Marty Thomas suing Twitter- Page 4

[Q]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 12:26pm

"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"

While I tend to agree with that statement, when something gets called or thought of as a 'sexually transmitted disease', it knocks it into a category where a variety of opinions get made concerning morality and behavior. And, as someone pointed out, the offense only needs to exist in the subject of the statement.

Ultimately, even if this particular case doesn't scream obvious offense, it does satisfy requirements for a test case, and could therefore set precedent.

[newintown]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 12:35pm

There's "legal principal supported by statutory and case law" and there's simple proportion and common sense (we wouldn't have Inherit the Wind if we never questioned the validity of precedent, would we?).

When one starts claiming that their life has been irreparably harmed by a comment about the status of their pubic hair, I believe that they're making a mockery of what litigation is intended to do in the world.

Posted: 10/15/10 at 12:40pm

New are you a law student? I know I've argued with someone on here before who shares your style of sort of considering opinions as facts and facts as opinions who was and frankly it baffles me--

In any case, again you seem to have issues with facts, opinions, rules of evidence- so much so I have to think you just say things to be inflammatory. Or maybe you hone your arguments by taking insuperable positions and trying to defend them anyway?

[Q]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 12:42pm

"the status of their pubic hair"

I think the issue is the behavior that led to that status, and the attitude that some could have regarding it. Progressives may smirk, but there are those who feel differently.

Posted: 10/15/10 at 12:47pm

And incidentally, "inherit the Wind" had nothing to do with precedent. It was a criminal trial.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 12:58pm

Wow. Just wow.

It must be nice to live in a little bubble of self-delusion, where laws and rules don't apply.

Once again, I hope you receive exactly what you put out newintown.

[newintown]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 12:59pm

Oh, Joe, you have to know that the Scopes trial (and the play which portrays it in a fictional way) was about challenging an existing law.

And Q, oh my, yes, God forbid that Marty Thomas should ever come near another human body. That's scandalous behavior. Or are you proposing that only "sluts" get crabs?

[newintown]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 1:01pm

"Once again, I hope you receive exactly what you put out newintown."

I'm not sure where that venom, hostility, and animosity come from. I certainly haven't wished any ill fortune on you.

[Q]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 1:05pm

"are you proposing that only "sluts" get crabs?"

ME?!? Good grief, no! I'm all about sexual freedom

BUT, I'm acknowledging that some others DO - even within the supposed hotbed of liberalism that is the 'industry' - and that someone ELSE might find it of concern to be seen in that light.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 1:06pm

Newintown, if I'm understanding correctly, your objection is that crabs aren't so bad, and anyway, Marty Thomas is not an important enough public figure to warrant defending his reputation.

Is that pretty much it?

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 1:19pm

Funny, I have not wished anything on you except that you be treated as you treat others.

A bit of self-reflection there I guess. Watch out, it can be a dangerous thing.

Posted: 10/15/10 at 1:23pm

Precedent: Legal principle, created by a court decision, which provides an example or authority for judges deciding similar issues later. Generally, decisions of higher courts (within a particular system of courts) are mandatory precedent on lower courts within that system--that is, the principle announced by a higher court must be followed in later cases.

Darrow argued first that the law violated Scope's "individual rights and academic freedom" then argued that Evolution and creationism were not mutually exclusive. In Inherit the Wind, Drummond argues that Cates has the right to think, and the state cannot legislate otherwise.

In both cases, testimony was offered by his students whether or not he actually taught evolution and the prosecuting attorney was cross-examined on biblical inconsistencies. In neither trial (the actual or fictional) was "precedent" offered as a defense and I can't find any subsequent trials at which The State of Tennessee v. Scopes has been cited as precedent, especially since it was a lower court ruling, was overturned on a technicality and the issue was never heard again by a higher court.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 2:14pm

I will always love her for FREE TO BE YOU AND ME.

Wishing her the best in clearing up the lice situation.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 2:30pm

FLASH: Marlo Thomas to Sue BroadwayWorld to Reveal Identity of Borstalboy

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 4:24pm

In terms of legal precedence, the case seems like more of a Claudette Colvin case than a Rosa Parks, IMO, but if this is what he wants, *shrugs*.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 5:10pm

Actually, the case that is most pertinent is Carol Burnett's landmark suit against the National Enquirer, which is widely believed to have changed the way the Enquirer reports news.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 5:41pm

That was the point of my reference. A Broadway actor suing over a public lice rumor is not going to be the landmark court case that changes the face of anonymous online social networking, as some have hinted at in this thread. It's been done already, and there are much better cases than this.

[Disneyland Magic Man]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 7:58pm

Imagine this.

I am friends with someone in the cast of Avenue Q. We decide we're going to have a Surf N Turf brunch or make California Rolls. Someone at the party doesn't know who I'm friends with in the cast who obviously provided the crabs for the meal.

It racks their brain until they get home and post on Twitter "Who in Avenue Q gave _____ crabs?"

It's an honest question. Even if no one in the cast was the one to provide the crabs, or if I wasn't the one in charge of making the crabs once receiving them.

It's not like the poster said "Who in Avenue Q gave Marty Thomas pubic lice?" or even "Who in Avenue Q have Marty Thomas crabs, the STD, not the plural version of a shellfish food item"

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 8:17pm

Maybe, maybve not. Just last year, a model named Liskula Cohen was called a "#1 skanky superstar" by an anonymous blogger who had a website devoted to saying that the model had "Mr. Ed-like looks" and was "psychotic, lying, whoring."

Liskula sued Google--an even bigger corporation than Twitter--seeking a court order to compel Google to reveal the blogger's identity. To everyone's great surprise, she won!

A Manhattan Supreme Court judge forced Google to turn over the name: Rosemary Port.

So Marty has a recent precedent on his side.

Interesting postscript: Liskula declined to sue Rosemary for defamation. She simply called her up and forgave her.

Updated On: 10/16/10 at 08:17 PM

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 8:58pm

Yes, as I said, it's already been done. That case set the precedent. His won't. Even if he continues with the suit and is awarded millions in damages, it will barely have an effect on online theatre gossip, let alone change the internet.

[BrianS]

Posted: 10/15/10 at 11:25pm

"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."

Newintown, if you really feel this way, why not put your money where your mouth is? Reveal your real name to a reliable source on this board (maybe login in their presence so they know the real name matches the account) and then that person can confirm your real name to the rest of us. We'll come up with creative ways to get untrue rumors about you spread to potential employers, friends, neighbors, etc. and you can show us that it has no effect on your life.

If you stand by what you say, this should be a chance to prove that you aren't full of it. You in?

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 10/16/10 at 9:00am

I thought he got them from Britney Spears on Star Search?

[Amneris]

Posted: 10/16/10 at 9:32am

Some people might think the case of Marty suing Twitter is unimportant but, what would happen if the person who wrote such a "silly" thing according to others turned out to be someone on Broadway? That person might have just screwed themselves no pun intended. I know some of us here...well a lot of us say mean,sarcastic, true, untrue things because we feel we can. It's a message forum and that seems fine as long as we don't say things to really hurt someone here. But, when you have a social networking sight that can actually damage Marty's reputation, then it really is a different story and he has every right to fight back.

Posted: 10/18/10 at 12:08pm

"A former model who sued Google to reveal the identity of nasty YouTube commenters has won. Truly, the anonymous Internet is dead when you can't even call someone a 'whore' in YouTube comments without being outed.

Carla Franklin, a former model and Columbia Business School grad, sued Google this summer and demanded the company reveal the identity of three YouTube commenters—"JoeBoomo8," "jimmyJeanoo8," and "greyspector09"—who were saying "malicious and untrue" things about her: They called her a "whore," and posted unauthorized video clips from an independent film Franklin acted in."
The party's over!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/18/10 at 1:53pm

Don't mess with a former model...especially when she happens to also be a Columbia Business School grad!

A judge agreed, and has given Google 15 days to turn over the names, addresses and phone numbers of the commenters. Presumably, Franklin will use that information to sue under defamation laws which apply to the Internet just as to "real life."