General discussion


But Your Honor, he IS an idiot!

By maxwell edison ·
I suppose this might be somewhat of an addendum discussion to that "freedom of anonymous speech" thread, but what do you think will and/or should come of this:

What if I call somebody an idiot in one of the occasional "flame sessions", and they want me to be arrested and/or be held libel for defamation. How can I prove that person really is an idiot? Or would that person have to prove he's not an idiot? Is there an idiot test that could be applied? Will I have to refrain from using my favorite idiot link? Will I be subjected to a cyber restraining order, and be forced to stay at least 100 Web pages away from the alleged idiot? Would this only apply to the idiots in New Jersey? Would I be the idiot extradited to New Jersey? Only an idiot would be in favor of a law like this. Or would only an idiot be opposed?

(Yes, I am being sarcastic, but with an obviously serious issue.)

And how about a libel suit for this:**3422?source=PA

If Google can be held libel for that, where might it stop? I mean, really. What Yahoo would hold Google libel for that?

What about politicians? Would all those people have to PROVE that President Bush or John Kerry really is an idiot or a liar if they post a message stating as much on the Internet? And what about the international nature of the Internet? (There are international idiots, you know.)

Personally speaking, I'm getting sick and tired of people trying to make a new law to cover any little thing that bothers them; and people are obviously sue-happy. We already have too many stupid laws. Let's start repealing some of these laws, not make new ones. It used to be said that ignorance of the law is no excuse. In fact, it still is, I suppose. But there are so many laws that we ALL are ignorant, even if we tried not to be.

On a somewhat related note (related as it applies to too many laws), I was listening to a talk radio show some time ago, a show hosted by a lawyer. He takes calls answering legal questions and discusses the legal issues of the day. A caller relayed the following story.

This caller walked his young child to the bus stop to wait for the school bus. While he was waiting there with his daughter, a couple of other girls started fighting. The way he described it, a bigger girl was literally pummeling a younger and smaller girl with punches and kicks. He said that he just stood there watching, not wanting to get involved. Another parent (a mom) soon arrived at the same bus stop and saw the fighting, but this parent broke it up. She then went on to chastise the first parent (a guy) for not doing anything, and said that he should be arrested for allowing it to happen.

The gist of the call was to ask this lawyer if he could indeed be arrested for standing by and allowing a smaller child to get beat up be a bigger one. Absolutely, the lawyer answered. He then cited some law that covered that sort of thing. The caller went on to say that he thought about getting involved, and decided that if he did try to break it up, which might even take some physical contact to do so (and did take such contact for the "mom" to hold the bigger girl back), he might be accused of inappropriate touching, or some other thing like that, so he thought it best to NOT get involved. The lawyer went on to admit that if that bigger girl had indeed charged him with doing such a thing, he could have been arrested for that as well.

That sure sounded like a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't -- an example of TOO MANY friggin' laws.

So, tying-in my little story with the opening comments, would this guy have been an idiot to break-up that fight, or was he an idiot for not breaking it up? (We're obviously a nation of idiots, if this guy found himself being one regardless of what he did.)

I suppose my rambling caused a tangent to the original discussion intent without even creating a tangent thread. How idiotic is that? But don't call me an idiot. I'll sue!

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Even though this

by Old Guy In reply to But Your Honor, he IS an ...

is full of sarcasm (which is deserved) it is a sad commentary on humanity. Society has become so self-centered and selfish that your example of the fight would cause, particularly, a man to not know whether to stop it or stand back. The whole thing is stupid because so many people want what they want and forget anyone else.

Your comment, "people trying to make a new law to cover any little thing that bothers them; and people are obviously sue-happy" again spells it out. It's what "bothers" them. And too many times the "silent majority" has kept quite and allowed this to happen in the name of "tolerance" (Yeah, I know, I'm using a lot of quotation marks--so sue me!)

BTW, this type of idiocy is not just in America. I think it's spreading worldwide because there are a lot of idiots in other countries as well. And, if I have insulted anyone by calling them an idiot I will be glad to let them know who I am.

p.s. you asked how to prove if someone is an idiot. Some of them just have to open their mouths and they prove it for you.

Collapse -

Vicious Idiots

by Dr Dij In reply to Even though this

problem of letting them know who you are, they may want to kill you.

Case in point (but not limited to) defaming Islam, or having an opinion other than 'Death to America'.

Collapse -

So are you suggesting

by Old Guy In reply to Vicious Idiots

that we continue to cower down and be afraid of everything including our own shadow. I certainly don't have a death wish and don't want to hurry it up but I agree with Max, I'm tired of these idiots and I'm tired of being politically correct and afraid of "offending" someone because I don't kowtow to them.

Besides I don't defame a country or even a whole people. I defame the idiots who are causing the trouble and are the only ones getting the press.

Collapse -

In short...

by MirrorMirror In reply to So are you suggesting

... being politically correct is offensive to you. It also sounds like you are suffering from a form of PTSD due to political correctness. I guess that would be PTPCSD. Sounds official, doesn't it?

Wow!! Now where is the lawyer who will take that one on?

Collapse -

Ok, now

by Old Guy In reply to In short...

what does that mean?

Collapse -


by BFilmFan In reply to Ok, now


Collapse -

So, does that mean

by Old Guy In reply to PTPCSD

that I can jump on the band wagon and sue somebody, too? Wow, who can I sue? the government, the next person I see, Max (since he brought this up), how about Demolition Woman for characterizing/branding/diagnosing me?

Hey maybe I can get my name on the news too--just like these other idiots that just want to hear themselves rattling their mouths.

Note to Demo Woman: Hope I didn't offend you. I would hate for you to find out my true identity and then send the goon squad to kill me. B-)

Collapse -

You are correct!

by MirrorMirror In reply to PTPCSD

BFilmFan gets the prize for figuring out my acronym! What's the prize, you might ask?? Well, there is no better prize than the satisfaction of being correct. If that is not much of a prize, talk to Old Guy and sue me!

Old Guy - I didn't want to leave you out of the sue happy culture that we have. And, if you sue me for sending Guido "The Shark" after you for offending me, let's make sure to go on all the TV talk shows and then write a book. It's only American to profit off all of our problems.

Collapse -

Demo Woman

by Old Guy In reply to PTPCSD

You are a hoot! <meant with the highest form of flattery>

Do you think we should start with Jerry Springer's show?

Collapse -


by TonytheTiger In reply to In short...

we can lobby to get it officially added to the ADA's list.

Related Discussions

Related Forums