5/7/2013 11:28:22 AM

assuming you pass all your finals

I'm Krallum and I approved this message.

5/7/2013 11:35:16 AM

When this gets to zero will you stop posting?

5/7/2013 11:42:39 AM

i thought this thread was about THE FINAL COUNTDOWN

5/7/2013 12:00:23 PM

Do not derail this tread. This is a very important event!

5/7/2013 12:02:25 PM

^^fuck.

Dude, you don't have to kill yourself

I'm Krallum and I approved this message.

5/7/2013 12:05:01 PM

to the top

5/7/2013 3:23:36 PM

Is this thread related to this thread?

5/7/2013 3:27:13 PM

5/7/2013 3:32:13 PM

i thought this thread was about THE FINAL COUNTDOWN

5/7/2013 3:35:07 PM

5/7/2013 3:36:43 PM

5/7/2013 3:40:56 PM

ok so my thread is the new greg h-yer......children

5/7/2013 3:42:19 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 4:00:18 PM

Quote :

"http://tinyurl.com/c9afamh"

5/7/2013 4:06:17 PM

Yes a countdown to my graduation is a bomb threat.

You're trolling up the wrong tree.

5/7/2013 4:08:14 PM

5/7/2013 4:11:07 PM

LOL

[Edited on May 7, 2013 at 4:18 PM. Reason : .]

5/7/2013 4:11:45 PM

Are yall fucking kidding me

5/7/2013 4:17:28 PM

5/7/2013 4:22:12 PM

5/7/2013 4:24:17 PM

funny gif

5/7/2013 8:20:03 PM

5/7/2013 8:35:28 PM

5/7/2013 8:44:51 PM

Quote :

"41.4% of all 3,831 counted students graduated in four years 72.5% graduated in six years"

5/7/2013 8:47:17 PM

ttt

5/9/2013 11:18:30 AM

5/9/2013 11:31:29 AM

please, won't someone think of the children?

5/9/2013 11:34:28 AM

5/9/2013 3:21:44 PM

Give us a heads up on where you put the bomb so we don't lose any more TWW users

I'm Krallum and I approved this message.

5/9/2013 3:39:29 PM

ttt

Enough with the bomb comments. TWW has rapist, sluts, atheist and of course everyone wants to pile on the black guy. RACIST

5/9/2013 11:11:41 PM

You guys realize BlackJesus isn't actually black right? I mean, he talks about NASCAR all the time

5/9/2013 11:32:23 PM

I drive a lifted f350 super duty, with a stack in the bed.

5/9/2013 11:57:36 PM

TTT WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

5/10/2013 10:36:50 AM

What happened?

I'm Krallum and I approved this message.

5/10/2013 10:41:09 AM

5/10/2013 10:41:53 AM

Quote :

"0 DAYS 00 HOURS 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS 000 MILLISECONDS"

5/10/2013 3:05:48 PM

and boom goes the dynamite

5/10/2013 3:06:24 PM

Quote :

"boom"

5/10/2013 3:07:42 PM

I didn't trip, I made it, its official


This is my last post

5/10/2013 9:05:21 PM

Well, aside from the part where you don't get your actual diploma until June or July...

5/10/2013 11:05:31 PM

Congrats, EbonyJesus

5/10/2013 11:07:19 PM