You know what's going to be law? Having to post your real name on public forums.

[Endus]

Your link already proved me right, they were civil cases based on financial damage remediation.

None of the links stated this. Not one. Hell, I went back and searched each page, and the only one where "financ-" came up ANYWHERE was on the first, and that was a link to the site's section on financial aid, not anything on the actual page content.

[zephid]

I think this will become a law one day, and sooner than later. I think it's time people have the shit they type in forums be associated with their real names. Free speech is there, it is just that you are accountable now. Thoughts?

Nope, not gonna happen. At least not in the free world.

[spinner981]

It's drawn by the courts, and the jury. And the law. It's all pretty well-described in the links, could you kindly stop feigning ignorance?

Actually no. Your links don't provide any clarification apart from the emotional distress being 'severe'. It further goes on to state that 'severe' in this sense is vague, and basically all that is required is to convince a jury that the emotional distress is severe. So it has nothing to do with facts, and everything to do with simply convincing a jury that you felt 'severe' emotional distress.

Could you kindly stop feigning ignorance? These links give no solid definition that draws the line between any two instances of 'emotional distress' so long as the person experiencing it wishes to refer to it as 'severe'.

[Deleted]

I honestly do not think this is going to be implemented at all. Not to mention how hard it would be to enforce.

- Hugh Mongus.

if it happened, i hope everyone would set their name to Hugh Mungus.

[spinner981]

That is what slander and libel are, false statements about someone... You really should stop kid, you have no clue what you are talking about.

While slander can be false, it can also simply be unjustified (as the primary definition of slander leads to defamation: which has the definition of "false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel", and libel's legal definition is "defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures. the act or crime of publishing it. a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.". The unjustified attacking of a person's reputation. So no, that is not the one and only definition of slander or libel. So please stop insisting that anything you say should be taken as absolute truth and that anyone who disagrees with you must be automatically wrong.

[JohnBrown1917]

How would that work on anonymous boards like 4/8chan?
What is stopping a forum from moving to a country that does not have such laws(which will happen, en-masse)?
What makes you think a lot of people would not simply start using tor and other dark/deep web sites?

[spinner981]

Please, stop acting like I'm going to even read your posts. You've been wrong about everything for 4 pages now, and since falsehoods are part of both libel and slander you can gtfo.

Like I said. Falsehoods are included in the definition, but not exclusively. Slander and libel CAN be false, but they don't have to be false. I gave you the definitions from dictionary.com. Now you are simply insisting that I am wrong just to avoid my arguments.

[JohnBrown1917]

Then why did you say that right doesn't exist on forums? As I said, it still exists no matter where you are. You just might end up dealing with consequences from the forum, but that has shit all to do with your freedom of speech.

You mean everywhere outside the US?

- - - Updated - - -

How do you sort out all the VPN people?
.

Why should I care?

[spinner981]

And you said I brought them up out of nowhere, if they're part of the definition they're part of the conversation genius. Stop acting like what I was saying came out of nowhere and just accept that you don't know much about this topic.

First of all, you did bring it up out of nowhere. How was I supposed to know you were only referring to half of the definition of those words and not the other half? Second, even assuming I didn't know much about it, the things I have said are still correct, so how does this somehow translate to you winning the argument by going off on these red herrings implying that since you personally think I don't know enough about the subject then therefore you must be correct?

[Endus]

Actually no. Your links don't provide any clarification apart from the emotional distress being 'severe'.

And whether the damage amounts to that is up to judge and jury.

The court system is designed be to subjective on these issues. If it weren't, we wouldn't need a jury, since the verdict would be clear and objective.

[spinner981]

And whether the damage amounts to that is up to judge and jury.

The court system is designed be to subjective on these issues. If it weren't, we wouldn't need a jury, since the verdict would be clear and objective.

So as I said. Your sources provide no explanation in this regard as to where the law draws the line, and all that must be done is for somebody to merely convince a judge or jury that they felt 'severe' emotional distress. So how does this do anything for our discussion?

- - - Updated - - -

Why would you think I wasn't referring to the entire definition which includes falsehoods buddy? Basic logic, once again... And a targeted attack on someone's character, even if it's true, can also seriously harm a person. Some people do stupid shit as a kid, that doesn't mean they're the same shithead as an adult.

It includes falsehoods, but it isn't exclusively falsehoods. That is why when you referred to all slander you were referring to things that also weren't falsehoods. It wasn't until later that you tried to limit it to only falsehoods. That is all I am saying.

[PC2]

None of the links stated this. Not one..

http://law.justia.com/cases/californ...3d/10/376.html

The case was submitted to the jury on the third cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, awarding him $710,000 in damages: $60,000 compensatory damages, $10,000 punitive damages against defendant Amason, and $640,000 punitive damages against defendant Western National. Defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. The motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict were denied, as was defendant Amason's motion for new trial.

Also note, punitive damage is by definition reliant on actual damage. Meaning it can never be an independent charge, only secondary.

[PC2]

I am starting to doubt your ability to read...

Try forming an argument.

[Deleted]

My name is Staffan Jönsson.

its not that hard.

Many people call me Laggspike.

i wont mind, i got nothing to hide.

[oplawlz]

I think this will become a law one day, and sooner than later. I think it's time people have the shit they type in forums be associated with their real names. Free speech is there, it is just that you are accountable now. Thoughts?

Anonymous communication enhances human expression and personal liberty. You'd have to be a real shit stain to want that removed.

[Endus]

So as I said. Your sources provide no explanation in this regard as to where the law draws the line, and all that must be done is for somebody to merely convince a judge or jury that they felt 'severe' emotional distress. So how does this do anything for our discussion?

The only point I was making is that "emotional damage" is an actionable thing under the law. Whether someone's claims amount to serious enough emotional damage to warrant a ruling against those who caused it is up to judge and jury, the law gives guidelines to that, but no definitive limits.

http://law.justia.com/cases/californ...3d/10/376.html

Also note, punitive damage is by definition reliant on actual damage. Meaning it can never be an independent charge, only secondary.

Not sure why you think that's even remotely relevant to the point. In fact, it completely and resoundingly contradicts your claims. The harms caused that led to those judgements were entirely emotional in nature.

[PC2]

See, the thing you quoted said nothing about the remuneration being for financial losses. It was simply for the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The entire case is based on financial compensation. Had the emotional distress not financially damaged the person, there would be no compensatory damage thus no civil case.

[Annoying]

How do you sort out all the VPN people?

Considering the mindset that would be required to implement this, you'd make VPNs illegal or extremely restricted. Another "not going to happen" thing, but you never know.

[Endus]

The entire case is based on financial compensation. Had the emotional distress not financially damaged the person, there would be no compensatory damage thus no civil case.

No, false.

Your own source stated this. While there may have been some addiitional contributing factors based on financial losses suffered as a result of the distress, much of the ruling was based on the distress itself, which does not in any way rely on the existence of either financial or physical harms done to the victim.

[spinner981]

The only point I was making is that "emotional damage" is an actionable thing under the law. Whether someone's claims amount to serious enough emotional damage to warrant a ruling against those who caused it is up to judge and jury, the law gives guidelines to that, but no definitive limits.

That encourages abuse of the system. These guidelines are only as reasonable as is the jury and judge after all. Personally I don't think people should be punishable by law simply for name-calling.