Re: Coming out

On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 03:04:17 -0400, "Chris Taylor Jr"
<> wrote:

>Here is your ultimatum and I HAVE done this before. if any of this crap
>appears on another newsgroup I will aggressively report you to your ISP and
>possibly bring up a slander lawsuit against you ass. Our family has a full
>time pre paid lawyer on a yearly basis (for his buisness) so it would cost
>me nothing to sue your ass into oblivion.


Chris,
I have a question.... will you sue me because you don't want
people to know that you're a 360 pound morbidly obese kid who
expresses a keen interest in crossdressing by posting intensively on
alt.support.crossdressing or will you sue me because you are a
morbidly obese netkook cum netcop who has a firm belief in not
crossposting?

Please write back soon because my lawyer, Clarence Darrow , wants to
know OK.

You can just respond back to the crossdressing newsgroup where you
usually post OK?

'Ta...

Diane

Diane <> wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 03:04:17 -0400, "Chris Taylor Jr"
><> wrote:
>>Here is your ultimatum and I HAVE done this before. if any of this crap
>>appears on another newsgroup I will aggressively report you to your ISP and
>>possibly bring up a slander lawsuit against you ass. Our family has a full
>>time pre paid lawyer on a yearly basis (for his buisness) so it would cost
>>me nothing to sue your ass into oblivion.
>Chris,
> I have a question.... will you sue me because you don't want
>people to know that you're a 360 pound morbidly obese kid who
>expresses a keen interest in crossdressing by posting intensively on
>alt.support.crossdressing or will you sue me because you are a
>morbidly obese netkook cum netcop who has a firm belief in not
>crossposting?
>Please write back soon because my lawyer, Clarence Darrow , wants to
>know OK.
>You can just respond back to the crossdressing newsgroup where you
>usually post OK?
>'Ta...

Seems to have an obsession about your ass, doesn't he?

The suit would be based on slander/stalking.

you are taking actions specifically with the intent of causing someone
harm(although the reaction from rmr was far less than she hoped it seems)
took the air out of her bubble.

this IS illegal and it is NOT protected under free speech.

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/


"Oldbie" <> wrote in message
news:be06na$cn5$...
> Diane <> wrote:
> >On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 03:04:17 -0400, "Chris Taylor Jr"
> ><> wrote:
> >>Here is your ultimatum and I HAVE done this before. if any of this crap
> >>appears on another newsgroup I will aggressively report you to your ISP
and
> >>possibly bring up a slander lawsuit against you ass. Our family has a
full
> >>time pre paid lawyer on a yearly basis (for his buisness) so it would
cost
> >>me nothing to sue your ass into oblivion.
> >Chris,
> > I have a question.... will you sue me because you don't want
> >people to know that you're a 360 pound morbidly obese kid who
> >expresses a keen interest in crossdressing by posting intensively on
> >alt.support.crossdressing or will you sue me because you are a
> >morbidly obese netkook cum netcop who has a firm belief in not
> >crossposting?
> >Please write back soon because my lawyer, Clarence Darrow , wants to
> >know OK.
> >You can just respond back to the crossdressing newsgroup where you
> >usually post OK?
> >'Ta...
>
> Seems to have an obsession about your ass, doesn't he?
>
>

On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 05:49:25 -0400, "Chris Taylor Jr"
<> ran around screaming and yelling:

>The suit would be based on slander/stalking.
>
>you are taking actions specifically with the intent of causing someone
>harm(although the reaction from rmr was far less than she hoped it seems)
>took the air out of her bubble.
>
>this IS illegal and it is NOT protected under free speech.
when you "air out your dirty laundry" on a worldwide web, you run the
risk of people reposting it. Not illegal at all. From what i read, she
has not stated anything that you didn't originally post. case
dismissed
Joey

Technically I believe that would even come under the DMCA

she took my content (copyrighted) and reposted it to another forum other
than where it originated.

that is also technically illegal.

this is also not the world wide web. it is subscription based. you have to
subscribe/directly seek it to find it. its not a public web site.

either way it is just as illegal as taking content from a webpage and
posting it elsewhere without permission.

not only that but I specifically denied her permission to repost my content
elsewhere.

Case not so dismissed.

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/

"Joey Tribiani" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 05:49:25 -0400, "Chris Taylor Jr"
> <> ran around screaming and yelling:
>
> >The suit would be based on slander/stalking.
> >
> >you are taking actions specifically with the intent of causing someone
> >harm(although the reaction from rmr was far less than she hoped it seems)
> >took the air out of her bubble.
> >
> >this IS illegal and it is NOT protected under free speech.
> when you "air out your dirty laundry" on a worldwide web, you run the
> risk of people reposting it. Not illegal at all. From what i read, she
> has not stated anything that you didn't originally post. case
> dismissed
> Joey

On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 06:40:52 -0400, "Chris Taylor Jr"
<> ran around screaming and yelling:

>that is also technically illegal.
"technically illegal"? Sue away buddy, it is america, ya know. You can
sue anyone. that don't mean you will win, or you will accomplish
anything, but have at it.

>this is also not the world wide web. it is subscription based. you have to
>subscribe/directly seek it to find it. its not a public web site.
um...you have to directly seek out the web or internet also. duh.. and
you are right, it is not a public website. they are public newsgroups.
anyone can go to google, never subscribe to *anything* and read it
all..case dismissed.
Joey

Irrelevant. you keep saying the case is based on access its not.

it based on breaking the law.

reposting copyrighted material without permission is illegal.

on the internet it can get "grey" although the intent was quite clear.

I specifically forbade it making it no longer grey at all.

she or he broke the law.

Second the actions was intended to cause harm. this is also illegal.

you can spin it all you want the facts are the facts.

I will not be pushed around by some pathetic excuse for a troll. Diane has
no chance of victory. I have magnitude more patience and stubborness than he
or she does. She has also crossed line to the point where my ego and honor
will not allow me to let her win.

TO let her win would be to announce others like her to take their shots at
people.

this can not be aloud to occur.

I will fight her until she gives or gets bored and goes away. no other
outcome is acceptable.

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/

"Joey Tribiani" <> wrote in message
news...
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 06:40:52 -0400, "Chris Taylor Jr"
> <> ran around screaming and yelling:
>
> >that is also technically illegal.
> "technically illegal"? Sue away buddy, it is america, ya know. You can
> sue anyone. that don't mean you will win, or you will accomplish
> anything, but have at it.
>
> >this is also not the world wide web. it is subscription based. you have
to
> >subscribe/directly seek it to find it. its not a public web site.
> um...you have to directly seek out the web or internet also. duh.. and
> you are right, it is not a public website. they are public newsgroups.
> anyone can go to google, never subscribe to *anything* and read it
> all..case dismissed.
> Joey

sorry forgot this one.


"Chris Taylor Jr" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Irrelevant. you keep saying the case is based on access its not.
>
> it based on breaking the law.
>
> reposting copyrighted material without permission is illegal.
>

On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 08:29:22 -0400, "Chris Taylor Jr"
<> ran around screaming and yelling:

>no chance of victory. I have magnitude more patience and stubborness than he
>or she does. She has also crossed line to the point where my ego and honor
>will not allow me to let her win.
LOL...a big ass crossdressing punk with a bruised ego.....this is too
funny(btw is it illegal to quote your post, due to copywrite issues??
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL)
Joey

Off topic in any of these groups but what the heck...


On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 02:29:42 GMT, (Oldbie) wrote:

>"Chris Taylor Jr" <> wrote:
>>this IS illegal and it is NOT protected under free speech.
>
>How's it work outside the USA?

Well, that's actually a lot tougher question than you might think...

Just about anywhere you go you're going to get tagged for yelling "Fire" when
there isn't one. Similarly you are crossing the line when you lie about the
important stuff; you don't get to tell a courtroom someone did it when you
know they didn't. There is pretty much a world wide consensus on outright
dishonesty and public mischief. You are expected to tell the truth when the
truth matters and you are under onus not to cause panic for no good reason.

From there, it gets pretty gray-ish...

In the USA, racist commentary is pretty much safe ground for bigots but here
in Canada it can get you tagged up to $15,000 or if you are organizing racist
groups you could spend up to 5 years in jail. Ernst Zundel found that out the
hard way <G>.

In the US you can debate the religious issue all you want, in some mid-eastern
countries it could get you beheaded

Put up a sign in your store that says "We reserve the right to refuse service
to anyone" in the US and you are within your rights. Do that in Canada and
you might well find yourself answering to the human rights commission;
especially if "anyone" translates to a recognizable class of people.

The internet is complicating it even further. In the USA many things are
permitted that would be considered harassment or defamation in other
countries. One example is www.trannytrolls.us a website set up specifically
to incite hatred against, well, me <G>... In the US it is considered personal
opinion and is protected under freedom of speech, in Canada the author (Diane
Lask, aka Arons) would find herself charged with defamation and harassment. I
would actually have two avenues of prosecution were that website Canada based;
I could go to any justice of the peace and charge Lask with harassment under
Canada's criminal code, for which she could go to jail, and I could use civil
litigation to exact restitution for the defaming effect it has and I would
likely win on both counts. But, because both she and the server she's using
are in the US, there is literally nothing I can do about it. All she has to
do, in the US, is prove there is one factual statement on that website and the
whole thing would be dismissed. In Canada, I would only need to show the
website has a harming effect on my life to win the case.

From outside the US, living in far more reasonable place as I do, the American
version of freedom often looks a lot more like the right to harm others than
the foundation of an egalitarian society in which all have the opportunity to
live without suffering undue oppression. I constantly see Yanks pulling
stunts that, in other countries, would get them fined and/or jailed and they
do it little or no fear of legal reprisals.

One recent example, and the one you're probably responding to, is the business
of wilfully "Outing" one of the people who came to this newsgroup
(alt.support.crossdressing) for a little help and companionship. It's being
done by someone who's been causing trouble here for years. Lask is a major
head case, a transsexual who hates transgendered people... she's been openly
pulling this kind of crap for more than 5 years and is getting more ambitious
about it with every passing week. Her most recent victim was warned, by
several regulars on this group, not to play the troll's game with her but went
ahead and did it anyway. His justification for the trouble he's now in was
that using kill files and ignoring a troublemaker actually violated the
troll's freedom of speech. In fact, he brought the whole mess down on
himself... an act of pure self-sabotage not uncommon in the transcommunity.
In the US, since the "outing" is a statement of fact it is protected under
freedom of speech. In Canada, however, this falls into a legal gray area
where it is likely that even though the basic statement is factual a defaming
effect can be proven, harm has been done, and it is likely civil action could
be taken to gain.

That is one case I'd like to see... it's about time there was some legal
clarity brought the question of who controls personal information...

Should we have the right to speak or display harmful or embarrassing
information about others? Should we have the right to engage in the inciting
of hatred? Should freedom of speech extend to those things which can and do
cause embarrassment or distress to others?

There is no question that with a little "spin" *anything* can be painted up in
such a way as to embarrass or defame an individual, the question is whether we
should be allowed to willfully use that "spin" for the purpose of causing
harm...

In present-day USA the answer is "Yes" and it is generally considered that
silencing the expression of opinion violates a person's constitutional right
to have those opinions. In Canada (and many other countries) a differing
version of freedom is taken where it is believed that certain limitations on
freedom of expression are reasonable in the interests of not having
individuals or groups of individuals, suffering oppression simply because
public opinion does not famous their lifestyles or birthright. Almost every
person on Earth has something they don't want to be common knowledge and we
all dread the day it comes out. Writing laws that recognize a person's right
to privacy and freedom from harassment is a difficult balancing act, a good
government will allow for diversity while at the same time imposing
(hopefully) reasonable limitations on everyone's freedom in order to protect
members of that diversity from ghetoization or outright oppression. Seeking a
balance of freedom, instead of granting absolute freedom.

One good example of the difference between countries can be seen in the way
Canada has dealt with racist groups. In the US the KKK has websites online
and holds white power rallies, often with police protection. In Canada the
Heritage Front found themselves lined up in courtrooms simply because of an
anti-semetic message on their answering machine. Comparing the way our
respective countries deal with this raises a really interesting question:
would racial minority members be more free in the US if they actively rounded
up all the hate mongers... or... would that be an imposition on the hate
monger's constitutional rights? Where does freedom of speech reasonably end?

My answer is that it most reasonably ends when others are being opposed
because of things beyond their own control. For example, on the basis of skin
colour, we don't choose it and we shouldn't suffer because of it. When your
abuses of the right to free expression poses a threat on my right to
participate in society as a free and equal partner you should be brought to
task for it. In my personal case, I've been politically active on issues of
Transphobia (like "homophobia" except leveled on transgendered people).
Should I have to suffer losses of personal freedom simply because some people
find themselves uncomfortable in my presence? Do they have the right to
vocally oppose me in ways that can and do impact on my ability to participate
in society as an equal and autonomous partner? Tough questions...

Canada has human rights commissions in each province that oversee this very
kind of thing and as far as I can tell it's working pretty well. We don't
have "ghettos" here, people of differing races, religions, and lifestyles all
freely mix together, interracial and interfaith friendships and marriages are
not uncommon here... despite the US claims of being the freest country in the
world, people in Canada are actually more free to live their lives than in the
US... because, for the most part the law protects diversity here; we are an
officially multicultural country. Canadians do not have to fear organized
opposition to the inate diversity that is our right as human beings and when
it does happen we have legal remedies we can undertake to stop it from
happening again. On balance, I think this a far more liveable definition of
freedom than the one upheld by US courts.

Wrong though it may be, there is some foundation in the way many people feel
about the US. Americans appear to outsiders like hypocrites attempting to
impose their version of freedom on others while failing to protect the
freedoms of the people living within their own borders.

So, to finally answer your question... it works very differently outside the
US... most countries do recognize that some limits on individual freedom must
be enforced in order to protect the communal interests of the larger society
within that country. Ok, so a few governments do get carried away and there
is a risk of totalitarianism if the balance of freedom is not protected but
for the most part it does work. (Key point: I am not talking about "freedom"
as an individual absolute, I really do mean the "balance of freedom" within a
society)

Within a couple of hundred feet of where I sit I have neighbours from Germany,
England, India, Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Jamaica and Serbia. Just about every
race is represented, there are, blacks, semitics, asians, and caucasians.
Religions too, there are Jews, Christians, Hindus and Muslims all living on my
floor. We've even got a gay couple two Trans people (including me <G>) on
three different floors... AND, the important information is that we all get
along well enough.

I sometimes wonder if this building would still be standing if it was in the
US...


---

Laura