newsarama article about the ashcan!

[ManofTheAtom]

If there's one thing that Newsarama article should have brought home it's that we are important. Lovitz directly quoted posts from this site in that article. VIP is reading & taking notes on what we're saying.

WE ARE IMPORTANT!!

We are Valiant's fan base. We are all that any court can point to to find out what we, the only true Valiant fans there are, think about what Valiant is. I would almost bet a Unity 0 red that there will be specific threads printed off & used in court to sway the decision. Please keep that in mind.

All we need to do is say what we think. We don't need to personally attack Lovitz to do that. In fact, it hurts our credibility.

No one's afraid of being sued. Lovitz doesn't care about what some guy in Mexico City thinks about him other than how that comment might affect litigation between VEI & vip. Your passion is great, Mike! In fact, it's needed right now. Please direct it where it belongs, at supporting VEI.

I'd like to, but mods who censor posts out of fear derail that passion.

I not only have to look after VEI but I also have to look after my right to speak my mind. Without the latter the former won't be taken care of.

I have to be free to say that Lovitz likes to suck donkey balls while having sex with his mom in the outhouse while Dorothy gives the Tin Man a bj... if I can't do that, then I can't properly defend VEI.

[Zero]

Okay, I got it. You made your point very well. Can we move on now?

[betterthanezra]

If there's one thing that Newsarama article should have brought home it's that we are important. Lovitz directly quoted posts from this site in that article. VIP is reading & taking notes on what we're saying.

WE ARE IMPORTANT!!

We are Valiant's fan base. We are all that any court can point to to find out what we, the only true Valiant fans there are, think about what Valiant is. I would almost bet a Unity 0 red that there will be specific threads printed off & used in court to sway the decision. Please keep that in mind.

All we need to do is say what we think. We don't need to personally attack Lovitz to do that. In fact, it hurts our credibility.

No one's afraid of being sued. Lovitz doesn't care about what some guy in Mexico City thinks about him other than how that comment might affect litigation between VEI & vip. Your passion is great, Mike! In fact, it's needed right now. Please direct it where it belongs, at supporting VEI.

I'd like to, but mods who censor posts out of fear derail that passion.

I not only have to look after VEI but I also have to look after my right to speak my mind. Without the latter the former won't be taken care of.

I have to be free to say that Lovitz likes to suck donkey balls while having sex with his mom in the outhouse while Dorothy gives the Tin Man a bj... if I can't do that, then I can't properly defend VEI.

We must remember MOTA isn't protected by the 1st Amend....he's in Mexico

-Brian

[ManofTheAtom]

Okay, I got it. You made your point very well. Can we move on now?

Probably not until DJ apologizes for overeacting over a post that was clearly meant as a joke.

Just because he didn't get it that doesn't mean he can censor it.

[ManofTheAtom]

If there's one thing that Newsarama article should have brought home it's that we are important. Lovitz directly quoted posts from this site in that article. VIP is reading & taking notes on what we're saying.

WE ARE IMPORTANT!!

We are Valiant's fan base. We are all that any court can point to to find out what we, the only true Valiant fans there are, think about what Valiant is. I would almost bet a Unity 0 red that there will be specific threads printed off & used in court to sway the decision. Please keep that in mind.

All we need to do is say what we think. We don't need to personally attack Lovitz to do that. In fact, it hurts our credibility.

No one's afraid of being sued. Lovitz doesn't care about what some guy in Mexico City thinks about him other than how that comment might affect litigation between VEI & vip. Your passion is great, Mike! In fact, it's needed right now. Please direct it where it belongs, at supporting VEI.

I'd like to, but mods who censor posts out of fear derail that passion.

I not only have to look after VEI but I also have to look after my right to speak my mind. Without the latter the former won't be taken care of.

I have to be free to say that Lovitz likes to suck donkey balls while having sex with his mom in the outhouse while Dorothy gives the Tin Man a bj... if I can't do that, then I can't properly defend VEI.

We must remember MOTA isn't protected by the 1st Amend....he's in Mexico

-Brian

Heh

Well, a few years ago I asked someone in a chat room that and they said that the amedment applies to the place, not the individual, so the individual who visits the place is protected by it.

[Zero]

Okay, I got it. You made your point very well. Can we move on now?

Probably not until DJ apologizes for overeacting over a post that was clearly meant as a joke.

Just because he didn't get it that doesn't mean he can censor it.

DJ's not here right now. Can I be sorry for him?

[ManofTheAtom]

Okay, I got it. You made your point very well. Can we move on now?

Probably not until DJ apologizes for overeacting over a post that was clearly meant as a joke.

Just because he didn't get it that doesn't mean he can censor it.

DJ's not here right now. Can I be sorry for him?

Heh, no, not really.

[schi0249]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel

Not the best source, but I don't have time to pull an actual academic site. You can not make malicious statements with knowledge they are false. People go to great depths to protect their character. Back in the 80's CBS was sued over comments it made about a doctor. Tabloids have been famously sued for making things up. Yes, in America we have "freedom of speech." However, that freedom has limits. Most of my law teachers have used the following example. Try screaming Fire! in a crowded. Yes, you can say that if you want, its your choice. But be prepared to be sued if they find out you did it.

[ManofTheAtom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel

Not the best source, but I don't have time to pull an actual academic site. You can not make malicious statements with knowledge they are false. People go to great depths to protect their character. Back in the 80's CBS was sued over comments it made about a doctor. Tabloids have been famously sued for making things up. Yes, in America we have "freedom of speech." However, that freedom has limits. Most of my law teachers have used the following example. Try screaming Fire! in a crowded. Yes, you can say that if you want, its your choice. But be prepared to be sued if they find out you did it.

Yet Flint was able to suggest that Jerry Falwell has sex with his mother in the outhouse and won the lawsuit because it was protected by his first amendment right to freedom of speech.

[Brother J]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel

Not the best source, but I don't have time to pull an actual academic site. You can not make malicious statements with knowledge they are false. People go to great depths to protect their character. Back in the 80's CBS was sued over comments it made about a doctor. Tabloids have been famously sued for making things up. Yes, in America we have "freedom of speech." However, that freedom has limits. Most of my law teachers have used the following example. Try screaming Fire! in a crowded. Yes, you can say that if you want, its your choice. But be prepared to be sued if they find out you did it.

Yet Flint was able to suggest that Jerry Falwell has sex with his mother in the outhouse and won the lawsuit because it was protected by his first amendment right to freedom of speech.

wasn't the Flynt thing protected because it was obviously a parody (it was made to look like a liquor ad), if he had reported with a straight face as actual news that Falwell had been diddling his mother, he probably would have lost that case.

[ManofTheAtom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel

Not the best source, but I don't have time to pull an actual academic site. You can not make malicious statements with knowledge they are false. People go to great depths to protect their character. Back in the 80's CBS was sued over comments it made about a doctor. Tabloids have been famously sued for making things up. Yes, in America we have "freedom of speech." However, that freedom has limits. Most of my law teachers have used the following example. Try screaming Fire! in a crowded. Yes, you can say that if you want, its your choice. But be prepared to be sued if they find out you did it.

Yet Flint was able to suggest that Jerry Falwell has sex with his mother in the outhouse and won the lawsuit because it was protected by his first amendment right to freedom of speech.

wasn't the Flynt thing protected because it was obviously a parody, if he had reported with a straight face as actual news that Falwell had been diddling his mother, he probably would have lost that case.

Sure, and when I say that Lovitz likes to suck donkey balls I say it as a joke. I'm not really suggesting that he's sucking donkey balls right now.

[Brother J]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel

Not the best source, but I don't have time to pull an actual academic site. You can not make malicious statements with knowledge they are false. People go to great depths to protect their character. Back in the 80's CBS was sued over comments it made about a doctor. Tabloids have been famously sued for making things up. Yes, in America we have "freedom of speech." However, that freedom has limits. Most of my law teachers have used the following example. Try screaming Fire! in a crowded. Yes, you can say that if you want, its your choice. But be prepared to be sued if they find out you did it.

Yet Flint was able to suggest that Jerry Falwell has sex with his mother in the outhouse and won the lawsuit because it was protected by his first amendment right to freedom of speech.

wasn't the Flynt thing protected because it was obviously a parody, if he had reported with a straight face as actual news that Falwell had been diddling his mother, he probably would have lost that case.

Sure, and when I say that Lovitz likes to suck donkey balls I say it as a joke. I'm not really suggesting that he's sucking donkey balls right now.

The only other thing is that I don't think message board posts are first amendment protected. Greg hosts the site (with DJ as moderator) and he doesn't have to allow any posts he doesn't feel are acceptable. It's his playground and he gets the set the rules.

[ManofTheAtom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel

Not the best source, but I don't have time to pull an actual academic site. You can not make malicious statements with knowledge they are false. People go to great depths to protect their character. Back in the 80's CBS was sued over comments it made about a doctor. Tabloids have been famously sued for making things up. Yes, in America we have "freedom of speech." However, that freedom has limits. Most of my law teachers have used the following example. Try screaming Fire! in a crowded. Yes, you can say that if you want, its your choice. But be prepared to be sued if they find out you did it.

Yet Flint was able to suggest that Jerry Falwell has sex with his mother in the outhouse and won the lawsuit because it was protected by his first amendment right to freedom of speech.

wasn't the Flynt thing protected because it was obviously a parody, if he had reported with a straight face as actual news that Falwell had been diddling his mother, he probably would have lost that case.

Sure, and when I say that Lovitz likes to suck donkey balls I say it as a joke. I'm not really suggesting that he's sucking donkey balls right now.

The only other thing is that I don't think message board posts are first amendment protected. Greg hosts the site (with DJ as moderator) and he doesn't have to allow any posts he doesn't feel are acceptable. It's his playground and he gets the set the rules.

That's different.

There's what the law says you can say and then there's what the mods on a board say you can say.

The problem here, right now, is that the mods (like Daniel) are afraid that the donkey balls-sucking lawyer (I kid, I kid) will sue them if I say that I'm going to make him eat *SQUEE*.

The law says that he can't sue, so if they censor my comments they're doing it out of fear of being sued, not because they HAVE to do it.

[schi0249]

Here is the key to that case. "...free-speech guarantee prohibits awarding damages to public figures to compensate for emotional distress intentionally inflicted upon them unless they can show that the statements that gave rise to the distress were false and that the person that made those statements knew they were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth in making the statements."

In the Hustler case, there was a disclaimer on the page that said "ad parody—not to be taken seriously." Similar to what SNL does.

This argument has been made by tabloids before. Yet Tom Cruise successfully sue a tabloid over claims he was gay. His ex-wife also has successfully sued a tabloid.

[Brother J]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel

Not the best source, but I don't have time to pull an actual academic site. You can not make malicious statements with knowledge they are false. People go to great depths to protect their character. Back in the 80's CBS was sued over comments it made about a doctor. Tabloids have been famously sued for making things up. Yes, in America we have "freedom of speech." However, that freedom has limits. Most of my law teachers have used the following example. Try screaming Fire! in a crowded. Yes, you can say that if you want, its your choice. But be prepared to be sued if they find out you did it.

Yet Flint was able to suggest that Jerry Falwell has sex with his mother in the outhouse and won the lawsuit because it was protected by his first amendment right to freedom of speech.

wasn't the Flynt thing protected because it was obviously a parody, if he had reported with a straight face as actual news that Falwell had been diddling his mother, he probably would have lost that case.

Sure, and when I say that Lovitz likes to suck donkey balls I say it as a joke. I'm not really suggesting that he's sucking donkey balls right now.

The only other thing is that I don't think message board posts are first amendment protected. Greg hosts the site (with DJ as moderator) and he doesn't have to allow any posts he doesn't feel are acceptable. It's his playground and he gets the set the rules.

That's different.

There's what the law says you can say and then there's what the mods on a board say you can say.

The problem here, right now, is that the mods (like Daniel) are afraid that the donkey balls-sucking lawyer (I kid, I kid) will sue them if I say that I'm going to make him eat *SQUEE*.

The law says that he can't sue, so if they censor my comments they're doing it out of fear of being sued, not because they HAVE to do it.

I'm wondering if there has ever been a case of someone successfully suing someone over a comment made on a message board.

Not 100% sure, but I don't recall DJ saying he was afraid of being of himself or Greg being sued. I don't think either of us is 100% sure why he might have edited or removed your post. It's possible he just thought it was inapproriate or it could have been because he didn't want to give more ammo to Lovitz et al to attempt to sway the court of public opinion, making him looked "picked on" by a bunch of "comic geeks".

[ManofTheAtom]

I'm wondering if there has ever been a case of someone successfully suing someone over a comment made on a message board.

I doubt such a thing can be done

Not 100% sure, but I don't recall DJ saying he was afraid of being of himself or Greg being sued. I don't think either of us is 100% sure why he might have edited or removed your post. It's possible he just thought it was inapproriate or it could have been because he didn't want to give more ammo to Lovitz et al to attempt to sway the court of public opinion, making him looked "picked on" by a bunch of "comic geeks".

Make sure you do not make threatening references to VIP or Lovitz, any future post like this will be deleted. Keep in mind they are watching this board as is apparent from reading the Newsarama article.

That's all he had to say.

He was warning me and others not to speak our mind about VIP and Lovitz becuase they might be watching (and I say speak my mind because what I said was a JOKE, not an actual threat).

Ooooooh... be afraid, the lawyer is watching.

[greg]

The problem here, right now, is that the mods (like Daniel) are afraid that the donkey balls-sucking lawyer (I kid, I kid) will sue them if I say that I'm going to make him eat *SQUEE*.

I'll tell you what I'm AFRAID of.

I'm afraid that there are VALIANT FANS who just found this board today
and they're being subjected to the idiotic crap that you're typing.

This site is about SUPPORTING VALIANT.

If you can't focus on things that support Valiant, you aren't needed here.

You know where the exit is... it's your choice.

[ManofTheAtom]

The problem here, right now, is that the mods (like Daniel) are afraid that the donkey balls-sucking lawyer (I kid, I kid) will sue them if I say that I'm going to make him eat *SQUEE*.

I'll tell you what I'm AFRAID of.

I'm afraid that there are VALIANT FANS who just found this board today
and they're being subjected to the idiotic crap that you're typing.

This site is about SUPPORTING VALIANT.

If you can't focus on things that support Valiant, you aren't needed here.

You know where the exit is... it's your choice.

Greg, all DJ had to do was get the joke, that's it. If he had none of these posts would be here.

Instead he chose to warn me off and ask me to cooperate with censorship.

I'd much rather have spent my day posting about ON TOPIC issues, but this took predecent.

[mobstirr]

The problem here, right now, is that the mods (like Daniel) are afraid that the donkey balls-sucking lawyer (I kid, I kid) will sue them if I say that I'm going to make him eat *SQUEE*.

I'll tell you what I'm AFRAID of.

I'm afraid that there are VALIANT FANS who just found this board today
and they're being subjected to the idiotic crap that you're typing.

This site is about SUPPORTING VALIANT.

If you can't focus on things that support Valiant, you aren't needed here.

You know where the exit is... it's your choice.

Tom Crusie, Hustler magazine, and donkey balls aside, we should be showing solidarity as a very united grass roots fan base in order to send a clear message to VIP - "we don't want your trash."

[greg]

The problem here, right now, is that the mods (like Daniel) are afraid that the donkey balls-sucking lawyer (I kid, I kid) will sue them if I say that I'm going to make him eat *SQUEE*.

I'll tell you what I'm AFRAID of.

I'm afraid that there are VALIANT FANS who just found this board today
and they're being subjected to the idiotic crap that you're typing.

This site is about SUPPORTING VALIANT.

If you can't focus on things that support Valiant, you aren't needed here.

You know where the exit is... it's your choice.

Greg, all DJ had to do was get the joke, that's it. If he had none of these posts would be here.

Instead he chose to warn me off and ask me to cooperate with censorship.

I'd much rather have spent my day posting about ON TOPIC issues, but this took predecent.

You didn't make it CLEAR it was a joke.

This is VALIANT FANS, not "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" FANS.

I've never seen that movie... DJ obviously didn't get the reference either.

You have people looking at us for the FIRST TIME today, possibly to see if we're
really as bad as Lovitz made us look in that article, and you're posting
quotes with obscene language and posting ridiculous things about
"donkey balls" over and over and over.

It's all STUPID. IT DOESN'T HELP SUPPORT VALIANT.

It makes VALIANTFANS.com look like a *SQUEE* elementary playground,
and all for the sake of "First Amendment" blah-blah.

Did you gain anything? Do you feel proud that you got your "donkey balls" posts in?

A three year old has 1st amendment rights, too, but that doesn't mean
that the adults invite them into their conversations about world politics.

We only get one chance to make a first impression,
and Lovitz is trying to make that first impression that we're a bunch
of goons that want to kick him in the crotch.

I WANT VALIANT... this is VALIANTFANS.COM

If it's not about VALIANT, it doesn't belong here...
and I'll delete 200,000 off-topic posts if it means
that what remains is VALIANT.

It's time to clean up around here, we've got company.
Don't worry about getting thrown out, just worry about keeping your room (and keyboard) clean.

We're trying to be Valiant fans... because otherwise, at THIS website, we'd be hypocrites.

[ManofTheAtom]

Greg, I completely understand where you're coming from, and I'm not interested in argueing with you about this for the same reasons you mention... but the fact is that I didn't start this.

I posted a joke that was taken out and I was then warned not to say anything that might offend Lovitz or VIP, then I was asked to cooperate with censorship.

Is that the kind of board you want this to be?

It's one thing to be asked to keep it clean, it's another to say that I can't speak my mind because it might offend people we've been talking about for years.

Trust me, I would much rather have spent today supporting VALIANT. All it would have requiered was DJ taking a joke.

[Elveen]

I hate threads like this. Period.

[superman-prime]

can we drop this in topic oblivion and call everything well and good

[greg]

Trust me, I would much rather have spent today supporting VALIANT. All it would have requiered was DJ taking a joke.

If DJ hadn't said something first, I would have.

This is no joke. You think it's a joke, and you think you're funny.

What I see is a post that does NOTHING to promote Valiant, and actually
gives any Valiant fan a reason to NOT COME BACK.

I have no idea what will drive people to this website, but I have a VERY GOOD IDEA
what keeps them from coming back.

Whatever I believe keeps people from coming back to this site will be eliminated.

You can call it censorship if you want, I call it PROMOTING VALIANT, everything else is UNNECESSARY.

This site exists to promote VALIANT. Not to promote Jay and Silent Bob jokes.
Not to make sure that everyone gets to say anything they want on principle.

Not to do anything but promote Valiant.

For this reason, you shouldn't be calling DJ out for "censoring you",
you should be asking yourself... Was I promoting Valiant?

If the answer is no, then the post is not needed either.

[cinlach@aol.com]

uh, i hate to ask this but...am i honestly expected to make every single thingi talk about or mention on this site from now on valiant related?

because if so i'm not interested.

i'm here to talk about valiant, but i'm also here to enjoy the company of others with interests like mine which lie outside of valiant.

valiant is the gateway to this wonderful community, but it's not the sole reason for existence.

not for me anyway.

i'm not trying to be dramatic, and yes i know this comes hot on the heels of my explosion on petrilak, and well within the uncomfortable moment i openly disagreed with you about zwh's treatment.

and while it might look like i'm intentionally "poking the bear with a stick" i can assure you it's all coincidental.

however i think i need a solid straight up answer to this question...and i think a lot of us might need it as well.

so, the question is...are we to solely restrict ourselves to comments pertaining or in reference to valiant only or will this continue to be a place where fans of valiant can share their interests on a great many topics?

because that doesn't sound like what you're presenting to mota.