100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Write a bad church review, get sued LOL | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I agree with the other poster who said we are too litigious in this country. Wastes alot of time and money. Simple fix for that: Make the loser pay the winner's legal fees. good idea if justice was more just otherwise it may just prevent poorer folks from filing suits that the wealthier attorneys can win,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Places get bad reviews all the time. Should the owners/managers/whoever sue everyone who posts a bad review online? 
There is a difference between a bad review and defamation. Show us that what she said was defamation, rather than just a bad review. No. Do you think that Christians should have to get your approval before filing a lawsuit? Do you think the all knowing, all seeing mystery man in the air would approve of this lawsuit? Oh my! You must be the first person in the history of the world to ever ridicule the belief in God! You are so original. Your parents must be so proud. Why don't you cry about it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well, we dont exactly have an absolute freedom of speech, when will people understand the law considers potential harm,, which gives us libel and slander laws,,, If in fact there is any slander involved, if there is not then I hope this woman can counter sue the church. for what? 'shunning' is not against any laws unless they FORBID her from returning, which may be illegal depending upon their status as private or public,,,, No, the frivolous law suit that will cost the court time and with that the tax payers money. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well, we dont exactly have an absolute freedom of speech, when will people understand the law considers potential harm,, which gives us libel and slander laws,,, If in fact there is any slander involved, if there is not then I hope this woman can counter sue the church. for what? 'shunning' is not against any laws unless they FORBID her from returning, which may be illegal depending upon their status as private or public,,,, No, the frivolous law suit that will cost the court time and with that the tax payers money. frivolous is not a crime either though |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well, we dont exactly have an absolute freedom of speech, when will people understand the law considers potential harm,, which gives us libel and slander laws,,, If in fact there is any slander involved, if there is not then I hope this woman can counter sue the church. for what? 'shunning' is not against any laws unless they FORBID her from returning, which may be illegal depending upon their status as private or public,,,, No, the frivolous law suit that will cost the court time and with that the tax payers money. frivolous is not a crime either though Let me dumb it down for ya, if the church has filed a false claim I hope she can counter sue for any monetary damages as a result of this. If it turns out the pastor is lying I hope she can counter sue for any monetary damages as a result of this. If the pastor is attacking her via the courts because he doesn't like what she said I hope she can counter sue for any monetary damages as a result of this. DO I need to clarify myself any further? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Mon 05/14/12 01:15 PM
|
|
If she lied, then it's libel. Your freedom of speech does not allow you to defame another person or institution. Nothing to see here, move along. There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, the person first must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. In the case of a celebrity or public official trying to prove libel, they must prove the first three steps, and must (in the United States) prove the statement was made with the intent to do harm, or with reckless disregard for the truth. Usually specifically referred to as "proving malice"
Personal opinions can be neither true, nor false, and thus can be an easy way to battle libel in certain cases. It comes down to the exact words used. In the US it is hard to prove libel, in the UK its hard to defend. Does anyone have the text in question? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the woman is within her rights to express her opinion about the church. I believe the church did shun her. I believe she is telling the truth. Good for her. 
Churches sometimes think they represent God and that no one should appose them. I say BAH!! The question is, did the church shun her or not? That will be easy to prove or disprove. As for the words "creepy" and "cult" that is in the area of opinion and semantics. People are allowed to express their feelings and opinions. the word 'abuse' is not necessarily opinion if it causes potential damages its a bit mroe serious an allegatin than creepy or cult,,, What are you talking about? You will have to define "spiritual abuse" before you decide anything. Potential damages are not damages. The pastor will cause more damage to himself by making a spectacle of himself at such a ridiculous trial. I would LOVE to be there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well, we dont exactly have an absolute freedom of speech, when will people understand the law considers potential harm,, which gives us libel and slander laws,,, If in fact there is any slander involved, if there is not then I hope this woman can counter sue the church. for what? 'shunning' is not against any laws unless they FORBID her from returning, which may be illegal depending upon their status as private or public,,,, No, the frivolous law suit that will cost the court time and with that the tax payers money. frivolous is not a crime either though Let me dumb it down for ya, if the church has filed a false claim I hope she can counter sue for any monetary damages as a result of this. If it turns out the pastor is lying I hope she can counter sue for any monetary damages as a result of this. If the pastor is attacking her via the courts because he doesn't like what she said I hope she can counter sue for any monetary damages as a result of this. DO I need to clarify myself any further? the most likely action is a COUNTER SUIT, as opposed to filing suit when one has already WON a case clearing their name the courts would never close if every plaintiff who didnt win could be sued over having filed a suit,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the woman is within her rights to express her opinion about the church. I believe the church did shun her. I believe she is telling the truth. Good for her.
Churches sometimes think they represent God and that no one should appose them. I say BAH!! The question is, did the church shun her or not? That will be easy to prove or disprove. As for the words "creepy" and "cult" that is in the area of opinion and semantics. People are allowed to express their feelings and opinions. the word 'abuse' is not necessarily opinion if it causes potential damages its a bit mroe serious an allegatin than creepy or cult,,, What are you talking about? You will have to define "spiritual abuse" before you decide anything. Potential damages are not damages. The pastor will cause more damage to himself by making a spectacle of himself at such a ridiculous trial. I would LOVE to be there. the op suggests this is a whole BLOG dedicated to belittling the church,, its not that far fetched that libel could be a reasonable charge,, opinions or not . Statements of Opinion and not fact are generally immune from Libel. That's because an opinion can never be proven false. However, if your opinion implies your knowledge of an underlying set of facts which your opinion is based upon, Libel might exist. For instance, stating that a certain business in your opinion "is a fraud" implies that you know of some facts indicating the business has committed fraud. On the other hand, stating "I don't like that business' product" is merely expressing your individual tastes which is not Libel. http://www.wave.net/immigration/lawyer/libel.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
msharmony, I posted the link to the blog above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
its a thin line, I wouldnt want to be in the courts position
I wanted to start a site for people to name Jerks they dated and give their stories, but I Didnt for the very potential for libel to be charged,,, when you name names, and state things as facts (Even opinions) you walk a thin line,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
its a thin line, I wouldnt want to be in the courts position I wanted to start a site for people to name Jerks they dated and give their stories, but I Didnt for the very potential for libel to be charged,,, when you name names, and state things as facts (Even opinions) you walk a thin line,,, There are several such sites like this. Not that I show up on any. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 05/14/12 04:47 PM
|
|
As long as you express your opinion and stick to telling the truth there is no libel.
That does not mean you can't be accused of libel. But if there is no libel and you are accused of it and sued for it, you can counter sue them for defamation of your character. There is nothing wrong with your character if you are just telling the truth and expressing an opinion or trying to warn others. If I knew for a fact that my neighbor was a convicted child molester, and I warned people about him, I am not committing libel. |
|
|
|
|
