|
Post by sunrunner on Jun 16, 2012 7:43:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Darth Stateworker on Jun 16, 2012 12:05:00 GMT -5
After seeing the trolling and flame-baiting from last night, any future comments must be on topic, or they will simply be deleted. I'm here to talk about union issues - not to let trolls continue to insult me or other users.
I'm deleting any post from last night that were merely insults hurled at others, regardless of who posted them. Let's stay on topic from here on in. I will not continue to let this devolve. Fixing the problems within PEF are the issue. Both sides hurling insults back and forth is not, and TBQH, I am a little pissed off with myself that I sank to the same level as Tom and Pete on that front.
|
|
|
Post by sunrunner on Jun 16, 2012 13:30:19 GMT -5
Understood
|
|
|
Post by NYS Techie on Jun 16, 2012 13:38:34 GMT -5
Once again, I have self-moderated this post because it seems to have greatly annoyed Linda Rea. It is clear that it was protected speech under the first amendment, and that a lawsuit would not succeed on its merits, but moderating my post and keeping everyone relaxed is a lot easier than getting into a big fight with them.
Ms. Rea: I would like to point out that I am no longer posting to the Times Union at ALL (I don't like the people who show up there) but for those posts I have made, NONE of them have been libelous, and you would never be able to prove that anything I've said rises to the standard of libel or slander. I recommend you accept this olive branch and stop threatening people.
Note that contrary to your husband's (and Tom's apparently) opinion, Darth and I are two completely separate people who do not even work together.
|
|
|
Post by Tom G on Jun 16, 2012 13:54:14 GMT -5
I really had no intentions of coming back but please indulge your selves. You all should know that I'm much to smart then to give anyone the opportunity to use this kind of thing against me. I have never seen a state office that has Great-stuff spray foam and pink insulation dripping down down the from the Sheetrock have you? The funny thing is, this building is my man cave on my property. I thought you all had fun looking at my facebook? You should know I'm building a garage and what you see will be torn down in a couple months. Have fun, take care. I have way to many fun things to do besides blog. We will never agree on everything.
|
|
|
Post by Darth Stateworker on Jun 16, 2012 23:20:46 GMT -5
"I really had no intentions of coming back but please indulge your selves." - yourselves. One word.
"You all should know that I'm much to smart then to give anyone the opportunity to use this kind of thing against me." - too. Two o's.
"I have never seen a state office that has Great-stuff spray foam and pink insulation dripping down down the from the Sheetrock have you?" = Great Stuff. - Capital S.
"I thought you all had fun looking at my facebook?" - Facebook. Capital F.
If there's one thing I love, it's people who talk about how smart they are that can't get proper capitalization or punctuation correct. Like putting a double space in between a period and the next sentence. Or proper paragraphs. Etc.
Why do these two clowns insist that they are intelligent when they write like kindergartners? And these people are the surrogates for M1st? /facepalm
|
|
|
Post by NYS Techie on Jun 16, 2012 23:41:07 GMT -5
Again, self-moderated to calm Ms. Rea down. This post originally contained a small joke. Protected speech, no doubt, but removed as a friendly gesture.
|
|
|
Post by Mrs Rea on Jun 18, 2012 10:17:39 GMT -5
To NYS Techie and friends, It’s my opinion that you stop your nonsense now. Your suggestion runs dangerously close to the definition of libel. If you doubt my veracity you should know that my daughter is a practicing attorney in Washington D.C. It’s been suggested that all one needs to do is submit a Request for Information to the courts to subpoena the Times Union for all personal information so that legal documents may be served informing of a pending law suit. For one so worried about “finding out who you are” I would think having your name and address to give to a document server would be the last thing you or anyone would want. I suggest you continue with your trying to simply shout one another down and leave your current suggestion where it belongs, in the bin.
|
|
|
Post by uncivilservant on Jun 18, 2012 11:32:21 GMT -5
By running for union offices, they've made themselves public figures - under US law you can't sue for libel of public figures, only private ones.
|
|
|
Post by Mrs Rea on Jun 18, 2012 12:12:34 GMT -5
*Correction Peter has not run for union office.
|
|
|
Post by uncivilservant on Jun 18, 2012 12:18:41 GMT -5
My appologies. I've not paid much atttention to him - he bored me to death with repeditive blathering.
|
|
|
Post by Mrs Rea on Jun 18, 2012 12:29:37 GMT -5
Oh and your statement happens to be incorrect as well; . The First Amendment 1. Public Officials/Public Figures: Actual Malice must be proven. The First Amendment requires that a defamation plaintiff prove actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth when the plaintiff is a public official or public figure. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). This is a much higher burden of proof for a public figure plaintiff. Instead of showing objectively that a "reasonable person" knew or should have known the defamatory statement was false, a public figure plaintiff must prove the intent of the defendant was malicious, or that they acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This allows the defendant to prove its good faith intent and efforts as a defense.
Who is a Public Official or Public Figure? Public Official. Governmental policy-makers are public officials, while public employees generally are not public officials. The Minnesota Supreme Court has laid out a test to determine who is, and is not, a public official: (1) whether plaintiff performs governmental duties directly related to the public interest; (2) whether plaintiff holds a position to influence significantly the resolution of public issues; and (3) whether the plaintiff has, or appears to the public to have, substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of government affairs. Britton v. Koep, 470 N.W.2d 518, 522 (Minn. 1991). In Britton, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a public roads department supervisor was not a public official, and did not have to prove actual malice. Public Figure. A "public figure" is a person who is publicly prominent, so much so that discussion or commentary about that person amounts to a "public concern." However, such persons are not necessarily public figures for any purpose: status as a public figure may only extend to the particular area in which they are publicly prominent. Examples: Michael Jordan or Donald Trump. The extent of a person's status as a public figure will be subject to extensive litigation in each case. The U.S. Supreme has established some guidelines on who constitutes a public figure: (1) Involuntary Public Figure: become public figure through no purposeful action of their own, including those who have become especially prominent in the affairs of society; (2) Always Public Figures: those who occupy position of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes; (3) Public Figures on Specific Issues: "those who have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345 (1974).
|
|
|
Post by Darth Stateworker on Jun 18, 2012 12:36:26 GMT -5
Linda,
To subpeona the Times Union, one must be able to show a libelous post there. Something that cannot be done, because they are heavily moderated, and the only thing that was said there (or even here) in regards to your husband are easily provable: He wasn't scheduled to be laid off, and more than enough witnesses would attest that his opinion about the contract morphed. Additionally, he has made himself a public figure by going in front of news cameras every chance he gets. Tom has done the same, for the same reasons plus another: he's a candidate for office, and again, his issue is that he didn't like having his Facebook pointed out. Finally, you have no case either, because pointing out you've posted here before under the pseudonym "Lynn Grey" is also factual and proven by the fact that you are now posting from the exact same IP address.
In a word: None of you have a case. So, your threats are empty. However, how many times have you, Tom and your husband referred to us as "greedy" or worse here? We aren't public figures, meaning YOU FOLKS have opened yourselves up to counter suit. Not to mention constant threats, such as this or Toms thinly veiled fistfight threats are nothing short of harassment meant to silence us and deprive us of our first amendment rights.
So save your threats. They just further prove our point about the mentality and maturity of you PEF Families people. If you folks were smart, you'd simply go away, because not only are you embarrassing yourselves, but the M1st candidates you surrogate for and support. I'm surprised they didn't tell you to quiet down already.
Threaten me or any of my users again, and the lot of you are banned permanently.
|
|
|
Post by Mrs Rea on Jun 18, 2012 12:46:42 GMT -5
If you read my original post, my comments were made to NYS Techie and his suggestion. Period. I made no threats and have called no one names or been disrespectful. I simply stated a fact that if NYS Techie continued on the path he/she was on, I would be left with no other choice. If you choose to ban me, that's fine. It's your blog, your choice. My opinion stands firm. If you choose to test my determination, again, your blog, your choice. I have nothing further to say. Thank you for allowing me to post.
|
|
|
Post by uncivilservant on Jun 18, 2012 12:48:35 GMT -5
(3) Public Figures on Specific Issues: "those who have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved. Yup, they're public figures. But proof of actual malice is so hard to come by that the difference is academic. If we made TV adverts saying "PEFFamilies is a cover for a cult who barbicues babies every new moon in supplication to shub'niguroth, the goat with a thousand young" and plastered it on the airwaves, you'd have a case. As it stands, we don't care enough to slander or libel them and I refer you back to Darth's comment. As for what techie said - the tone and context were clearly sarcastic and not meant to be taken at face value. Or at least that's how they appeared to me. That's still quite a long way from actual malice.
|
|