@JohnR1972 - How does leaving their profile visible fit the defamation lawsuit? It wouldn't say why they are banned.
@Mike403 I'm sure JohnR1972 can answer this better than I can - but since, as you note, it doesn't give a reason for banning, it allows people to assume the worst. You can be banned for being rude on the forum or you can be banned for sexually assaulting your cuddle partner and a whole spectrum of things in between. Without specifying the reason for banning, you are leaving it open to guessing and potentially harming someone's reputation.
It's sort of like if the newspaper ran a headline saying someone was arrested and showing a mugshot, but never saying what they were arrested for. Shoplifting? Driving without a license? Serial murder? Could be anything.
We have a legal system for dealing with alleged criminal behavior where the alleged victim can present evidence of the crime and the alleged perpetrator can defend themselves. They are assumed innocent until proven guilty. None of us should want to live in a world where justice is run by an online mob using character assassination as a tool. Imagine if you were the one accused when you were actually innocent. CC can take some sensible precautions against allowing suspected offenders to rejoin but running a wall of shame, mugshot lineup is not only unfair to potentially falsely accused but sets them up for defamation lawsuits.
Truth is an “absolute” defense to a defamation claim. And allowing people to assume the worst is not defamation.
If I were arrested, nobody uttering that fact has a civil duty to clarify what crimes I was (or wasn’t) charged with. They’d have no obligation to tell anyone if I were later found innocent. And they’d have no duty to erase pictures I posted online.
The notion that Cuddle Comfort is censoring these pics to avoid a defamation claim doesn’t hold water. Cuddle comfort is not saying I look like a stuffed monkey. They’re not saying @TheFunCartel looks like a droopy aircraft. And they’re not saying anyone else is or looks like their profile pic.
As my torts prof would say, we have wandered far afield with this thread.
It does allow people to assume the worst and so many people are like that already.
@achetocuddle i agree. If I were to say something like Toyota is my favorite vehicle manufacturer, I’m sure that some (notice that I’m using the word some) people would assume the worst about me.
@lonelytauros
If I were to say something like Toyota is my favorite... I’m sure that some... people would assume the worst about me.
Only if you claimed to drive a Prius in order to "save the planet."
Oh, @TxTom .
Do you have an opinion about electric vehicles? Does your opinion align with most others who share your politics? Are people from the other major party mostly likely to disagree with you?
Hmm… what might that tell you?
@MonkeyNeedsAHug Thank you for asking. Yes, I do have an opinion on electric vehicles.
I'm for everyone choosing freely what kind of vehicle they'd like to own/drive.
But I want these choices made available by the free market, not via government mandates and regulations.
@TxTom your sarcasm is not as clever as you think it is.
I don’t know which is more astounding. Your insistence on continually derailing threads through the most tenuous connections to your political worldview OR the fact that the mods continue to allow you to do it.
What does it tell you that in a thread balancing women’s safety with the rights of banned members, you need to bring up electric vehicles and climate change, just so you can then tee up your standard talking points about the “free market” and government regulations?
Ok.
Some of these choices (eg, cybertrucks) clearly indicate that the person inside is a cockroach.
Just bringing this back on topic from a pointless diversion.
@MonkeyNeedsAHug
My derailment amounted to one sentence.
Yours, so far, has been three paragraphs.
Here we go again.
@TxTom decries people who might drive an “electric vehicle”‘ to “save the planet”.
This irritates @MonkeyNeedsAHug because «saving the planet» includes lowering carbon emissions.
The result is yet another political discussion happening in violation of our community’s wishes.
Our choices:
*Ignore an embedded political opinion, allowing it to stand in violation of the community’s guidelines.
Engage with the comment, extending and amplifying its visibility while adding to the unwelcome political discussion.
Flag the post as political, directing mods’ limited attention to where it is unlikely to be best used.
These all seem unsatisfactory. And none of them shed any light on what forum users’ obligations to the community might be. Can we please get some guidance here?
🐒
@TxTom You think the fact that you disregarded our community’s norms succinctly means you should get a pass?
Because your disregard for the community norms is willful and repeated, I think you are a safety risk and do not belong in this community. And I will continue to point out your behavior until you stop violating the site’s terms of use, until the site bans you, or the site changes its policies.
Today we learn that TxTom can't count. Or is completely oblivious to his own words. Both are likely.
imo, pointing this out is still on-topic.
[cybertrucks] clearly indicate that the person inside is a cockroach.
also posted this on another thread:
I could see that "generation bubblewrap" is very clearly an insult
Today we also learn that TxTom can't tell the difference between people born during a certain range of years and people who self-select into a group. Either that or he has a cybertruck and resorted to a false equivalency to defend himself. Both are likely.
Interesting. I did not see TxTom's comment about driving a Prius as being overly political. I thought the (obvious) sarcasm was more referencing an attitude by SOME who drive such vehicles. But I could be wrong and do not want to speak for you, TxTom. He also replied to disagreements regarding his position with respectful poise when he could have replied rabidly, which unfortunately often happens in the forums.
Can we get back on topic now?
Thank you, jimmylee.
👍
Whose “truth”? The plaintiff’s truth or the defendant’s truth? They will both be given an opportunity to “speak their truth” in the event of a defamation lawsuit.
The sad fact is, “Truth” is irrelevant in a courtroom. That is why at least 203 innocent people have been convicted, and some of them executed, according to the Innocence Project (an organization I have supported for years). https://innocenceproject.org/exonerations-data/
What is relevant in a courtroom? What a jury believes.
A CC member can be banned by a volunteer moderator based upon whatever level of investigation they deem appropriate. If the moderator who made who made the decision to ban someone can convince the jury of their version of the truth, the jury will rule for the defendant (CC). However, if the plaintiff convinces the jury of their version of the truth the jury will rule for the plaintiff.
As to whether “allowing people to assume the worst” constitutes defamation, that is up to the jury to decide. Having testified in a federal civil rights case, I can tell you predicting a jury verdict is harder than predicting the Super Bowl winner during the pre-season.
@MonkeyNeedsAHug -
Why didn't you just flag his post? Your commenting is further derailing the thread.
@Mike403 You want to block me, or you want to engage with me? Pick a lane.
@JohnR1972 Thank you for your jury service.
I don’t know where you pulled that factoid from about predicting a jury’s verdict. It’s cute. But it overlooks the fact that the overwhelming majority of defamation claims will never see a jury. That’s because lawyers can predict the relative merits of most cases a lot more closely than you’ve been led to believe.
Your conflation of truth with relevance in a courtroom significantly weakens your credibility on this. But your position is hurt far more by your failure to acknowledge or understand the rules of professional responsibility which attorneys must adhere to. These prohibit us from bringing frivolous claims, such as this one, to a hearing.
Because I don't want any more comments in my inbox from you. If you have something to say to me, say it here in the open.
Goodness I just had the most magnificent poops after having eaten nothing but meat for the past 3 days. Total no wiper as big as a babys arm no lie. It was like a nothing but net three point shot by a pro basketball player almost brought me to tears
@Katota I believe you missed the popcorn over here ... don't worry, I got it covered
We can always count on @pmvines to save the day with his poop posts.
I think this thread has served its purpose anyway. The OP got her answer.
@GuyverGordon Lol! How adorable? 😻🥰
Much appreciated, I was still trying to a find a Tony Montana gif. 😆😆😆