What's new
By:
Filters

Trey Burke is getting sued

I guess his charity thing didn't work out, so might as well give some money back. Didn't trey go and personally apologize to the guy and he was all happy about it?
 
It's America dude. If you can make a tobacco company pay the widow of a ceased chain smoker 23.6 billion dollar, why not try and see what happens when you sue people acting condescending on twitter.
 
I can see the precedent you are talking about BTP. But I hope he loses. They were classless and foolish to mock him but isn't that freedom of speech? I don't like the weakening of it that I see this doing
 
BTP said:
It's America dude. If you can make a tobacco company pay the widow of a ceased chain smoker 23.6 billion dollar, why not try and see what happens when you sue people acting condescending on twitter.
Click to expand...



Would that extend to aliases on message boards?
 
Stoked said:
I can see the precedent you are talking about BTP. But I hope he loses. They were classless and foolish to mock him but isn't that freedom of speech? I don't like the weakening of it that I see this doing
Click to expand...

This is a case of possible defamation and discrimination. While I also agree that freedom of speech is a freedom we've done a ****ty job of upholding, this however, is not a violation of the accused trio's freedom of speech (although the defense will likely try to argue that if this isn't settled out of court). Defaming someone is not a right, and neither is discrimination--for good reason.
 
Sexual Favors said:
This is a case of possible defamation and discrimination. While I also agree that freedom of speech is a freedom we've done a ****ty job of upholding, this however, is not a violation of the accused trio's freedom of speech (although the defense will likely try to argue that if this isn't settled out of court). Defaming someone is not a right, and neither is discrimination--for good reason.
Click to expand...

None of the accused denied him and benefits or services so it's not discrimination in the way you are implying. If this is passed it allows the way forward for any case where anyone says something you don't like. Very poor precedent. Very poor.
 
I agree that he probably can't sue them. But they're still dicks. I think Burke might have been really sorry. Shaq however is a grown man. And a very rich man. And I wouldn't root against him getting some of that Shaq money, even though he probably doesn't have a case.
 
fallenchicken said:
I agree that he probably can't sue them. But they're still dicks. I think Burke might have been really sorry. Shaq however is a grown man. And a very rich man. And I wouldn't root against him getting some of that Shaq money, even though he probably doesn't have a case.
Click to expand...

Shaq has always been a major douche imo, a bully of sorts, who imo, ruined the Kobe-Shaq duo that could've perhaps gone on to win 4, 5, who knows, 6 in a row.
 
Sexual Favors said:
This is a case of possible defamation and discrimination. While I also agree that freedom of speech is a freedom we've done a ****ty job of upholding, this however, is not a violation of the accused trio's freedom of speech (although the defense will likely try to argue that if this isn't settled out of court). Defaming someone is not a right, and neither is discrimination--for good reason.
Click to expand...

I'm no lawyer but I don't remotely see how this is defamation or discrimination.
 
Hell get some charity "stop whining" money, just because the dudes will feel bad and ish.
 
Breaking news...

The Jim Henson Company, creator/owner of the Muppets franchise, has a team of investigators/attorneys reviewing old Jazzfanz.com posts with the intent of handing down defamation lawsuits against posters that have mocked or ridiculed company frontman Kermit the Frog with embarassing comparisons to Ty Corbin.

EVERYONE BEWARE!!!
 
akirac73 said:
Breaking news...

The Jim Henson Company, creator/owner of the Muppets franchise, has a team of investigators/attorneys reviewing old Jazzfanz.com posts with the intent of handing down defamation lawsuits against posters that have mocked or ridiculed company frontman Kermit the Frog with embarassing comparisons to Ty Corbin.

EVERYONE BEWARE!!!
Click to expand...
Lol
Well done
 
Stoked said:
None of the accused denied him and benefits or services so it's not discrimination in the way you are implying. If this is passed it allows the way forward for any case where anyone says something you don't like. Very poor precedent. Very poor.
Click to expand...

First of all, if what gets passed? Binnion isn't seeking a new law, he is acting on current ones that he believes have been violated. Again, what were you thinking when you said "If this is passed it allows the way forward for any case where anyone says something you don't like(?)"Even if this was a proposition for a new law (which it isn't), the ramifications would not be what your are projecting. This is specific, covering discrimination/defamation (the latter is already illegal, and the first is under certain circumstances). No new and scary precedent is being set.

Meriam Webster:
": the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination

In terms of the EEOC's circumstances, the discrimination that occurred is unprotected, but only because it didn't happen at, or in connection to Binnion's place of business. Otherwise, it would likely be protected under the discrimination and harassment clauses.
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/disability.cfm

Racism can be racism without being illegal, as can discrimination. Coupling the unpleasantness of discrimination (even if only out of negligence) with the real chance that this was defamation, and something could be made of Binnion's suit.

Defamation:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

QuinSnydersHair said:
I'm no lawyer but I don't remotely see how this is defamation or discrimination.
Click to expand...

See link above. This could very esily be defamation. Linguistically, it is discrimination. Legally, it misses being discrimination by where and who, not what.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top