SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic - Woman sues for being called a whore on youtube

Posted: Aug 19 2010 11:37 am

So wait, since when can you sue and expect to get money over something like this? I thought the standards for winning money based on slander/libel, as I learned in school were:
1. You have to prove the statement is untrue. Maybe she really is a whore, in which case this entire thing goes out the window.
2. You have to be able to prove financial damages. Last time I checked, the courts upheld free speech which means they don't give a shit if you're offended. Unless she got fired or was unable to find a job because of this, there's absolutely zero financial repercussions.

The example my teacher used: He called the University president a midget lesbian. He then explained that for her to sue, she would first have to prove that she's NOT a midget lesbian, and just a short, unmarried woman, and then she would have to prove that his comment had had a tangible effect on student enrollment, alumni donations, or other university partnerships. Of course, she could probably fire him for that for creating a hostile work environment were it not simply being said to illustrate how this law works, but she certainly would have no grounds for compensation without proving that first. And as I understand it, proving that statements like this have effected you financially is VERY hard to do, which is why celebrities almost never sue tabloids even when they print total lies.

Posted: Aug 19 2010 01:55 pm

If she actually knows the guy who did it, she may have a case that he's harassing her.

But otherwise, this whole thing just wreaks of frivilousness. Yea, cyber-bullying is real and cruel. But if you get upset because someone you don't even know calls you a whore, a douche or a phaggot online due to some random disagreement you had online, well.......you need thicker skin.

Posted: Aug 19 2010 01:58 pm

its kind of like burning yourself with coffee and suing the fast food company that sold it to you... oh wait

Posted: Aug 19 2010 02:34 pm

username wrote:

its kind of like burning yourself with coffee and suing the fast food company that sold it to you... oh wait

I mean, at least in that case there is physical damage.

She has nothing here...

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Aug 19 2010 04:00 pm

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

So wait, since when can you sue and expect to get money over something like this? I thought the standards for winning money based on slander/libel, as I learned in school were:
1. You have to prove the statement is untrue. Maybe she really is a whore, in which case this entire thing goes out the window.
2. You have to be able to prove financial damages. Last time I checked, the courts upheld free speech which means they don't give a shit if you're offended. Unless she got fired or was unable to find a job because of this, there's absolutely zero financial repercussions.

I'm only arguing she has a valid suit. I never said I expected her to win anything from it. Most civil laywers don't take cares they don't expect to win, though.

Your first point is essentially correct, except for a nitpick. The burden is on the defendant to show the statement is true, not the plaintiff to show it's false. But truth is a defense to defamation.

For your second, you don't need to show actual financial losses. The idea you can only sue for "actual losses" is not true for all civil cases, it's just true for the most common civil action (negligence) What you do need to show is that your reputation was damaged by the defaming statement, that's what you're being compensated for in a defamation lawsuit. This is probably where they're gonna have a hard time winning money here in this one.

Posted: Aug 19 2010 05:30 pm

UsaSatsui wrote:

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

So wait, since when can you sue and expect to get money over something like this? I thought the standards for winning money based on slander/libel, as I learned in school were:
1. You have to prove the statement is untrue. Maybe she really is a whore, in which case this entire thing goes out the window.
2. You have to be able to prove financial damages. Last time I checked, the courts upheld free speech which means they don't give a shit if you're offended. Unless she got fired or was unable to find a job because of this, there's absolutely zero financial repercussions.

I'm only arguing she has a valid suit. I never said I expected her to win anything from it. Most civil laywers don't take cares they don't expect to win, though.

Your first point is essentially correct, except for a nitpick. The burden is on the defendant to show the statement is true, not the plaintiff to show it's false. But truth is a defense to defamation.

For your second, you don't need to show actual financial losses. The idea you can only sue for "actual losses" is not true for all civil cases, it's just true for the most common civil action (negligence) What you do need to show is that your reputation was damaged by the defaming statement, that's what you're being compensated for in a defamation lawsuit. This is probably where they're gonna have a hard time winning money here in this one.

Hah, especially when the defendant just turns out to be some crude, snot nosed 12 year old.

Posted: Aug 19 2010 05:32 pm

"Exhibit D......this potential client was going to do business with me, but then he visited my youtube account and was told that I'm a whore. He then took his business elsewhere."

Wizard Joined: Jun 12 2009 Posts: 4209

Andrew Man wrote:

Hah, especially when the defendant just turns out to be some crude, snot nosed 12 year old.

That's why I ignore people like that. Probably some poor little kid who doesn't know how to shut up.

Title: General jackass Joined: Jul 29 2010 Posts: 182

"your a whore lololol" How can you be offended by that?

Wizard Joined: Jun 12 2009 Posts: 4209

mechafuhrer wrote:

"your a whore lololol" How can you be offended by that?

I sure as hell wouldn't be. Those damn lolols make me laugh every fucking time.

Posted: Aug 20 2010 12:26 am

It's like if I said Dr. Jeebus is a bitch (I know! How farfetched! I'm drunk), and then he sued me.

Posted: Aug 21 2010 02:10 am

Whatever happened to dueling with pistols?

Posted: Aug 21 2010 02:26 am

username wrote:

its kind of like burning yourself with coffee and suing the fast food company that sold it to you... oh wait

As it turns out, there was a real case to that one. McDonalds coffee was terrible. Like, REALLY terrible. To mask how awful their coffee tasted, they made it hotter. Something in the range of 20-30 degrees hotter than every other chain serves their coffee. Spilling the coffee is your own fault, but it's McDonalds fault that their coffee was as damagingly hot as it was. Of course, the media didn't cover this tiny little major fact that was really the defining point of the decision, because it's not as interesting a headline.

Posted: Aug 21 2010 02:30 am

Yeah I never got that, seems pretty stupid to keep the coffee at temperatures that cause serious burns. Can you imagine third degree burns on your junk?! WHAT!?

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Aug 21 2010 09:49 am

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

username wrote:

its kind of like burning yourself with coffee and suing the fast food company that sold it to you... oh wait

As it turns out, there was a real case to that one. McDonalds coffee was terrible. Like, REALLY terrible. To mask how awful their coffee tasted, they made it hotter. Something in the range of 20-30 degrees hotter than every other chain serves their coffee. Spilling the coffee is your own fault, but it's McDonalds fault that their coffee was as damagingly hot as it was. Of course, the media didn't cover this tiny little major fact that was really the defining point of the decision, because it's not as interesting a headline.

I was going to mention this case as an example of lawsuits seeming stupid because the media doesn't present the entire case, but I've gotten tired of explaining it over the years.

But he's pretty much right, this was a legit case. Not only had McDonalds been told several times in the past that keeping their coffee scalding hot was not a good thing, I think the woman suffered second degree burns to her leg, maybe even third, and some of her clothing was melted onto her skin. That's a good sign you're serving something dangerous.

Posted: Aug 21 2010 09:59 am

Yup, third degree burns, to the junk thighs and booty. Sadly no

Posted: Aug 21 2010 03:07 pm

If I sued and got money for every time I've been called a name on the internet, I wouldn't be posting here. I'd be too busy flying around in my solid gold jet.

Wizard Joined: Jun 12 2009 Posts: 4209

Thorinair wrote:

solid gold jet.

I just added this to my 'list of things I want when I become a billionaire'.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Aug 21 2010 07:50 pm

Thorinair wrote:

If I sued and got money for every time I've been called a name on the internet, I wouldn't be posting here. I'd be too busy flying around in my solid gold jet.

Here's the crux of the lawsuit. She wasn't called "a name". She she was just called names, everything would be fine.

But she was called a whore. That means something besides "I don't like you". That means "You have sex with men for money". That's a lie (we assume) that's damaging to her reputation.

Now, it may not have been meant in that context, but again a valid lawsuit doesn't mean a winning lawsuit. And yes, it is a little silly that being called one name and not another allows you to sue. But that's the way it is.