Jump to content
The Education Forum

WARNING to Forum Members: Please Read This!


Jim Hargrove
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 436
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Defamation  and generally putting someone in a false light is a no no.   Republishing someone's work is generally a no no as well.  It can constitute copyright infringement on many levels.  Our posts here generally could constitute copyrighted material.   But this is not a legal opinion nor constitutes legal advice.  I recommend all parties consult an intellectual attorney in his her jurisdiction.  

Edited by Cory Santos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

Any current member who casts aspersions about the Forum and/or its membership – either from within the forum or outside the forum - may [lose] their posting privileges or indeed be banned. Which you once already got warned for!

I'm well aware of that rule. (And it's surprising anybody is left standing here.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1310.html

 

38 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

Since your reproduction does not tell it in the right context...

You're taking a lot for granted with this incorrect statement.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2016 at 4:56 PM, Jon G. Tidd said:

Everyone here has consented to be in the public arena.

The stuff anyone posts here is non-copyright material unless so designated.

No one who posts here can maintain a libel action against one who falsely portrays what was posted unless the false portrayal was made with knowledge of the falsity or reckless disregard of the falsity.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From this article (which would likely apply to "Internet Forums" as well as Facebook and MySpace)....

---Quote On:---

"Many courts have concluded, essentially, that once you post something viewable by anyone else on Facebook, you have forfeited any privacy interest in it. In one early social media privacy case, involving MySpace, a court noted, “Cynthia's affirmative act made her article available to any person with a computer and thus opened it to the public eye. Under these circumstances, no reasonable person would have had an expectation of privacy regarding the published material.”

---Unquote---

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, David Von Pein said:

From this article (which would likely apply to "Internet Forums" as well as Facebook)....

---Quote On:---

"Many courts have concluded, essentially, that once you post something viewable by anyone else on Facebook, you have forfeited any privacy interest in it. In one early social media privacy case, involving MySpace, a court noted, “Cynthia's affirmative act made her article available to any person with a computer and thus opened it to the public eye. Under these circumstances, no reasonable person would have had an expectation of privacy regarding the published material.”

---Unquote---

Not sure I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Doesn't matter whether you agree or not. It was a court of law that made the above decision (re: the MySpace case).

 

I could care less.  You proceed as you want.  I have no interest in this.  I was merely responding to a question from another person.  You, however, know more than I do so good luck with it.  Feel free to disregard all I said.

Edited by Cory Santos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

Create your own content.

I do. Lots and lots of it, in fact.

Not nearly everything on my site is a "debate" between me and CTers. I have written many stand-alone articles on various aspects of the JFK case.

And your use of the word "thief" is preposterous. I haven't misquoted anyone. And I haven't distorted anything either. (Although some CTers will continue to argue that I have.) But if a CTer's meaning of "distortion" is that I have not replied to each and every word uttered by the CTers whom I have quoted at my site, then that would be true. But EVERYBODY here does that. I know of no one (except perhaps Anthony Marsh at McAdams' Usenet forum) who spends their whole day--every day--taking the trouble of responding to every single word written on JFK forums. That's just not going to happen (unless, as I said, your name is Tony Marsh, who is in a league of his own as far as wanting to get in "the last word" on EVERY single thread at the Usenet aaj newsgroup).

I don't feel like a "thief" at all, Denny. And I don't want people to think of me as a "thief". As I've said numerous times now, I merely want to archive my own writings at my own website so they won't get lost forever. And via a "forum" format (which is where a lot of my "writings" are located), archiving my own words is not really practical to do unless the comments of the people I'm responding to are also transferred to my site as well. If I transfer just my words, there will be no context at all most of the time, which is not a good thing.

And I cannot believe that anyone here (even the conspiracy theorists) would have a problem with what I just said above.

 

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...