Steven Lim you have caused me undue stress and anxiety. And even those two poor girls. You know, I feel that it may be necessary to sue you for compo. I am still too young for you dear, and so i will seek legal advice should this carry out of hand. You threaten to take action, to sue, to call police, to have my computer taken away. What's next, you want to burn down my house and give my 5 cent coins to starving children in africa? is that what you want to make yourself look very cool?
Sue me. Sue me for what? Defamation? Copyright? Get real, none of your stuff is copyrighted yet. Lets go check some timestamps shall we? All this hassle!
I'm planning to enjoy you know a holiday but now you are making my life difficult. Is that your purpose in life? to distract me from excelling and getting a nice career in life?
I'm not sure about you, but this could very well affect my life! that could be at least $200,000 compensation you know. And what do you have? a lawsuit for 3K compo and it will cost you at least 10K for costs. So you're willing to spend 7K just to make yourself look good. Well don't worry, im sure you wont get hit with a 7K cost, try for the grand 6 digits!
Steven, i'm sure if you stop all this nonsense, everything in turn will fall back into it's place and there will be peace. even though i dunno you and those other girls, you are pathetic for even posting their pictures, jeez talk about being hypocritical.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Threatened by steven? Here's some legal advice!
When threatened with a defamation suit, most people focus on whether or not something is defamatory. But there is another, more useful way to look at it. The important question is whether you have a right to say it. If you do, you have a legal defence.
If someone sues you because you made a defamatory statement, you can defend your speech or writing on various grounds. There are three main types of defence:
* what you said was true;
* you had a duty to provide information;
* you were expressing an opinion.
* The defamation case can go to court, with a hearing before a judge or jury. However, the majority of cases are abandoned or settled. Settlements sometimes include a published apology, sometimes no apology, sometimes a payment, sometimes no payment. Only a small fraction of cases goes to court.
The problems
There are several fundamental flaws in the legal system, including cost, selective application and complexity. The result is that defamation law doesn't do much to protect most people, but it does operate to inhibit free speech.
* Cost. If you are sued for defamation, you could end up paying tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, even if you win. If you lose, you could face a massive pay-out on top of the fees.
The large costs, due especially to the cost of legal advice, mean that most people never sue for defamation. If you don't have much money, you don't have much chance against a rich opponent, whether you are suing them or they are suing you. Cases can go on for years. Judgements can be appealed. The costs become enormous. Only those with deep pockets can pursue such cases to the end.
The result is that defamation law is often used by the rich and powerful to deter criticisms. It is seldom helpful to ordinary people whose reputations are attacked unfairly.
* Unpredictability. People say and write defamatory things all the time, but only a very few are threatened with defamation. Sometimes gross libels pass unchallenged while comparatively innocuous comments lead to major court actions. This unpredictability has a chilling effect on free speech. Writers, worried about defamation, cut out anything that might offend. Publishers, knowing how much it can cost to lose a case, have lawyers go through articles to cut out anything that might lead to a legal action. The result is a tremendous inhibition of free speech.
* Complexity. Defamation law is so complex that most writers and publishers prefer to be safe than sorry, and do not publish things that are quite safe because they're not sure. Judges and lawyers have excessive power because outsiders cannot understand how the law will be applied. Those who might desire to defend against a defamation suit without a lawyer are deterred by the complexities.
* Slowness. Sometimes defamation cases are launched years after the statement in question. Cases often take years to resolve. This causes anxiety, especially for those sued, and deters free speech in the meantime. As the old saying goes, "Justice delayed is justice denied."
In Australia, a common sort of defamation case brought to silence critics is political figures suing, or threatening to sue, media organisations. The main purpose of these threats and suits is to prevent further discussion of material damaging to the politicians. Other keen suers are police and company directors. People with little money find it most difficult to sue.
In the United States, there are hundreds of cases where companies sue individuals who oppose them. For example, citizens who write letters to government bodies opposing a real estate development may be sued by the developer. Also sued are citizens who sign petitions or speak at public meetings. Defamation is the most common law used against citizen protest, but others are used such as business torts, conspiracy and judicial process abuse. These uses of the law have been dubbed "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation" or SLAPPs. Companies have little chance of success in these suits, but that doesn't matter. The main object in a SLAPP is to intimidate citizens, discouraging them from speaking out. SLAPPs are increasingly common in Australia too.
Avoid defamation
Writers can learn simple steps to avoid triggering defamation threats and actions. The most important rule is to state the facts, not the conclusion. Let readers draw their own conclusions.
* Instead of saying "The politician is corrupt," it is safer to say "The politician failed to reply to my letter" or "The politician received a payment of $100,000 from the developer."
* Instead of saying "The chemical is hazardous," it is safer to say "The chemical in sufficient quantities can cause nerve damage."
* Instead of saying, "There has been a cover-up," it is safer to say "The police never finalised their inquiry and the file has remained dormant for nine years."
THERE YOU HAVE IT! =] have fun
If someone sues you because you made a defamatory statement, you can defend your speech or writing on various grounds. There are three main types of defence:
* what you said was true;
* you had a duty to provide information;
* you were expressing an opinion.
* The defamation case can go to court, with a hearing before a judge or jury. However, the majority of cases are abandoned or settled. Settlements sometimes include a published apology, sometimes no apology, sometimes a payment, sometimes no payment. Only a small fraction of cases goes to court.
The problems
There are several fundamental flaws in the legal system, including cost, selective application and complexity. The result is that defamation law doesn't do much to protect most people, but it does operate to inhibit free speech.
* Cost. If you are sued for defamation, you could end up paying tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, even if you win. If you lose, you could face a massive pay-out on top of the fees.
The large costs, due especially to the cost of legal advice, mean that most people never sue for defamation. If you don't have much money, you don't have much chance against a rich opponent, whether you are suing them or they are suing you. Cases can go on for years. Judgements can be appealed. The costs become enormous. Only those with deep pockets can pursue such cases to the end.
The result is that defamation law is often used by the rich and powerful to deter criticisms. It is seldom helpful to ordinary people whose reputations are attacked unfairly.
* Unpredictability. People say and write defamatory things all the time, but only a very few are threatened with defamation. Sometimes gross libels pass unchallenged while comparatively innocuous comments lead to major court actions. This unpredictability has a chilling effect on free speech. Writers, worried about defamation, cut out anything that might offend. Publishers, knowing how much it can cost to lose a case, have lawyers go through articles to cut out anything that might lead to a legal action. The result is a tremendous inhibition of free speech.
* Complexity. Defamation law is so complex that most writers and publishers prefer to be safe than sorry, and do not publish things that are quite safe because they're not sure. Judges and lawyers have excessive power because outsiders cannot understand how the law will be applied. Those who might desire to defend against a defamation suit without a lawyer are deterred by the complexities.
* Slowness. Sometimes defamation cases are launched years after the statement in question. Cases often take years to resolve. This causes anxiety, especially for those sued, and deters free speech in the meantime. As the old saying goes, "Justice delayed is justice denied."
In Australia, a common sort of defamation case brought to silence critics is political figures suing, or threatening to sue, media organisations. The main purpose of these threats and suits is to prevent further discussion of material damaging to the politicians. Other keen suers are police and company directors. People with little money find it most difficult to sue.
In the United States, there are hundreds of cases where companies sue individuals who oppose them. For example, citizens who write letters to government bodies opposing a real estate development may be sued by the developer. Also sued are citizens who sign petitions or speak at public meetings. Defamation is the most common law used against citizen protest, but others are used such as business torts, conspiracy and judicial process abuse. These uses of the law have been dubbed "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation" or SLAPPs. Companies have little chance of success in these suits, but that doesn't matter. The main object in a SLAPP is to intimidate citizens, discouraging them from speaking out. SLAPPs are increasingly common in Australia too.
Avoid defamation
Writers can learn simple steps to avoid triggering defamation threats and actions. The most important rule is to state the facts, not the conclusion. Let readers draw their own conclusions.
* Instead of saying "The politician is corrupt," it is safer to say "The politician failed to reply to my letter" or "The politician received a payment of $100,000 from the developer."
* Instead of saying "The chemical is hazardous," it is safer to say "The chemical in sufficient quantities can cause nerve damage."
* Instead of saying, "There has been a cover-up," it is safer to say "The police never finalised their inquiry and the file has remained dormant for nine years."
THERE YOU HAVE IT! =] have fun
Whats little steven going to do?
Happy New Year folks, and may it be a fresh, promising year.. of i forgot, steven lim is still around. Man, what stinks...? But where's steven? Planning how to take me down? He did start this afterall; he cleverly said "ok we start war, my supporters versus yours"... and you know what? He so BHB can tell me, "you will need 1 million supporters"
So what's steven going to do? i looked at him threatening to sue 2 girls, what's he going to sue for honestly? At least one never chickened out, and if anyone has her contact or blog, post it here!
I'll wait =)
ADD: ZANG! http://yeoirish.blogspot.com/ (thats the girl's blog)
Dun worry we support you! that steven is a little too far up himself
ADD2: Look! this is quite amusing.
So what's steven going to do? i looked at him threatening to sue 2 girls, what's he going to sue for honestly? At least one never chickened out, and if anyone has her contact or blog, post it here!
I'll wait =)
ADD: ZANG! http://yeoirish.blogspot.com/ (thats the girl's blog)
Dun worry we support you! that steven is a little too far up himself
ADD2: Look! this is quite amusing.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
This is a necessary cause
You know like i don't even know what's going on, i was like clicky on this threadlink and it came up with some guy threatening 2 girls. i was like LOL. who does he think he is? sue for what? waste 10-20K trying to sue them? Pathetic! and this website is full of ego! [end of free speech]
www.stevenlim.net
OMG this guy is like sooo vain. His ego skyrocketed off the roof! my god! he think's everyone is his supporter, even any random who spammed crap on his tagboard. seriously, I didnt think anyone could be this egoistic! sure, maybe he's handsome for some, but his attitude really makes me vomit - and i havent even touched any alchohol! [end of free speech]
So please, come in and talk about him all you want!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
