Man sues girlfriend over blogging their sexlife

Tiassa: Here is a true story for you:

College age kids or younger are advised to think twice about what they post or gets posted about them on the internet, because employers are already using the internet to check the background of future employees.

Now it doesn't matter what you think is legal, moral, good or bad. What matters is what the person who is deciding who gets hired thinks and what he can find out about you and your past on the internet. And if you don't get the job because of something you did/posted a few years earlier...tough shit.

Well, you have been warned.....
 
Syzygys said:

Tiassa: Here is a true story for you .....
Click to expand...

True enough, and as evidence of your warning, the topic article notes:

When Ana Marie Cox, then the editor of the popular gossip Web site Wonkette.com, discovered and linked to Cutler's blog, the story spun out of control. Cutler was fired and Steinbuch says he was publicly humiliated. He went to court seeking more than $20 million in damages. (SeattleTimes.com)​

Some people would be embarrassed by others knowing that they wet the bed until age 12. Others wouldn't be embarrassed to admit they drink urine for sexual thrills. Ms. Cutler posted risque material, and was fired. Steinbuch alleges personal humiliation, but inasmuch as the article informs us, it seems largely his own outlook. What? Did his friends give him too much sh@t? ("Heeeyyy, Spanky! How's it hangin' today?")

Watch what we post, indeed. (The irony is that I have a job interview tomorrow morning.)
 
Baron Max said:
As far as I can tell, and with the bit of legal knowledge that I have, the man can only sue her for slander. But "slander" means that she was lying about him, thus causing damage to his character. If what she was telling was the truth, he's gonna' have a helluva time proving slander!

What's odd here, I think, is that this was being told to billions of people rather than just a few. But how could that change the laws? What's the difference in whether she told two people, or told the whole world?

Methinks the guy ain't got a leg to stand on in the legal sense. And worse, I think, him taking this to court is opening him up to even more ridicule and noteriety ....is that what he wants?

Baron Max
Click to expand...

Well, libel (slander is oral, libel is written) but I completely agree.

If it is true, and if it is not proven that she had a specific malicious intent (such as, "unless you pay me off, I will tell the whole world the intimate details of our sex life") then he has no legal leg to stand on, and shouldn't.

If I was interviewed by CNN and talked about the intimate details of my sex life with a politician I was seeing, unless I lied, I did nothing illegal.
Whether or not it is moral is a personal judgement issue, but it is not illegal, nor should it be.

He should stop clogging the already backed up legal system with his petty, personal vendettas.
 
Baron Max said:
As far as I can tell, and with the bit of legal knowledge that I have, the man can only sue her for slander. But "slander" means that she was lying about him, thus causing damage to his character. If what she was telling was the truth, he's gonna' have a helluva time proving slander!
Click to expand...

It is not so simple, because the onus of proof sits with the accuser, not the accused.

One is not just free to say whatever because it is happens to be true.

When defamatory statements are attempted the need is to be able and willing to prove the truth of it. With one person's word against another the benefit of doubt falls to the defendent.

One would thus be on very weak ground to repeat a confession which a person may subsequently prefer to deny, if the denier is the sole source of the knowledge.

A contract of confidentiality may also be deemed to apply circumstantially.
 
Did he have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

YES

Is this any different than secretly video recording the act?

NO, the medium is different the result is not.

As far as proof goes what is their to prove? how has his reputation been damaged and to what extent?

He can sue and he in the very least would get the blog shut down, as far as damages he has to proove it...thats all/
 
People constaly write "tell all" books.
Unless the person who the book is about can prove that what the author said was libel, the book stays on the shelves, and the subject doesn't get dime one.
 
Sauna said:
What about this then?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4706619.stm

As a matter of speculative opinion one may well be disinclined to believe such a rogue as Polanski, but that is not how it goes in Court.
Click to expand...

What about it?
Polanski denied this happened and fought it on "Libel" charges, which is exactly what I was saying.
Polanski claimed that the magazine was lying about what happened.

In this case, the guy is NOT saying it is not true, thereofre it is NOT libel. If he said it is not true, this debate wouldn't even be happening, because he would be able to sue for libel - which he is not, because he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

It is not against the law in the US to tell the truth - even if it is private - without a legal contract assuring that discretion (such as non-disclosure and non-compete agreements) or if that information is being used as a form of racketeering.
 
Yes they can.
What's stopping them?

Hell, documenatation of private lives is proably 80% of the print "news" out there, no?

Did you hear about Brad and Angelina?
Of course you did, because it isn't against the law to report on the personal lives of Brad and Angelina, or anyone else - including you.
 
one_raven said:
Of course you did, because it isn't against the law to report on the personal lives of Brad and Angelina, or anyone else - including you.
Click to expand...

So if I, coincidently while looking at birds in Washingthon, care to see Bush hugging Ms Clinton intimately through the window... I should publish this immideatly because it is legal?
 
draqon said:
So if I, coincidently while looking at birds in Washingthon, care to see Bush hugging Ms Clinton intimately through the window... I should publish this immideatly because it is legal?
Click to expand...

I didn't say you SHOULD, I said you MAY.
There is quite the difference.
 
If you take a photo of someone naked, in a private setting, and publish it, that is an actionable offense. The fact that you are also in the picture and the fact that you are having intimate relations with the person does not change the fact that publishing the photo is an actionable offense.

Mitigating circumstances include: He said you could take the photo and show it to your friends--i.e. to people who are strangers to him. He is a public figure--public figures are slowly losing their right to any privacy. He is a professional porn film actor and you reasonably believed that this was just part of his business.
 
Okay, I'm still confused!

Suppose an UNCONVICTED, but suspected "phedophile" takes photos of little kids at play at the local pool or at the beach wearing their tiny, cute, little bikinis. He keeps those photos in his house for his own pleasurable viewing. Is it against the law for him to take the pictures?

And if it is, how is it different to taking photos of Angelina and Brad? Or anyone else, for that matter?

The reason I asked that pointed question, is a similar thing happened in a city near Dallas this past summer. A man was grabbed by the police for taking just such pictures, and put through the ringer about it. The news media, of course, made it a big deal. But after all the media coverage and sensationalism, he was found later to be perfectly innocent. I heard later that he lost his job because of the news coverage about it ...don't know what else happened to him.

So ....what's the damned law? And why did the cops even grab him in the first place?

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
So ....what's the damned law? And why did the cops even grab him in the first place?
Click to expand...

That is a remarkably naive question from such an old hand.

It is often because the kids complain to parents to make as much of it as they can to gain attention. False accusations may be made to get back at those who tried in vain to stand for law and order. School teachers may especially be the victims of the style, which is extrordinarily difficult to defeat because of the sentiment involved. Beware not to underestimate the guile of a street wise 21st Century eight year old.
 
Sauna said:
That is a remarkably naive question from such an old hand.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was naive at all. I can understand the parents complaining to the cops, but what....? the cops then go over and arrest him for ....suspicion of acting like a dirty phedophile???? What does a "dirty phedophile" look like? And is that against the law?

See? I understand the complaint side of it all, but I don't understand the arrest/legal side of it. "Geez, Mommy, that man took a picture of me!" Oooh, call the cops and have the man arrested ......for what??

Sauna said:
Beware not to underestimate the guile of a street wise 21st Century eight year old.
Click to expand...

I think you misread me altogether.

Baron Max
 
VitalOne said:
man thats just wrong what the girl did I hope the man wins
Click to expand...

As I understand it, he didn't even file charges against anyone ...the cops or the city or even the family of the little girl. At least that's the last I heard of it ...but you know that the media would play that down anyway, so...?

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
I don't think it was naive at all. I can understand the parents complaining to the cops, but what....? the cops then go over and arrest him for ....suspicion of acting like a dirty phedophile???? What does a "dirty phedophile" look like? And is that against the law?
Click to expand...

But that would be their point.

Every case has to be taken just as seriously as any other precisely because they don't know what a dirty paedophile looks like.

The News media attention is then another matter.
Such a case should always be pursued confidentially
for the sake of the child as much as the suspect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top