#1 Dating Site for Successful Singles and Admirers

Home > Millionaire Forums > Topics NYCHICK has created > kristy johnston and her remarks Previous topic Next topic
kristy johnston and her remarks
Author
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Sun, Oct 02, 2005 19:16

kristy - i am highly annoyed to say the least at your comments about Mel.Many people on here joke and jest with each other- but u have crossed the line. A. you either have the proof i asked you to forward or B. you are simply a dopey chick.. im going with B.
Kristy if u can read which i think u can --- read on..remove the posts that u posted...
On the Internet, where abnormal behavior is the status quo, tempers
can flare in the heat of debate and word wars can last for days or
even weeks. It's not uncommon for users to ridicule, harass or insult
those who disagree with them.

But if you damage someone's reputation by trying to embarrass them in
a public forum, you could be sued for libel or defamation. After all,
there's no reason to assume that the messages you send through
cyberspace are immune from lawsuits.

"The Internet culture right now is for users to refute speech with
speech," says Dave Marburger, the attorney who represented Brock Meeks
in one of the first defamation lawsuits in the United States involving
the Internet. "But as the Internet culture gets more diverse, users
will start refuting speech with lawsuits."

There have only been a handful of libel and defamation lawsuits filed
involving the Internet so far, but as the Net grows, the number of
lawsuits will probably increase. If the few court battles that have
been decided involving libel and defamation on the Net are any
indication of how the law will be applied to the Internet in the
future, it's worth your time to learn what's libelous or defamatory on
the Internet and what's not.

Other users have the right to sue you for defamation if they can prove
you damaged their reputation or good name with false information. You
can be sued for libel if another user can prove you have distributed
defamatory statements about them in a public area -- such as a news
group or mailing list.

In April of 1993 Gil Hardwick, an anthropologist in Australia, was
ordered by the Australian Supreme Court to pay David Rindos $40,000 in
damages because he defamed Rindos on an international mailing list.

After Rindos lost his job at the University of West Australia,
Hardwick posted a message on an international disscussion group that
suggested Rindos was fired because he was a bully and had sexually
molested a local boy.

Rindos filed a defamation lawsuit against Hardwick because he felt the
message had hurt his chances of finding a new job. In a letter to
Rindos's attorney, Hardwick wrote "Let this matter be expedited and
done with....I can do nothing to prevent it, lacking any resources
whatsoever to defend myself." Like most people, Hardwick didn't have
the money to hire a lawyer or finance an expensive legal battle.

"He (Rindos) suffered a great deal of personal hurt because of the
message," said Supreme Court Justice David Ipp in the West Australian.
"The damages award must compensate him and vindicate his reputation to
the public."

The Internet is an informal forum and people often write personal things
about other users, but you can be held accountable in court for making
libelous or defamatory remarks in public forums just like Hardwick was.

"We know that as the Internet grows, there will be more and more
lawsuits involving libel and defamation," says attorney David H.
Donaldson, editor of Legal Bytes, an electronic magazine that
discusses legal issues involving computers and networking. "The only
question is if the number of cases will grow steadily or if there will be
an explosion of lawsuits all at once."

Anybody can sue you for libel or defamation if they think you damaged
their reputation, but if you can prove what you say is true, chances are
that you won't end up in court.

"Make it clear when you are stating your opinion," says Donaldson,
"Always state the facts that your opinions are based on just to be safe.
You probably won't lose a libel or defamation lawsuit if you can back up
what you write with solid facts."

For example, Brock Meeks, a full-time journalist who also distributes his
own electronic magazine, avoided losing a defamation lawsuit largely
because he could prove an article that he sent over the Net was true.

Meeks was sued by Suarez Corporation Industries in April of 1994 for
writing an investigative story about the company and its services in his
electronic newsletter -- the CyberWire Dispatch. Meeks had no libel
insurance, no publishing company backing him up and a lot of legal
fees to cover. (His lawyer charged him $200 an hour.) The only thing
Meeks had was his house -- and he didn't want to sell it to pay off a
lawsuit.

Meeks defended his article in numerous posts on the Net, "All of my
facts were rock solid. Although the article was delivered with a fair
amount of attitude, I don't believe that I'm in dangerous waters," he
wrote.

Benjamin Suarez, owner of Suarez Corp., filed the suit because he felt
that Meeks had damaged his reputation and hurt his business by
saying he was "infamous for his questionable direct marketing scams,"
and saying "he (Suarez) has a mean streak." To back up his opinion,
Meeks cited accusations made by the Washington state attorney
general's office concerning Suarez's direct marketing practices.

In August of 1994 Suarez Corp. made Meeks an offer he couldn't
refuse. They agreed to settle the case for $64 -- to cover
administrative court costs. The company refused to comment on why
they agreed to settle the lawsuit.

If the case had gone to trial, Meeks's lawyer thinks Meeks would have
been able to win anyway. "The defendants in libel or defamation suits
involving the Internet have enhanced First Amendment rights," says
Marburger. "The plaintiff has to prove actual malice. In other words,
the plaintiff has to show that the defendant made false statements or
was negligent." Marburger's only regret is that they didn't get to set
that precedent in court.

Although the Meeks case doesn't really mean anything in the law
books, it does show that if you're responsible and can prove what you
write on the Net is true, people will be less likely to take you to court. If
you just make something up and your sources aren't reliable, you could
lose big like Hardwick did.

"You have to follow the same rules that journalists do if your going to
write and distribute controversial material about other people," says
Donaldson.

The increasingly common phenomenon of online forums creates the
possibility for you to reach large audiences, but it also creates the
ability for you to commit defamation or libel -- something that an
ordinary citizen didn't have to worry about in the past. Before the
growth of online communication, people who didn't work in the media
usually didn't have to worry about libel or defamation. "Libel laws apply
to the Internet the same way they do to newspapers and TV stations,"
explains former Federal Communications Commissioner Nicholas
Johnson, a professor at the Iowa University school of law. "The same
technology that gives you the power to share your opinion with
thousands of people also qualifies you to be a defendant in a lawsuit."

Like a newspaper or TV station, you are responsible for making sure
the material you distribute -- or broadcast -- over the Internet is not
libelous or defamatory. Lani Teshia-Miller never meant to defame
anyone, but when she took over the distribution of a tattoo FAQ she
almost ended up in court. The rec.arts.bodyart FAQ she inherited
contained a lot of generalizations based on contributions from
unattributed sources. Although she listed her name on the FAQ, she
didn't edit out several defamatory statements. One review of a San
Francisco tattoo artist in the FAQ said, "He's getting old and having
problems with his eyesight. His quality is really bad and he hurts
people."

After the artist hired a lawyer and threatened to sue, Teshia- Miller
changed the FAQ's wording to reflect a more factually-based and
less-hysterical view. The review now says, "His eyesight is not what it
used to be."

After the FAQ was changed and Teshia-Miller apologized, the artist
dropped the lawsuit. "It turned out to be a good experience for me,"
said Teshia- Miller. "I'm a lot more careful about what I allow on the
artist list, and I now have a very long disclaimer at the beginning of the
FAQ."

Every person you write something negative about won't sue you for
defamation or libel, they might flame you or just try to set the record
straight by replying to the message. But if you post false information
about another user and disgrace them in public, they have the right to
take you to court -- and they could win a big settlement if they can
prove you were negligent.

Medphone, a Fortune 500 company that manufactures medical
instruments, has filed a $200 million lawsuit against Prodigy user Peter
DeNigis. Medphone filed a "systematic program for defamation and
trade disparagement" lawsuit against DeNigis after a stockholder
reported that he was making several negative posts about Medphone a
day on Prodigy's Money Talk Forum. DeNigis, a former Medphone
stockholder, lost more than $9,000 last year by selling off his
investment in the company. In one post DeNigis wrote, "My research
indicated the company is really having a difficult time. No case, no
sales, no profits and terrible management. This company appears to be
a fraud. Probably will cease operations soon."

Although the accusation that Medphone is a "fraud" is very serious --
and potentially defamatory -- DeNigis might be able to win the lawsuit if
he can prove what he wrote is...



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Thu, Oct 27, 2005 07:59

Whoaowh!...this is the type of info i was searching for quite a while! Thank you NYCHCK!!!
Whoaowh!...this is the type of info i was searching for quite a while! Thank you NYCHCK!!!



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Wed, Oct 05, 2005 14:51


NYCHICK write:
lol did no one get that - u know me saying im african american -- jersey girl im sure u did lol

LOL, I sure did!
BTW, you need to teach me how to get five years younger in two months dammit, LOL



Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Tue, Oct 04, 2005 20:59

lol did no one get that - u know me saying im african american -- jersey girl im sure u did lol



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Tue, Oct 04, 2005 06:08


ciaobaby7 write:

blackbeautyviolet write:

NYCHICK write:

blackbeautyviolet write:
Oh Yay!! The white girl NYCHICK learned how to copy and paste. Get a life and grow up!! And quit harrassing people online. It's obvious you have mental problems by the way you make your screenname in all capitals letters and you post fake pictures of girls on your profile. NYCHICK is starving for attention.

hang on now u your profile says you are not african american yet u sorta look it.. I am African american and my pictures are not fake. yes i am starving for attention which is why i use caps.. what a smart white chick u are



NYCHICK sounds like you are jealous of me. Why do you post pictures of white girls on your profile if you are African American like you say you are? You feel the only way a guy will talk to you is if you post pictures of white girls on your profile?

Re-read her post S-L-O-W-L-Y-...



Looks to me like NY may be mixed race. Regardless of her ethnic background, she's yet another great lookin 40+ at the site!



Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Tue, Oct 04, 2005 02:13


blackbeautyviolet write:

NYCHICK write:

blackbeautyviolet write:
Oh Yay!! The white girl NYCHICK learned how to copy and paste. Get a life and grow up!! And quit harrassing people online. It's obvious you have mental problems by the way you make your screenname in all capitals letters and you post fake pictures of girls on your profile. NYCHICK is starving for attention.

hang on now u your profile says you are not african american yet u sorta look it.. I am African american and my pictures are not fake. yes i am starving for attention which is why i use caps.. what a smart white chick u are



NYCHICK sounds like you are jealous of me. Why do you post pictures of white girls on your profile if you are African American like you say you are? You feel the only way a guy will talk to you is if you post pictures of white girls on your profile?

Re-read her post S-L-O-W-L-Y-...



Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Mon, Oct 03, 2005 17:41


blackbeautyviolet write:
Oh Yay!! The white girl NYCHICK learned how to copy and paste. Get a life and grow up!! And quit harrassing people online. It's obvious you have mental problems by the way you make your screenname in all capitals letters and you post fake pictures of girls on your profile. NYCHICK is starving for attention.

Ouch,lol.



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Mon, Oct 03, 2005 13:30

Totally sick of that person to do such a thing, especially to Mel!!!!

  


Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Mon, Oct 03, 2005 10:50


NYCHICK write:

ScrippsRanchMel write:
As you can see, I am today's target of some trolls.


Ms. Kristy Johnson,

I do not appreciate your lies about me. I have already contacted MM customer service to have you removed.

Let me present this offer to you. I am willing to meet you in a San Diego court room. You will have the opportunity to see my city and experience a slander lawsuit. Are you game?

Mel

mel it is libel.. and mm claims they have no kristy johnson however mel you can in fact have the address of this person and their name court ordered from MM .. and who the heck is this black chick who says shes white?


Considering throughout the forums this profile stands up for the kristyJohnson profile ... how about the possibility it is one and the same person. I believe in another thread you told Mel it was a man, not a woman.



Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Mon, Oct 03, 2005 09:29


NYCHICK write:
such as Prodigy, America Online and Compuserve are
responsible for defamatory remarks broadcast over their services, but
there is no legal ambiguity about whether individual users can be sued
for making defamatory or libelous statements. Individual users are
responsible for making sure the information they distribute is not
libelous or defamatory.

The Internet has made world wide, instantaneous communication easy.
The average user now has the power to be heard by hundreds or even
thousands of other users, but in terms of libel and defamation, the Net
is not a new world of freedom. The reality is that libel and defamation
laws are enforceable in the virtual world just like they are in the real
world.

^5 Girl!!



Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Mon, Oct 03, 2005 09:22


ScrippsRanchMel write:
As you can see, I am today's target of some trolls.


Ms. Kristy Johnson,

I do not appreciate your lies about me. I have already contacted MM customer service to have you removed.

Let me present this offer to you. I am willing to meet you in a San Diego court room. You will have the opportunity to see my city and experience a slander lawsuit. Are you game?

Mel

These are some serious accusations nevermind defamation of character. Quite frankly, I would not be wasting my time replying to her slanderous posts ,I'd start taking some legal action ASAP.



Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Mon, Oct 03, 2005 09:17


blackbeautyviolet write:
Oh Yay!! The white girl NYCHICK learned how to copy and paste. Get a life and grow up!! And quit harrassing people online. It's obvious you have mental problems by the way you make your screenname in all capitals letters and you post fake pictures of girls on your profile. NYCHICK is starving for attention.

lol, and I thought I've seen it all..Next time y a make a fake profile make sure the picture matches you're statistics. Now y a just look dumb.



Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Mon, Oct 03, 2005 09:07

Personally, I think we are giving the fakes way too much attention, which is what they want. It is hard not to defend Mel concerning this cruel and disgusting accusation, so I write to him privately. And it is difficult not to respond to the ignorant comments from black beauty whatever concerning NYC. NYC IS AN ATTORNEY, DUMB SH*IT AND SHE IS BEING INFORMATIVE, YOU STUPID BIT*CH. AND SHE HAS A NAME, AND IT ISN'T WHITE CHICK. Ok, I feel better.



Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Mon, Oct 03, 2005 08:09


ScrippsRanchMel write:
As you can see, I am today's target of some trolls.


Ms. Kristy Johnson,

I do not appreciate your lies about me. I have already contacted MM customer service to have you removed.

Let me present this offer to you. I am willing to meet you in a San Diego court room. You will have the opportunity to see my city and experience a slander lawsuit. Are you game?

Mel

mel it is libel.. and mm claims they have no kristy johnson however mel you can in fact have the address of this person and their name court ordered from MM .. and who the heck is this black chick who says shes white?



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Mon, Oct 03, 2005 08:07


blackbeautyviolet write:
Oh Yay!! The white girl NYCHICK learned how to copy and paste. Get a life and grow up!! And quit harrassing people online. It's obvious you have mental problems by the way you make your screenname in all capitals letters and you post fake pictures of girls on your profile. NYCHICK is starving for attention.

hang on now u your profile says you are not african american yet u sorta look it.. I am African american and my pictures are not fake. yes i am starving for attention which is why i use caps.. what a smart white chick u are



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Mon, Oct 03, 2005 08:03

As you can see, I am today's target of some trolls.


Ms. Kristy Johnson,

I do not appreciate your lies about me. I have already contacted MM customer service to have you removed.

Let me present this offer to you. I am willing to meet you in a San Diego court room. You will have the opportunity to see my city and experience a slander lawsuit. Are you game?

Mel



Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Mon, Oct 03, 2005 05:28

blackbeautyvelvet... are you from another planet? Maybe you were kicked out of it and landed here. You sure won't make any friends here if you start attacking everyone. This is the second post I see of you and the second one that is arrogant.

Great info, NYC. Thanks.



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Mon, Oct 03, 2005 03:34

NY great post..

  


Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Sun, Oct 02, 2005 22:05


NYCHICK write:
such as Prodigy, America Online and Compuserve are
responsible for defamatory remarks broadcast over their services, but
there is no legal ambiguity about whether individual users can be sued
for making defamatory or libelous statements. Individual users are
responsible for making sure the information they distribute is not
libelous or defamatory.

The Internet has made world wide, instantaneous communication easy.
The average user now has the power to be heard by hundreds or even
thousands of other users, but in terms of libel and defamation, the Net
is not a new world of freedom. The reality is that libel and defamation
laws are enforceable in the virtual world just like they are in the real
world.

  


Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Sun, Oct 02, 2005 22:01


NYCHICK write:
kristy - i am highly annoyed to say the least at your comments about Mel.Many people on here joke and jest with each other- but u have crossed the line. A. you either have the proof i asked you to forward or B. you are simply a dopey chick.. im going with B.
Kristy if u can read which i think u can --- read on..remove the posts that u posted...
On the Internet, where abnormal behavior is the status quo, tempers
can flare in the heat of debate and word wars can last for days or
even weeks. It's not uncommon for users to ridicule, harass or insult
those who disagree with them.

But if you damage someone's reputation by trying to embarrass them in
a public forum, you could be sued for libel or defamation. After all,
there's no reason to assume that the messages you send through
cyberspace are immune from lawsuits.

"The Internet culture right now is for users to refute speech with
speech," says Dave Marburger, the attorney who represented Brock Meeks
in one of the first defamation lawsuits in the United States involving
the Internet. "But as the Internet culture gets more diverse, users
will start refuting speech with lawsuits."

There have only been a handful of libel and defamation lawsuits filed
involving the Internet so far, but as the Net grows, the number of
lawsuits will probably increase. If the few court battles that have
been decided involving libel and defamation on the Net are any
indication of how the law will be applied to the Internet in the
future, it's worth your time to learn what's libelous or defamatory on
the Internet and what's not.

Other users have the right to sue you for defamation if they can prove
you damaged their reputation or good name with false information. You
can be sued for libel if another user can prove you have distributed
defamatory statements about them in a public area -- such as a news
group or mailing list.

In April of 1993 Gil Hardwick, an anthropologist in Australia, was
ordered by the Australian Supreme Court to pay David Rindos $40,000 in
damages because he defamed Rindos on an international mailing list.

After Rindos lost his job at the University of West Australia,
Hardwick posted a message on an international disscussion group that
suggested Rindos was fired because he was a bully and had sexually
molested a local boy.

Rindos filed a defamation lawsuit against Hardwick because he felt the
message had hurt his chances of finding a new job. In a letter to
Rindos's attorney, Hardwick wrote "Let this matter be expedited and
done with....I can do nothing to prevent it, lacking any resources
whatsoever to defend myself." Like most people, Hardwick didn't have
the money to hire a lawyer or finance an expensive legal battle.

"He (Rindos) suffered a great deal of personal hurt because of the
message," said Supreme Court Justice David Ipp in the West Australian.
"The damages award must compensate him and vindicate his reputation to
the public."

The Internet is an informal forum and people often write personal things
about other users, but you can be held accountable in court for making
libelous or defamatory remarks in public forums just like Hardwick was.

"We know that as the Internet grows, there will be more and more
lawsuits involving libel and defamation," says attorney David H.
Donaldson, editor of Legal Bytes, an electronic magazine that
discusses legal issues involving computers and networking. "The only
question is if the number of cases will grow steadily or if there will be
an explosion of lawsuits all at once."

Anybody can sue you for libel or defamation if they think you damaged
their reputation, but if you can prove what you say is true, chances are
that you won't end up in court.

"Make it clear when you are stating your opinion," says Donaldson,
"Always state the facts that your opinions are based on just to be safe.
You probably won't lose a libel or defamation lawsuit if you can back up
what you write with solid facts."

For example, Brock Meeks, a full-time journalist who also distributes his
own electronic magazine, avoided losing a defamation lawsuit largely
because he could prove an article that he sent over the Net was true.

Meeks was sued by Suarez Corporation Industries in April of 1994 for
writing an investigative story about the company and its services in his
electronic newsletter -- the CyberWire Dispatch. Meeks had no libel
insurance, no publishing company backing him up and a lot of legal
fees to cover. (His lawyer charged him $200 an hour.) The only thing
Meeks had was his house -- and he didn't want to sell it to pay off a
lawsuit.

Meeks defended his article in numerous posts on the Net, "All of my
facts were rock solid. Although the article was delivered with a fair
amount of attitude, I don't believe that I'm in dangerous waters," he
wrote.

Benjamin Suarez, owner of Suarez Corp., filed the suit because he felt
that Meeks had damaged his reputation and hurt his business by
saying he was "infamous for his questionable direct marketing scams,"
and saying "he (Suarez) has a mean streak." To back up his opinion,
Meeks cited accusations made by the Washington state attorney
general's office concerning Suarez's direct marketing practices.

In August of 1994 Suarez Corp. made Meeks an offer he couldn't
refuse. They agreed to settle the case for $64 -- to cover
administrative court costs. The company refused to comment on why
they agreed to settle the lawsuit.

If the case had gone to trial, Meeks's lawyer thinks Meeks would have
been able to win anyway. "The defendants in libel or defamation suits
involving the Internet have enhanced First Amendment rights," says
Marburger. "The plaintiff has to prove actual malice. In other words,
the plaintiff has to show that the defendant made false statements or
was negligent." Marburger's only regret is that they didn't get to set
that precedent in court.

Although the Meeks case doesn't really mean anything in the law
books, it does show that if you're responsible and can prove what you
write on the Net is true, people will be less likely to take you to court. If
you just make something up and your sources aren't reliable, you could
lose big like Hardwick did.

"You have to follow the same rules that journalists do if your going to
write and distribute controversial material about other people," says
Donaldson.

The increasingly common phenomenon of online forums creates the
possibility for you to reach large audiences, but it also creates the
ability for you to commit defamation or libel -- something that an
ordinary citizen didn't have to worry about in the past. Before the
growth of online communication, people who didn't work in the media
usually didn't have to worry about libel or defamation. "Libel laws apply
to the Internet the same way they do to newspapers and TV stations,"
explains former Federal Communications Commissioner Nicholas
Johnson, a professor at the Iowa University school of law. "The same
technology that gives you the power to share your opinion with
thousands of people also qualifies you to be a defendant in a lawsuit."

Like a newspaper or TV station, you are responsible for making sure
the material you distribute -- or broadcast -- over the Internet is not
libelous or defamatory. Lani Teshia-Miller never meant to defame
anyone, but when she took over the distribution of a tattoo FAQ she
almost ended up in court. The rec.arts.bodyart FAQ she inherited
contained a lot of generalizations based on contributions from
unattributed sources. Although she listed her name on the FAQ, she
didn't edit out several defamatory statements. One review of a San
Francisco tattoo artist in the FAQ said, "He's getting old and having
problems with his eyesight. His quality is really bad and he hurts
people."

After the artist hired a lawyer and threatened to sue, Teshia- Miller
changed the FAQ's wording to reflect a more factually-based and
less-hysterical view. The review now says, "His eyesight is not what it
used to be."

After the FAQ was changed and Teshia-Miller apologized, the artist
dropped the lawsuit. "It turned out to be a good experience for me,"
said Teshia- Miller. "I'm a lot more careful about what I allow on the
artist list, and I now have a very long disclaimer at the beginning of the
FAQ."

Every person you write something negative about won't sue you for
defamation or libel, they might flame you or just try to set the record
straight by replying to the message. But if you post false information
about another user and disgrace them in public, they have the right to
take you to court -- and they could win a big settlement if they can
prove you were negligent.

Medphone, a Fortune 500 company that manufactures medical
instruments, has filed a $200 million lawsuit against Prodigy user Peter
DeNigis. Medphone filed a "systematic program for defamation and
trade disparagement" lawsuit against DeNigis after a stockholder
reported that he was making several negative posts about Medphone a
day on Prodigy's Money Talk Forum. DeNigis, a former Medphone
stockholder, lost more than $9,000 last year by selling off his
investment in the company. In one post DeNigis wrote, "My research
indicated the company is really having a difficult time. No case, no
sales, no profits and terrible management. This company appears to be
a fraud. Probably will cease operations soon."

Although the accusation that Medphone is a "fraud" is very serious --
and potentially defamatory -- DeNigis might be able to win the lawsuit...

  


Previous topic     Next topic