who are the proper authorities to report this to?

5/6/2013 1:41:53 PM

I feel terrified

5/6/2013 1:46:05 PM

Slander I'm calling my lawyers.

5/6/2013 1:50:04 PM

as an agent of the Department of Defense and a represenative of the United States Government, I will do everything in my power to ensure this shameful orange soda does not go un-lol'd

5/6/2013 2:00:17 PM

5/6/2013 2:06:41 PM

Quote :

"BlackJesus (1:29) : bbehe I'm close to pulling out a pressure cooker on the wolfpack student group, I think its too soon"

5/6/2013 2:08:23 PM

I do not feel safe. I am afraid to go near the wolfpack student group now.

5/6/2013 2:10:57 PM

He's got YELLOW CAKE!

5/6/2013 2:18:06 PM

You need to calm down

5/6/2013 2:40:44 PM

Is this thread related to this thread?

5/7/2013 3:36:03 PM

Quote :

"Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person. Defamation may be a criminal or civil charge. It encompasses both written statements, known as libel, and spoken statements, called slander. The probability that a plaintiff will recover damages in a defamation suit depends largely on whether the plaintiff is a public or private figure in the eyes of the law. The public figure law of defamation was first delineated in new york times v. sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964). In Sullivan, the plaintiff, a police official, claimed that false allegations about him appeared in the New York Times, and sued the newspaper for libel. The Supreme Court balanced the plaintiff's interest in preserving his reputation against the public's interest in freedom of expression in the area of political debate. It held that a public official alleging libel must prove actual malice in order to recover damages. The Court declared that the First Amendment protects open and robust debate on public issues even when such debate includes "vehement, caustic, unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." A public official or other plaintiff who has voluntarily assumed a position in the public eye must prove that defamatory statements were made with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of whether they were false. Where the plaintiff in a defamation action is a private citizen who is not in the public eye, the law extends a lesser degree of constitutional protection to defamatory statements. Public figures voluntarily place themselves in a position that invites close scrutiny, whereas private citizens who have not entered public life do not relinquish their interest in protecting their reputation. In addition, public figures have greater access to the means to publicly counteract false statements about them. For these reasons, a private citizen's reputation and privacy interests tend to outweigh free speech considerations and deserve greater protection from the courts. (See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 [1974]). Distinguishing between public and private figures for the purposes of defamation law is sometimes difficult. For an individual to be considered a public figure in all situations, the person's name must be so familiar as to be a household word—for example, Michael Jordan. Because most people do not fit into that category of notoriety, the Court recognized the limited-purpose public figure, who is voluntarily injected into a public controversy and becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues. Limited-purpose public figures, like public figures, have at least temporary access to the means to counteract false statements about them. They also voluntarily place themselves in the public eye and consequently relinquish some of their privacy rights. For these reasons, false statements about limited-purpose public figures that relate to the public controversies in which those figures are involved are not considered defamatory unless they meet the actual-malice test set forth in Sullivan."

5/7/2013 4:00:46 PM

5/7/2013 4:04:00 PM

he's trying to get me to give him contact information on GrayFox33, I fear he may be the first target

5/7/2013 4:27:41 PM