Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

PS Crystillize if you had any actual experience with the law rather than Internet armchair surfing, you would know that Twitter is no different than TV when you're sitting in front of a judge defending your case.

If she's making money off her Twitter posts -- and it appears she was and still is -- she better be ready to pony up if the people she's using to generate that money ask for their fair share of it. In this case, she's received national attention and will probably spin it into a profitable book or something. Not so for the victims. If these guys don't sue it's more likely because it's just not their style. But if the tables were turned, and they photographed her with libelous remarks attached, I'll bet you lunch that she'd sue them. They have a case if they want it. And by the way, they claim she did libel them. The forking part of the conversation had no sexual connotation; and she has yet to provide anything resembling a direct quote except for the expression "big dongle." Which is pretty funny and fairly harmless, frankly. She spiced it up with the "forking" thing because she's a tabloid journalist. And after this no serious publication would hire her as a journalist, because she doesn't fact check. "Hey guys, I'm about to tell 10,000 subscribers your "forking" joke. Can you say it again so I can actually hear it?" That is how professional journalists behave, because they have a spine.



view as:

Legal | privacy