- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 1/22/14 at 11:36 am to CaptainsWafer
quote:
And it's completely made up.
Seemed low, I should have known.
It should be public record is someone wanted to hunt it down.
Posted on 1/22/14 at 11:56 am to tigerinthebueche
quote:
slander suits
Only to be worn in the spring and summer months.
Posted on 1/22/14 at 12:09 pm to tigerinthebueche
quote:
Or is that why the admins police it so heavily
Other than like a Reddit this is one of the more lax forums as far as policing.
I have been banned from other forums for saying "crappy"
Posted on 1/22/14 at 12:23 pm to GRTiger
After Easter, before Labor Day.
Posted on 1/22/14 at 12:56 pm to Napoleon
1) I'm upset wafer running my fun. Slapping him with a slander suit soon.
Aliteration aside
Absolutely this.
Aliteration aside
quote:
this is one of the more lax forums as far as policing.
I have been banned from other forums for saying "crappy"
Absolutely this.
Posted on 1/22/14 at 1:02 pm to Breesus
My lawyers could beat up your lawyers.
Posted on 1/22/14 at 1:10 pm to CaptainsWafer
quote:
My lawyers could beat up your lawyers
Then my lawyers could sue your lawyers for assault and battery.
/argument
Posted on 1/22/14 at 1:16 pm to Breesus
Never said they'd win the first case either.
Posted on 1/22/14 at 1:25 pm to CaptainsWafer
Serious question: Is there a way this video/situation could be discussed on the OT without getting the thread whacked? It really is no different than the IM folks swapping vids/pics of one another and gossiping about it
Can bad posts be whacked and not the entire thread? This is a very talked about issue around LSU, at the moment
Can bad posts be whacked and not the entire thread? This is a very talked about issue around LSU, at the moment
Posted on 1/22/14 at 3:54 pm to tigerinthebueche
I did a cursory read-through and I think this is generally on point:
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
This post was edited on 1/22/14 at 3:55 pm
Posted on 1/22/14 at 4:00 pm to TheLankiestLawyer
So what does that limit the admins from saying/doing?
Posted on 1/22/14 at 4:06 pm to ell_13
This is all conjecture because I don't know the structure of TD, but I don't think it limits the admins from doing anything.
I think it shields TigerDroppings under whatever legal entity Chicken has it (LLC or whatnot) from (in this case) the girl who was the subject of the thread last night suing TigerDroppings as an entity for the stuff that was posted in that thread last night.
That law pretty much makes interactive websites (go to the link and read about the early cases involving AOL) almost a liability-free conduit of information. Meaning the websites are simply the medium by which information is exchanged and the posters or submitters of that information are liable for the content and not the website itself.
Again, this is all in very general terms. That law was passed in the early days of the Internet to shield the big internet companies (think AOL chat rooms) from lawsuits based on what individuals posted.
I think it shields TigerDroppings under whatever legal entity Chicken has it (LLC or whatnot) from (in this case) the girl who was the subject of the thread last night suing TigerDroppings as an entity for the stuff that was posted in that thread last night.
That law pretty much makes interactive websites (go to the link and read about the early cases involving AOL) almost a liability-free conduit of information. Meaning the websites are simply the medium by which information is exchanged and the posters or submitters of that information are liable for the content and not the website itself.
Again, this is all in very general terms. That law was passed in the early days of the Internet to shield the big internet companies (think AOL chat rooms) from lawsuits based on what individuals posted.
This post was edited on 1/22/14 at 4:09 pm
Posted on 1/22/14 at 4:12 pm to Spaulding Smails
quote:
Serious question: Is there a way this video/situation could be discussed on the OT without getting the thread whacked?
girl did a porn
people found the porn
found out she is an lsu student
found her facebook
posted pics of her
found her twitter
posted pics of her mom
what else is there to discuss?
Posted on 1/22/14 at 4:12 pm to TheLankiestLawyer
Did you read what is happening with thedirty.com and that Bengals cheerleader though?
It seems the CDA may not be as clad proof as it once was.
LINK
It seems the CDA may not be as clad proof as it once was.
quote:
This case has created a buzz in the reputation management industry, since it was the first time CDA was not accepted as a defense. The main reason of the judge not allowing the CDA as a defense is believed to be the fact that Richie acts as an editor of all content posted on the website and often modifies or adds his own comments. It is thought that the success of this lawsuit would open the doors to a flood of similar lawsuits.[16][17]
LINK
Posted on 1/22/14 at 4:16 pm to lighter345
quote:
Richie acts as an editor of all content posted on the website and often modifies or adds his own comments
This is significant and makes that case distingusihable from the more 'normal' CDA cases cited in that Wiki link.
The owner of the website editing and adding his own comments is significant because he is not acting as a neutral conduit of info posted by others but is rather actively engaging in whatever discussion. He's getting away from the neutral conduit and going more towards the active poster of information/opinions/defamatory statements, etc.
It'd be like Chicken himself posting defamatory stuff and then trying to hide behind the CDA. The CDA is designed to shield websites from liabiltiy solely because they were the medium by which the defamatory content was transmitted. It's not a blanket shield for you to be an a-hole if you just so happen to also own the website.
This post was edited on 1/22/14 at 4:20 pm
Posted on 1/22/14 at 4:18 pm to lighter345
quote:
believed to be the fact that Richie acts as an editor of all content posted on the website and often modifies or adds his own comments.
this was obvious from the beginning. i wonder if he will get away with it
Posted on 1/22/14 at 4:22 pm to Deactived
quote:
what else is there to discuss?
I don't know, but 5 threads (including this one) in 24 hours says there is a demand
Just being the voice of my people
Posted on 1/22/14 at 4:25 pm to TheLankiestLawyer
Yea I agree.
Just interesting to think about what could result from a case like this being held up, not just for TD but for other sites.
Chicken isn't the only admin and is probably one of the least active ones in terms of posting in threads.
Just interesting to think about what could result from a case like this being held up, not just for TD but for other sites.
Chicken isn't the only admin and is probably one of the least active ones in terms of posting in threads.
Posted on 1/22/14 at 4:58 pm to Spaulding Smails
quote:
in 24 hours says there is a demand
theres probably also a demand for a lesbian orgy porn board.
if you dont see why chicken doesnt want this kind of shite on here, i dont know what to tell you
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News