothing but those Pollyanna posts like "OMG! Alice is SOOOOO incredible! I waited at the stage door for two hours and SHE LOOKED AT ME when she came out!!!"

It's a good thing that US libel/slander laws are much less severe than those in the even more litigious UK. This kind of censorship is the death of discourse and humor. If you want to re-define "free speech" as "what I find appropriate and to hell with anyone else's opinion," go join up with Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 10:15am

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.

Posted: 10/15/10 at 10:19am

In case anyone wondered, I'm MUCH nicer here, anonymously, than I am in real life.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 10:21am

^^^^


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 ...).

Posted: 10/15/10 at 10:26am

Oddly, New-in-town is the only one who seems to want to "redefine "free speech" as "what I find appropriate and to hell with anyone else's opinion,""

The rest of us seem to be discussing case law and us statutes.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 10:29am

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.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 10:39am

Phyllis is like Harry Beaton in "Brigadoon."

[newintown]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 10:46am

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

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 11:01am

Defamation is a legal cause of action. No one is talking about litigation against online gags. You make up facts about someone, regardless of the medium, you can be held responsible.

I am truly sorry that our educational system has apparently so failed some of our posters, who have no ability to process information.

Posted: 10/15/10 at 11:08am

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?

[newintown]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 11:22am

Joe, I may be hardly the test audience you're seeking, but, at this point in my life, you can go online and say anything about me and it truly would not matter. Say I'm a racist, a pedophile, a liar, a cheat - you can even say I'm Belgian. I'm hardly important enough that anyone would care enough to change their views of me because of casual gossip. The people with whom I work know me well and wouldn't change what they think (but I think I've been lucky to find the people with whom I work).

I'm also aware that online gossip is just that - online gossip. Heck, I don't even believe anything the professional gossips (Riedel, Musto, Hilton) write about anything - it's just light and lowbrow entertainment as far as I'm concerned.

It's a point of view I recommend for anyone seeking peace of mind and a sense of proportion in life. But I realize that those two things aren't everyone's priorities - some people just prefer being outraged and upset about something.

[chellie]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 11:23am

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.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 11:27am

Honestly, newintown, you're the only one discussing this who seems "outraged and upset." The rest are simply discussing a point of law.

[newintown]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 11:31am

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.

Posted: 10/15/10 at 11:37am

I can't speak for Reg but I'll say it flat out New, I don't understand your thought process. Could you cite where there's been overreaction and calls for censorship?

[newintown]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 12:00pm

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.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 12:10pm

Well, again, those are points of law. It's up to the offended party to decide how offended they are, and whether to pursue it or not. And up to the courts to decide if it's a valid claim.

YWIT can correct me, but I imagine the required number of listeners is one, though a court may well decide that that wouldn't constitute sufficient damage to merit any sort of redress.
Updated On: 10/15/10 at 12:10 PM

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 12:12pm

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