NationStates Jolt Archive

link (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061011-7958.html)

For those of you too lazy to read, this is the gist of it.

Vice Principal punishes students. Students start a myspace page impersonating her and having "her" admit to being a lesbian. Vice Principal sues both the kids AND THE PARENTS for alleged "Neglectful Supervision" on the parent's part.

What's your opinion on this?

I personally think the VP needs to thicken her skin and not flip out over something as small as this. Besides, it's actually advantageous. If she ever doesn't get a job, and discovers her employer checked myspace, she can cry "discrimination on basis of sexual orientation!!!11!!ONE!!!". Not to mention suing over this brings it to national attention. If you check over on Slashdot, a guy hunted down the school's Phone #, with an encouragment to leave a harrassing message.

It's libel, and so she has a right to sue.

It's libel, and so she has a right to sue.

I concur. She has the right. That doesn't mean she should, though.

So if the VP wins, the parents are basically going to have to pay two compensations, one for their child and one for themselves?

I concur. She has the right. That doesn't mean she should, though.
Well, I can't see the action against the parents succeeding - I'm not sure it would be so much the 'floodgates of litigation' as the 'Return of Noah's Ark' if the court decided to hold them responsible for the actions of the kids. But, as for the kids themselves; if the woman has been misrepresented, I see no problem with them being made to repay her somehow.

I was more curious about people's reaction to the fact that she also sued the parents. I'm not saying what the kids did WASN'T libel. But there is no evidence the parents even knew about this. Of course, one of the arguments made over on slashdot is the fact that they are suing the parents for failing to supervise their children. So wouldn't it be funny if they did it at school? What're they going to do, sue both the teens and themselves?

Wonderful :D Teachers' rights have been infringed far, far too much in the name of protecting oh so fragile children who can't possibly do anything wrong in their parents eyes... this is the perfect medicine those children need, a long delayed agony of punishment from their parents.;) Libel here they come :D It's the best education in the legal system they can hope to get, work experience is even thrown in. :p

As for the legal actions against the parents; I can't see them succeeding nor do I believe the VP thought they would, it's possibly just an attempt to illustrate the point that children require more monitoring to parents. :)

It depends really on whether the site was clearly a joke, satirical and sarcastic, or whether they actually tried to make it look like she was making those statements

Personally, I would just punish the kids more and let it go.

Well, I can't see the action against the parents succeeding - I'm not sure it would be so much the 'floodgates of litigation' as the 'Return of Noah's Ark' if the court decided to hold them responsible for the actions of the kids. But, as for the kids themselves; if the woman has been misrepresented, I see no problem with them being made to repay her somehow.

Actually, for deliberate harm, parents can be sued for the actions of their minor children. It's all perfectly legal and well established.

They defamed her in text, therefore they commited libel. Moreover, in certain jurisdictions, being gay is considered "sexual impropriety" and qualifies as defamation "per se" which negates the need to prove damages.

Actually, for deliberate harm, parents can be sued for the actions of their minor children. It's all perfectly legal and well established.
There are many reasons why I hope this country doesn't go as litigation mad as the US. And I say that knowing it will one day be my business. :p

link (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061011-7958.html)

For those of you too lazy to read, this is the gist of it.

Vice Principal punishes students. Students start a myspace page impersonating her and having "her" admit to being a lesbian. Vice Principal sues both the kids AND THE PARENTS for alleged "Neglectful Supervision" on the parent's part.

What's your opinion on this?

I personally think the VP needs to thicken her skin and not flip out over something as small as this. Besides, it's actually advantageous. If she ever doesn't get a job, and discovers her employer checked myspace, she can cry "discrimination on basis of sexual orientation!!!11!!ONE!!!". Not to mention suing over this brings it to national attention. If you check over on Slashdot, a guy hunted down the school's Phone #, with an encouragment to leave a harrassing message.

I'd sue em. Becuse it looks bad from a buisness stance. With people like that officer having dismembered women on his MySpace you don't know what is fake and what is not these days. What if a future employer saw this? Even then you have a damaged first impression. And what if it is lesbianism now and dismembered men next?

You dont have to sue for money. But you can sue to have it removed.

It's libel, and so she has a right to sue.

In order to win a libel case you have to show financial damage.

In order to win a libel case you have to show financial damage.

not if it's defamation per se, which in some jurisdictions, being called gay still is. And considering this was in TEXAS, if any place still has that.....

In order to win a libel case you have to show financial damage.
When it is considered to be a defamation that can affect a professional reputation, it is actionable per se.

When it is considered to be a defamation that can affect a professional reputation, it is actionable per se.

Actually that's another way of thinking about it, you can argue either that it's injurous to their profession or it "sexual immorality" since some jurisdictions still hold (and if anywhere in this country does, texas does) that being called gay falls under the catagory of sexual immorality.

They should either get fined 30% of their parents' income or have the option of being held back for one year. That'll teach them a lesson. :)

I think the kids are learning a valuable lesson here about America and how to deal with problems.

They should either get fined 30% of their parents' income or have the option of being held back for one year. That'll teach them a lesson. :)

I would rather we apply the standard of libel developed through statutory and hundreds of years of common law tradition as opposed to handing you the reigns of the civil justice system, personally.

Actually that's another way of thinking about it, you can argue either that it's injurous to their profession or it "sexual immorality" since some jurisdictions still hold (and if anywhere in this country does, texas does) that being called gay falls under the catagory of sexual immorality.
Personally, I wouldn't even focus on the specifics of whether it was 'sexual immorality'; I think that the intent is sufficient here to win any case. It was clearly an attempt to damage her reputation, and, as such, is liable for the payment of compensation.

They should either get fined 30% of their parents' income or have the option of being held back for one year. That'll teach them a lesson. :)

If they were held back a year would that mean she would be teaching them again? If that was an option she'd never take it.

Completely ridiculous. It's unfortunate that so many people in this country are resorting to lawsuits and such to solve their problems rather than growing a pair and solving it themselves.

This is why I can't take our legal system seriously. Child molesters are walking around free, but we seem to have plenty of time to listen to people bitch about the mean thing somebody said about them.

Sueing the parents for "neglect" is a bit far-fetched in my opinion, but sueing altogether would be reasonable in this case.

Remember, every kid in the school will hear about the myspace page, and teachers have a hard enough time already without misguided pupils spreading this kind of "information".

The kids should be reprimanded for impersonating the teacher, apologize, and take down the site. At least... some disciplinary action wouldn't be strange either.

And besides, what way to "get back" is this? spreading bad rumours about someone? I know it happens quite a lot within any school's corridors, but taking it out on the world by faking someone's ID on the internet? That's just a few miles out of my book... (not to mention most legal books, Identity Fraud anyone?)

If a teacher punishes you, you probably deserved it. If you didn't, there's an official path to voice your anger. This is just plain childish.

As for the "She can use it for her own advantage if she's rejected for a job":
Utter Nonsense (I was thinking more extroverted words by the way). Spreading lies about someone is never advantageous to that person. Ever.
Even if she would agree with you, the damage to reputation would still outweigh what little fun you could get from sueing the company...

The fact that being lesbian can be considered as "damaging to reputation" is a different point altogether. reputation damage implies that it's bad to be a lesbian.
Is it? Not in my book, if you want to swing that way, that's your own decision, as long as you respect my decision to swing my own way.

Personally, I wouldn't even focus on the specifics of whether it was 'sexual immorality'; I think that the intent is sufficient here to win any case. It was clearly an attempt to damage her reputation, and, as such, is liable for the payment of compensation.

The problem with that is then you'd have to prove that being gay is de facto injurous to her occupation as a teacher, so you'd have to show that basically her profession is damaged by being "outted".

Basically for her to win on that per se catagory she'd have to get the texas school board to admit that they discriminate against gays...good luck with that.

If the state common law has held that being called gay is per se defamation, based on sexual immorality, it's an easy win, and you always go for the easy win first.

Completely ridiculous. It's unfortunate that so many people in this country are resorting to lawsuits and such to solve their problems rather than growing a pair and solving it themselves.


And precisely how do you suggest she do that? buy myspace and take the page down? Nonsense, this is EXACTLY why the legal system recognizes defamation in the first place, they absolutely deserve to get sued.

And yes, pretending to be someone else may also open up some criminal fraud problems as well.

I would rather we apply the standard of libel developed through statutory and hundreds of years of common law tradition as opposed to handing you the reigns of the civil justice system, personally.

Unfortunately, our laws are not as flexible as they should be. We should aim to prevent people from posting disgusting slander, not cater to those who do.

The problem with that is then you'd have to prove that being gay is de facto injurous to her occupation as a teacher, so you'd have to show that basically her profession is damaged by being "outted".

Basically for her to win on that per se catagory she'd have to get the texas school board to admit that they discriminate against gays...good luck with that.

If the state common law has held that being called gay is per se defamation, based on sexual immorality, it's an easy win, and you always go for the easy win first.
That might be the easy win in Texas, but it wouldn't be where I am. :p

I don't think there is any need to prove that the school discriminates against gays; only that being called gay was a) intended to be slanderous and b) being called that could be damaging to her reputation.

This second point doesn't mean it is damaging in the sense that she would get fired; it would be enough to show that it would damaging to her relationship with those she represents, such as parents. If being called gay at that place and time will impact on the respect she gets, then there is a definate case to argue.

Unfortunately, our laws are not as flexible as they should be. We should aim to prevent people from posting disgusting slander, not cater to those who do.

They should be ordered to pay restitution based on the damage their action has caused, not by some ludicrusly arbitrary nonsense such as 30% of her salary.

It's only really damaging if someone who the teacher's employment (present or future) depends upon, both reads it and believes it.

Hence my point about was it obviously sarcastic and jokeing, or was it a genuine attempt to convince people?

That might be the easy win in Texas, but it wouldn't be where I am. :p

I don't think there is any need to prove that the school discriminates against gays; only that being called gay was a) intended to be slanderous and b) being called that could be damaging to her reputation.

This second point doesn't mean it is damaging in the sense that she would get fired; it would be enough to show that it would damaging to her relationship with those she represents, such as parents. If being called gay at that place and time will impact on the respect she gets, then there is a definate case to argue.

interesting, so you're saying you could argue that being called gay would be "injurious to her profession" by damaging her relationships with students and parents, which is necessary to be a good teacher? Yeah...i can see that argument

And precisely how do you suggest she do that? buy myspace and take the page down? Nonsense, this is EXACTLY why the legal system recognizes defamation in the first place, they absolutely deserve to get sued.

And yes, pretending to be someone else may also open up some criminal fraud problems as well.


I don't know, confront the offending children? Punish them through the school? This is not worthy of being heard in a court of law.

Besides, it's Myspace. It's a website used primarily by teenage attention whores, not vice principals. Do you honestly believe anyone who saw that page took it seriously?

It's only really damaging if someone who the teacher's employment (present or future) depends upon, both reads it and believes it.

Hence my point about was it obviously sarcastic and jokeing, or was it a genuine attempt to convince people?

It doesn't matter. Defamation is by definition communication that may harm an individual's reputation or character. It does not matter one god damned bit whether they intended to or not, as long as it was of such a communication that may harm her reputation.

Likewise if it falls into one of the four per se catagories (and there have been arguments made on this thread that it potentially falls into at least 2) then there is no need to plead and prove specific damages.

It depends on how it was presented. If it was labeled with "Fake", or obviously fake, it is parody, and therefore protected speach.

I don't know, confront the offending children? Punish them through the school? This is not worthy of being heard in a court of law.

And when you confront them and they do nothing? And how exactly is the school supposed to punish children for something done outside of school property, outside school activities?

This is exactly what defamation suits are for.

It's libel, and so she has a right to sue.

Agreed.

I was more curious about people's reaction to the fact that she also sued the parents.
In civil law, when you sue, you sue EVERYONE you can think of. That's standard operating procedure. Since you aren't likely to squeeze any damages out of the kids themselves, the idea is that she might be able to get some out of the parents.

Maybe kids should be forced to get liability insurance:D

They should be ordered to pay restitution based on the damage their action has caused, not by some ludicrusly arbitrary nonsense such as 30% of her salary.

Yeah, but then the poor people wouldn't be able to afford it, and the rich would get off scot-free. I prefer a more equal punishment whose object is to stop any repeat offenders and deter such crimes. After a while, punishments such as these will not be necessary because everybody has learned their lesson.

Alternatively, I think we should re-introduce punishments involving public humiliation. Perhaps the libelous bastards should be forced to wear a dunce cap for a month, as well as pink, "gay," clothes.

It depends on how it was presented. If it was labeled with "Fake", or obviously fake, it is parody, and therefore protected speach.

Not true in the slightest. The parody standard is considerably higher than just that. That only works if she were a PUBLIC figure, she is not.

Given that she is neither a public figure, nor is it a case of media which makes the standard higher (see New York Times v. Sullivan), this is simply one group of private individuals defaming another private individual. Additionally since this was not a sort of parody that is so obviously untrue that no reasonable person would believe it to be untrue (see hustler magazine v. Falwell) a parody defense won't work.

There are many reasons why I hope this country doesn't go as litigation mad as the US. And I say that knowing it will one day be my business. :p

What leads you to believe we aren't as 'litigation mad'?

Well, I can't see the action against the parents succeeding - I'm not sure it would be so much the 'floodgates of litigation' as the 'Return of Noah's Ark' if the court decided to hold them responsible for the actions of the kids. But, as for the kids themselves; if the woman has been misrepresented, I see no problem with them being made to repay her somehow.

if the children are under 18, they are the responsibility of their parents. thus any damage, lawsuite or whatnot will be borne by the parents.

Parents should be aware of their children's on line activities. I think, while it does curb the child's enthusiasm, it can also be a layer of protection against on line preditors.

Not true in the slightest. The parody standard is considerably higher than just that. That only works if she were a PUBLIC figure, she is not.

Given that she is neither a public figure, nor is it a case of media which makes the standard higher (see New York Times v. Sullivan), this is simply one group of private individuals defaming another private individual. A parody defense won't work.

Erm.. What makes one a public figure? Holding a Public job payed for by the government would fit my definition.

Frankly, if it were labeled as fake, she has no reason to sue, since it doesn't harm her in any way.

Oh teh noeses! It hurt her feelings!!! :rolleyes:

If, of course, it was meant to appear real, it was real harm.

And when you confront them and they do nothing? And how exactly is the school supposed to punish children for something done outside of school property, outside school activities?

This is exactly what defamation suits are for.


No, it isn't. Don't get me wrong, defamation suits have their place, such as when an individual is being blatantly slandered by a media source with some repute. But Myspace has no repute. What this situation amounts to is juvenile name-calling, equivalent to drawing an unflattering picture of a teacher and making them say "I smell."

What leads you to believe we aren't as 'litigation mad'?
We're not, as much as the 'no-win-no-fee' adverts suggest otherwise.

In this country, judges are able to rule against the claimant, even when they prove their case, on public policy grounds. I think this would fall into that category; the courts just couldn't cope if parents were suddenly financially accountable for all their children's actions. There is, of course, also the argument that it is unjust to force one person to pay compensation on behalf of the actions of an independent individual.

Yeah, but then the poor people wouldn't be able to afford it, and the rich would get off scot-free. I prefer a more equal punishment whose object is to stop any repeat offenders and deter such crimes. After a while, punishments such as these will not be necessary because everybody has learned their lesson.

What the hell do you mean scott free? The principle of tort litigation is you pay for that which you have harmed. If you caused someone a million dollars worth of damages, you owe them a million dollars. To make someone pay more just because they have more will fundamentally gut the principles of tort litigation which is, to put it simply "you pay for what you break".


Alternatively, I think we should re-introduce punishments involving public humiliation. Perhaps the libelous bastards should be forced to wear a dunce cap for a month, as well as pink, "gay," clothes.

oh you pesky constitution....

No, it isn't. Don't get me wrong, defamation suits have their place, such as when an individual is being blatantly slandered by a media source with some repute. But Myspace has no repute. What this situation amounts to is juvenile name-calling, equivalent to drawing an unflattering picture of a teacher and making them say "I smell."
There is no legal test of 'repute' included in the tort of defamation or libel, as far as I've seen...

No, it isn't. Don't get me wrong, defamation suits have their place, such as when an individual is being blatantly slandered by a media source with some repute. But Myspace has no repute. What this situation amounts to is juvenile name-calling, equivalent to drawing an unflattering picture of a teacher and making them say "I smell."

you realize it's actually much, much, MUCH harder to win a defamation suit against the media than it is against a private individual, right? It doesn't matter what "repute" the system has, if it causes damage then the defamed individual is allowed to recover the amount she was damaged by.

We're not, as much as the 'no-win-no-fee' adverts suggest otherwise.

In this country, judges are able to rule against the claimant, even when they prove their case, on public policy grounds.
And they can't in the US? That doesn't seem to be true looking at US cases...?

There is no legal test of 'repute' included in the tort of defamation or libel, as far as I've seen...

minor correction. Libel is defamation. Slander is defamation. It is not correct to say "the tort of defamation or libel", libel is a FORM of defamation, as is slander.

If you can't take people hating you and making fun of you, Vice Principal isn't the job for you. In my experience, the VP has always been the enforcer who gets all the flak. You have to be tough for that job. If you're not, you should have a different job.

There is a right to sue there, since it is legally libel. I think the whole thing is a bit silly, though.

And they can't in the US? That doesn't seem to be true looking at US cases...?
No idea. I'm only starting to learn the UK system; I haven't much idea about the American. :p

It's a reasonable response on the part of the principal, in my opinion.

minor correction. Libel is defamation. Slander is defamation. It is not correct to say "the tort of defamation or libel", libel is a FORM of defamation, as is slander.

Danke...I suppose there was no need to say libel...I'm just getting used to using terms people are more familiar with when discussing torts so their eyes don't get all buggy :D

It's worth pointing out that this is merely a high-tech version of what children have been doing for ages. Plenty of kids talk about their teacher being on drugs or gay or a child molester or a communist or a sexual deviant or WHATEVER. They just don't post it on the 'net. These kids get a detention, then it's done with. So why is doing it on the internet worthy of a lawsuit?

It's a reasonable response on the part of the principal, in my opinion.

Vice Principal.

It's worth pointing out that this is merely a high-tech version of what children have been doing for ages. Plenty of kids talk about their teacher being on drugs or gay or a child molester or a communist or a sexual deviant or WHATEVER. They just don't post it on the 'net. These kids get a detention, then it's done with. So why is doing it on the internet worthy of a lawsuit?
It's their fault for making it so easy to prove. :)

Oh, and there is of course the serious fact that sniggering behind the bikesheds is hardly a defamation on the scale of making a public profile that is open for all and everyone to read.

There is no legal test of 'repute' included in the tort of defamation or libel, as far as I've seen...

I guess I'm not arguing from a legal perspective, but from a common sense perspective. If the New York Times printed a 2-page spread saying that you kidnapped orphans and held sacrificial rituals to honor John Stamos in all His Unholy Glory, then yeah, I think it would be a good idea to sue. But over some stupid grudge thing on Myspace? It hurt her feelings, not her reputation. Stoicism has all but disappeared in this country.

we have some public policy exceptions, but they generally work in the other directions. In other words you can find someone guilty for doing something contrary "to public policy" but rarely if ever a judge will admit someone is liable but avoid sentencing them because doing so would be counter to public good.

It is also worth noting that in the United States parents are rarely directly responsible for the tortious acts of their children. The only acception to that is if by the parent's actions they put the child in a position to commit that act. In other words, it's not your fault if your 12 year old kid steals your car and hits someone with it, but it is your fault if you gave him the keys

I guess I'm not arguing from a legal perspective, but from a common sense perspective. If the New York Times printed a 2-page spread saying that you kidnapped orphans and held sacrificial rituals to honor John Stamos in all His Unholy Glory, then yeah, I think it would be a good idea to sue. But over some stupid grudge thing on Myspace? It hurt her feelings, not her reputation. Stoicism has all but disappeared in this country.

In the 'good old days' I suppose the vice principal could have complained to the parents about the drawing on the blackboard and had the father apply the belt to their behinds...but that's not allowed anymore, so here we have an alternative to physical punishment.

I guess I'm not arguing from a legal perspective, but from a common sense perspective. If the New York Times printed a 2-page spread saying that you kidnapped orphans and held sacrificial rituals to honor John Stamos in all His Unholy Glory, then yeah, I think it would be a good idea to sue. But over some stupid grudge thing on Myspace? It hurt her feelings, not her reputation. Stoicism has all but disappeared in this country.

the problem is when you talk law you HAVE to argue from a legal perspective. and as I said, it is much, MUCH harder to win a suit against the media, ironically that was decided in a case against the New York Times itself, as you just mentioned (NY Times v. Sullivan is the case). It has to do with first amendment...without going into detail, let's just say it's nearly impossible to win a defamation suit against media.

It's worth pointing out that this is merely a high-tech version of what children have been doing for ages. Plenty of kids talk about their teacher being on drugs or gay or a child molester or a communist or a sexual deviant or WHATEVER. They just don't post it on the 'net. These kids get a detention, then it's done with. So why is doing it on the internet worthy of a lawsuit?

Precisely because it's been posted to the internet. It carries 'talk' to a much wider audience than a child's voice ever could. And it is defamation - and doing nothing would validate extraordinarily poor behaviour and poor judgement. That the child or children were able to do this online while ostensibly being supervised by their parents - or were able to do this while perhaps violating a trust between parent and child to not so abuse a privilege such as use of the Internet - clearly demonstrates the necessity for a strong legal response both to the child and the parents.

Or that's how I feel about it, anyway. I'm no lawyer - but I'll definitely side with the vice principal on this.

I imagine that the negligence suit will fail, but the defamation suit might make it...but the Vice Principal is going to get nothing out of this other than moral vindication. I can't see how the courts would possibly award damages...and even if they did, I can't see how it could be enforceable. I'm fairly certain the VP's scumbag lawyer :D would have made this clear to her.

I imagine that the negligence suit will fail, but the defamation suit might make it...but the Vice Principal is going to get nothing out of this other than moral vindication. I can't see how the courts would possibly award damages...and even if they did, I can't see how it could be enforceable. I'm fairly certain the VP's council would have made this clear to her.

*sigh*

defamation

per

se

With defamation per se you DO NOT NEED TO PROVE SPECIFIC DAMAGES. You can win monetary compensation if you prove that the defamatory act falls into one or more defamation per se catagories, and philsophy and I have argued ways to make it fit into at least two of them.

the problem is when you talk law you HAVE to argue from a legal perspective. and as I said, it is much, MUCH harder to win a suit against the media, ironically that was decided in a case against the New York Times itself, as you just mentioned (NY Times v. Sullivan is the case). It has to do with first amendment...without going into detail, let's just say it's nearly impossible to win a defamation suit against media.

To me, a suit like this has the legitimacy of suing a restaurant for serving hot coffee, or suing a store because you slipped on some ice nearby. Legally, yeah, you can sue. But why?

In resposne to Neesika's comment, why shouldn't the vice principal have alerted the parents? Is this woman so completely devoid of authority that she has to clog up the legal system with this bs? Schools are capable of dealing out some pretty harsh punishments, some of which I experienced in high school.

Parents are even worse. My family is a loving one, but the second I messed up while growing up they dealt with me swiftly and severely. This is a school and/or family matter, not a legal one.

*sigh*

defamation

per

se

With defamation per se you DO NOT NEED TO PROVE SPECIFIC DAMAGES. You can win monetary compensation if you prove that the defamatory act falls into one or more defamation per se catagories, and philsophy and I have argued ways to make it fit into at least two of them.
Don't sigh too hard...I understand this, but awarding damages or compensation, and actually GETTING damages or compensation are two different things. If the children themselves are held liable personally for this, what compensation could the courts actually award? I haven't seen a suit similar to this, so I'm just guessing...but the courts are unlikely to make it a huge amount, if anything at all. And even if they DO award compensation, it is unlikely the VP will collect on it...as happens so often in civil suits.

Edit: and I'm not purporting to be an expert...I haven't deal a lot with this kind of tort so far, which makes the conversation quite interesting.

To me, a suit like this has the legitimacy of suing a restaurant for serving hot coffee, or suing a store because you slipped on some ice nearby. Legally, yeah, you can sue. But why?


No you can't. You can sue a restaurant for negligently serving hot coffee which burned you, or negligently failing to clear ice which you slipped on, but you can not sue for simply serving hot coffee, or tripping on ice they had no legal obligation to clean up.

Well you can, but it'd be thrown out right quick.

This fits exactly into the standard of why lawsuits exist. They harmed her, she has the right ot seek restitution for that harm. Whether it was a dollar or a million dollar's worth of harm, it's the principle (hehe) of the thing, and is why we HAVE a civil justice system.

Don't sigh too hard...I understand this, but awarding damages or compensation, and actually GETTING damages or compensation are two different things. If the children themselves are held liable personally for this, what compensation could the courts actually award? I haven't seen a suit similar to this, so I'm just guessing...but the courts are unlikely to make it a huge amount, if anything at all. And even if they DO award compensation, it is unlikely the VP will collect on it...as happens so often in civil suits.

a court will likely apply the standard for that situation, based on common law and statutory precident. And if the children fail to pay, they will have liens placed on their salary for the rest of their lives until such time as it is paid off.

a court will likely apply the standard for that situation, based on common law and statutory precident. And if the children fail to pay, they will have liens placed on their salary for the rest of their lives until such time as it is paid off.

Do you have any cases handy where damages or compensation have been required of minor defendants? I'm interested now... (I've seen a lot of cases involving adult defendants and teachers or admin...but never just children)

No you can't. You can sue a restaurant for negligently serving hot coffee which burned you, or negligently failing to clear ice which you slipped on, but you can not sue for simply serving hot coffee, or tripping on ice they had no legal obligation to clean up.

Well you can, but it'd be thrown out right quick.

That's what I meant. Sorry for not clarifying.

Why in the world would anyone sue for burning yourself on hot coffee? If I spill coffee on myself, it's not the restaurant's fault for giving me hot coffee, it's my fault for spilling it. I do this more often than I'd like to admit in diners and such, so I guess you could say I have legal experience in the matter.

That's what I meant. Sorry for not clarifying.

Why in the world would anyone sue for burning yourself on hot coffee? If I spill coffee on myself, it's not the restaurant's fault for giving me hot coffee, it's my fault for spilling it. I do this more often than I'd like to admit in diners and such, so I guess you could say I have legal experience in the matter.

it would depend on how hot the coffee is. Now that sounds stupid but let me explain. We've all spilled shit on ourselves, right? Restaurants know you will spill shit on yourself right? Don't they have the obligation to not serve you something that will actually injure the person that ultimitly spills it on themself?

And if you're talking about the McDonald's coffee suit, I promise you there was a LOT more to that suit than you know, I have yet to meet a single person who knew the true facts of that case that didn't believe McDonald's was negligent.

Do you have any cases handy where damages or compensation have been required of minor defendants? I'm interested now... (I've seen a lot of cases involving adult defendants and teachers or admin...but never just children)

I will try to dig one up, but it's not at all uncommon. The only thing to note that children are held to the standards of...well...children. Your child is liable only if he deviates from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent...child. Not an adult. Children are only held to an adult standard if they are engaged in "adult like activities" such as driving a car etc.

it would depend on how hot the coffee is. Now that sounds stupid but let me explain. We've all spilled shit on ourselves, right? Restaurants know you will spill shit on yourself right? Don't they have the obligation to not serve you something that will actually injure the person that ultimitly spills it on themself?

And if you're talking about the McDonald's coffee suit, I promise you there was a LOT more to that suit than you know, I have yet to meet a single person who knew the true facts of that case that didn't believe McDonald's was negligent.

When I order coffee from a diner, there's a special little trust-bond going on between me and the waiter that the coffee will be hot. Oftentimes, at the greaseball diners I go to, I am let down, and the coffee is cold. But when it is hot, I'm happy. That's because coffee is meant to be hot, as are many other items of food. You serve me boiling hot coffee in a mug that shatter when I put my lips to it, yeah, I'll be a little pissed. But I barely want the friends I eat with to know that I've spilled, much less a court of law.

You seem reasonably intelligent, so I'm interested now: What more was there to that McDonald's coffee suit?

I will try to dig one up, but it's not at all uncommon. The only thing to note that children are held to the standards of...well...children. Your child is liable only if he deviates from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent...child. Not an adult. Children are only held to an adult standard if they are engaged in "adult like activities" such as driving a car etc.

Mmmm...well I guess I've come across cases where children have been found to have committed battery and so on...I suppose it's not unreasonable that they could also be found guilty of other torts...so are parents on the hook for the damages/compensation?

You seem reasonably intelligent, so I'm interested now: What more was there to that McDonald's coffee suit?

Most people think simply think she was driving, she spilled coffee, she sued, she won a ludicrus amount. That's not really true.

Here's what happened.

1) she was in the passenger seat, not the driver

2) the car was stationary

3) she suffered massive third degree burns (for those that don't know, third degree burns are severe deep tissue burns that will NOT heal on their own, and she required multiple skin grafts to her legs, abdomen, thighs, and groin)

4) her attorney originally requested only $10,000, an amount that would cover ONLY her hospital bills, and reasonable attorney's fees, no amount for pain and suffering was requested. McDonald's refused to meet with them.

5) during discovery two internal memos were revealed. The first was a study of focus groups that discovered that when their coffee was heated above normal temperatures that the oils in the coffee beans broke down and produced a stronger aroma. Customers liked that that strong aroma and McDonald's decided to serve their coffee at a hotter than normal temperature in order to induce customers to buy it and increase sales

6) the second memo was from an internal safety evaluation. This evaluation determined that the coffee being served at a temperature higher than normal in order to induce higher sales was being served at a dangerously high temperature, and at this temperature there was an extreme risk to the customer. This study concluded that inevitably serving the coffee this hot would inevitably cause someone injury.

What happened was basically...McDonalds CHOSE to serve coffee above normal temperature in order to induce more sales and it KNEW that the temperature they were serving it at was dangerous and could harm someone. They knew this, and didn't care. And when it DID hurt someone, they didn't even admit enough wrong doing to pay a miniscule amount to cover her bare medical costs.

so are parents on the hook for the damages/compensation?

ONLY if their own negligent acts put the children in that position.

ONLY if their own negligent acts put the children in that position.

Then the balance owing just sits there until the kid is able to start paying?

ONLY if their own negligent acts put the children in that position.

By the way, you provided a link before on the McDonald's case a while back, and thank you, because that case is ALWAYS brought up as an example of a frivolous lawsuit, and I've had some fun conversations when the facts were introduced :D

What's your opinion on this?


This is just plain ridiculous! I am amazed by what can happen in the USA and I am glad I don't live there! What's going to happen next? A teacher by the blackboard: "Who threw that eraser at me? I'm warning you! You'd better come up or I'm going to sue the whole class!" :rolleyes: Why bother teaching the kids what's right when you can sue them? I'm really amazed!

Why bother teaching the kids what's right when you can sue them? I'm really amazed!

well ya know, when the get hauled into court...they're probably gonna get the idea it was a stupid thing to do.

I think showing them the very real, and very unfortunate concequences of their actions is the BEST way to teach them what's right.

This is just plain ridiculous! I am amazed by what can happen in the USA and I am glad I don't live there! Can I ask where you do live? Out of curiosity...I want to know if your implied belief that this sort of civil suit doesn't happen in your country is true or not.

well ya know, when the get hauled into court...they're probably gonna get the idea it was a stupid thing to do.

I think showing them the very real, and very unfortunate concequences of their actions is the BEST way to teach them what's right.

Agreed.

In more serious cases, where violence is the issue, court has often been the ONLY thing that has stopped kids from continuing to beat up others. Not suspensions, not parental disapproval and monitoring, but the courts.

I don't know, confront the offending children? Punish them through the school? This is not worthy of being heard in a court of law.

Besides, it's Myspace. It's a website used primarily by teenage attention whores, not vice principals. Do you honestly believe anyone who saw that page took it seriously?

Yes. You may think "it is only Myspace" but there have been several articles lately about prospective employers and college enrollment personnel looking at the Myspace profiles and pages of candidates and turning them down for employment/enrollment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/us/11recruit.html?ei=5090&en=ddfbe1e3b386090b&ex=1307678400
http://www.collegerecruiter.com/weblog/archives/2006/03/facebook_and_my.php
http://www.spectator-online.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/02/01/43e13a5865fa4

Thus, there is precedent that this could be injurious to her reputation and her employability.

Yes. You may think it is only Myspace but there have been several articles lately about prospective employers and college enrollment personnel looking at the Myspace profiles and pages of candidates and turning them down for employment/enrollment.

Not to mention people getting fired for their MySpace or blogs. Not just denyed future employment. But possible current job termiation.

Yes. You may think it is only Myspace but there have been several articles lately about prospective employers and college enrollment personnel looking at the Myspace profiles and pages of candidates and turning them down for employment/enrollment.

Or blogs, or forums, or anywhere that someone overtly identifies who they are...all of this can colour people's views of you, and it is absolutely used by people preparing for interviews. It may not be policy, but I don't know anyone who doesn't run a few internet searches on people they are about to interview...

I don't see how a false Myspace persona would be different than a whole website devoted to a fake persona...it's still got the possibility of causing harm.

She has every right to sue. And stands a chance of winning money (one dollar I would guesstimate)

But I don't think she can win that dollar. It's kind of like the case of that TV evangelist (forgot his name) vs Larry Flint in which Flint's magazine satired the evangelest in a demeaning way. And the court ruled that since most people don't take satires seriously: Case dismissed! (2 words I believe the Vice Principal is going to hear in the near future)

link (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061011-7958.html)

For those of you too lazy to read, this is the gist of it.

Vice Principal punishes students. Students start a myspace page impersonating her and having "her" admit to being a lesbian. Vice Principal sues both the kids AND THE PARENTS for alleged "Neglectful Supervision" on the parent's part.

What's your opinion on this?

I personally think the VP needs to thicken her skin and not flip out over something as small as this. Besides, it's actually advantageous. If she ever doesn't get a job, and discovers her employer checked myspace, she can cry "discrimination on basis of sexual orientation!!!11!!ONE!!!". Not to mention suing over this brings it to national attention. If you check over on Slashdot, a guy hunted down the school's Phone #, with an encouragment to leave a harrassing message.

she has a right to sue, but not for "Neglectful Supervision". the only thing she could really sue for is slander and thats only if she can prove that the children in question made page. but your'r right she has got to have somthing up her ass.

well ya know, when the get hauled into court...they're probably gonna get the idea it was a stupid thing to do.

I think showing them the very real, and very unfortunate concequences of their actions is the BEST way to teach them what's right.

They can be taught by different means. The outcome shouldn't be destructive for the whole family! That's just unfair! The parents should have been notified and the whole problem should have been discussed with them. The kids should then have been given some time to remove the web page. If they wouldn't do it, they should have been punished by the school means and given another time limit to remove the page. Progressing through a number of these "stages" (and the kids repeatedly refusing to remove the page) could finally lead to expulsion from the school. And only after that I would find a lawsuit justifiable!

Can I ask where you do live? Out of curiosity...I want to know if your implied belief that this sort of civil suit doesn't happen in your country is true or not.

I don't really know much about the law system in my country but I don't believe such lawsuit would be possible here. I live in the Czech Republic.

She has every right to sue. And stands a chance of winning money (one dollar I would guesstimate)

But I don't think she can win that dollar. It's kind of like the case of that TV evangelist (forgot his name) vs Larry Flint in which Flint's magazine satired the evangelest in a demeaning way. And the court ruled that since most people don't take satires seriously: Case dismissed! (2 words I believe the Vice Principal is going to hear in the near future)

A televangelist, by virtue of being on, well, television, is a public figure.
Larry Flynt, by virtue of being the very well known owner of Hustler, is a public figure.

Myrna McKintridge, high school librarian, is not a public figure.

They can be taught by different means. The outcome shouldn't be destructive for the whole family! That's just unfair!

And what, apparently, have these parents taught their children about lying thus far? Was it not their responsibility to teach their children right from wrong?

And what, apparently, have these parents taught their children about lying thus far?

I don't really understand your question...

I don't really understand your question...

If their children have created a big, hurtful lie and spread it all over creation, then obviously, their parents have failed at raising children who know better than to lie, and to do hurtful things to others.

Are not the parents responsible for their apparent failure to teach that these acts are not acceptable?

A televangelist, by virtue of being on, well, television, is a public figure.
Larry Flynt, by virtue of being the very well known owner of Hustler, is a public figure.

Myrna McKintridge, high school librarian, is not a public figure.

But would a judge see it that way? Might a judge see the school librarian as a public figure as far as school children are concerned and dismiss the case as sort of a, drawing goofy pictures of teacher on the chalkboard type thing?

In any event, I hope the trial is on TV. (I'd spring for pay-per-view on this one) :D

Was it not their responsibility to teach their children right from wrong?

That's funny! :D Do you think you can correctly teach a person right from wrong? The whole concept of right/wrong is entirely subjective! What can seem as just a funny joke by one person, can be interpreted differently by another person (in this case it was interpreted in the worst way it could and lead to a lawsuit). The entire concept is more or less subjective! How can you expect someone to distinguish something that doesn't have a clear definition (and even if it does, in the eyes of law, have a definition it is very complex and unstable)? Not even an adult can always do that successfully!

If their children have created a big, hurtful lie and spread it all over creation, then obviously, their parents have failed at raising children who know better than to lie, and to do hurtful things to others.

Are not the parents responsible for their apparent failure to teach that these acts are not acceptable?

If they did spread it all over creation, it would be quite an achievement! :) And come on! It was apparently just a joke! When I was on high-school I made a Playboy-like magazine cover in a paint program and stamped the head of my classmate on one of the models, printed it and showed it to some other classmates :D She was furious when she found out and I had to hide the picture and convince her that I threw it away! :) It was so much fun and it didn't hurt anybody (just as the said VP joke). I can't imagine what I'd do if she sued me!

Can you imagine being a kid and doing something silly that ultimately lead to huge problems for the whole family? That would be a serious scar on the kid's mind!

If they did spread it all over creation, it would be quite an achievement! :) And come on! It was apparently just a joke! When I was on high-school I made a Playboy-like magazine cover in a paint program and stamped the head of my classmate on one of the models, printed it and showed it to some other classmates :D She was furious when she found out and I had to hide the picture and convince her that I threw it away! :) It was so much fun and it didn't hurt anybody (just as the said VP joke). I can't imagine what I'd do if she sued me!

Can you imagine being a kid and doing something silly that ultimately lead to huge problems for the whole family? That would be a serious scar on the kid's mind!

There is a diffence between doing something silly and something slanderous.

There is a diffence between doing something silly and something slanderous.

But those two are not disjunct...

But those two are not disjunct...

Right and that is where the courts come in. You say you are from CZ and I am not sure on how your companies go around hiring people. But in my company (in the US) in the human resources department, people are hired to check backgrounds, previous employment, and even the internet for these people. My HR department isn't going to have a debate on weather something is real or not. They are to busy. They will just not hire em. That is why slander is dangerous. So it is just not a pointless suit.

She has every right to sue. And stands a chance of winning money (one dollar I would guesstimate)

But I don't think she can win that dollar. It's kind of like the case of that TV evangelist (forgot his name) vs Larry Flint in which Flint's magazine satired the evangelest in a demeaning way. And the court ruled that since most people don't take satires seriously: Case dismissed! (2 words I believe the Vice Principal is going to hear in the near future)

Congratulations on not knowing the actual issue of the law. The case was called Hustler Magazine v. Falwell and was dismissed because the satire was SOO outragious that no reasonable person COULD take it seriously.

Being gay however is not so outragious as to be unbelievable, as such this law would not apply.

Additionally standards are higher for public figures v. private ones.

Congrats on not knowing what you are talking about. Learn some law before spouting off about it next time ok?

Can you imagine being a kid and doing something silly that ultimately lead to huge problems for the whole family? That would be a serious scar on the kid's mind!

Good. That way they will never, ever, ever do it again.

But would a judge see it that way? Might a judge see the school librarian as a public figure as far as school children are concerned and dismiss the case as sort of a, drawing goofy pictures of teacher on the chalkboard type thing?

No. Under law a public figure means a certain thing, and a vice principal is not it.

Right and that is where the courts come in. You say you are from CZ and I am not sure on how your companies go around hiring people. But in my company (in the US) in the human resources department, people are hired to check backgrounds, previous employment, and even the internet for these people. My HR department isn't going to have a debate on weather something is real or not. They are to busy. They will just not hire em. That is why slander is dangerous. So it is just not a pointless suit.

You mean they just open the web browser type the name in the Google and if a porn page appears they automatically refuse to hire the said person? Now THAT's weird! Better stay out of that company :rolleyes:

You mean they just open the web browser type the name in the Google and if a porn page appears they automatically refuse to hire the said person? Now THAT's weird! Better stay out of that company :rolleyes:

No they check names. They ask the former employer to hand over my internet history. Check from common log in names. They check to see If I visted a friends profile and maybe that profile has a link to my profile. they bring up the key logger history.It is not that hard. Or they may even find it by checking the search in my space in the zipcode and checking out every person that lives in that area.

I work for a major company. Trust me, our company is not the only one.

That would be a risk I would not want to take.

Congratulations on not knowing the actual issue of the law. Learn some law before spouting off about it next time ok?

The Sticky's didn't say anything about studying law to post here.
GET REAL!!!

The Sticky's didn't say anything about studying law to post here.
GET REAL!!!

one would think that, for your own interests, you would not engage in a topic you know nothing about, lest you look like a fool.

Since you apparently care little for that, carry on.

No. Under law a public figure means a certain thing, and a vice principal is not it.

Hmm. Maybe she will win a dollar. I still dont think so though.

Good. That way they will never, ever, ever do it again.

That way they will never, ever, ever do anything! If they are more sensitive they will possibly suffer from depressions and have to go to the psychologist/psychiatrist. Those kinds of doctors can damage them for life!

It's really too much even for an adult when he screws something up to have his loved ones punished for it! NEVER do this to kids!

You mean they just open the web browser type the name in the Google and if a porn page appears they automatically refuse to hire the said person? Now THAT's weird! Better stay out of that company :rolleyes:
have you tried it.... Googling yourself?


I think you'll be shocked as to what appears. ;)

Yeah, kids should be protected from their own shitty behaviour because they might suffer psychological stress if they are called on that behaviour. Fantastic viewpoint.

That way they will never, ever, ever do anything! If they are more sensitive they will possibly suffer from depressions and have to go to the psychologist/psychiatrist. Those kinds of doctors can damage them for life!

It's really too much even for an adult when he screws something up to have his loved ones punished for it! NEVER do this to kids!

Hey instead of being sarcastic and constantly side stepping the point. How about giving a logical response to...

No they check names. They ask the former employer to hand over my internet history. Check from common log in names. They check to see If I visted a friends profile and maybe that profile has a link to my profile. they bring up the key logger history.It is not that hard. Or they may even find it by checking the search in my space in the zipcode and checking out every person that lives in that area.

I work for a major company. Trust me, our company is not the only one.
That would be a risk I would not want to take.

No they check names. They ask the former employer to hand over my internet history. Check from common log in names. They check to see If I visted a friends profile and maybe that profile has a link to my profile. they bring up the key logger history.It is not that hard. Or they may even find it by checking the search in my space in the zipcode and checking out every person that lives in that area.

I work for a major company. Trust me, our company is not the only one.

That would be a risk I would not want to take.

Oh! You mean they sniff around to check if you have the "right" friends and nobody talks bad about you. They will make sure you never did anything "suspicious", have the right ideologies and don't stand out of the line. That reminds me of the communist era a few years back here in CZ. I was still a child back then but I heard a lot about it and it sounded exactly like that :rolleyes:

Oh! You mean they sniff around to check if you have the "right" friends and nobody talks bad about you. They will make sure you never did anything "suspicious", have the right ideologies and don't stand out of the line. That reminds me of the communist era a few years back here in CZ. I was still a child back then but I heard a lot about it and it sounded exactly like that :rolleyes:

Yep. Sarcasm again. Thanks for proving to everyone (even those on your side) that you have nothing to back up your claim.

Congratulations. Of course they check that stuff. You are representing the company. And 95% of my work involves dealing with the public. You are expected to maintain a level of professionalism both in the company and out. This is not uncommon. You can be fired for getting into a brawl outside of your work becuase you are not being professional.

That way they will never, ever, ever do anything! If they are more sensitive they will possibly suffer from depressions and have to go to the psychologist/psychiatrist. Those kinds of doctors can damage them for life!

Those poor poor children suffering and they did nothing wrong!

Oh, wait, they defamed the vice principal.

Oh well, their fault, shouldn't have done that then.

That way they will never, ever, ever do anything! If they are more sensitive they will possibly suffer from depressions and have to go to the psychologist/psychiatrist. Those kinds of doctors can damage them for life!

It's really too much even for an adult when he screws something up to have his loved ones punished for it! NEVER do this to kids!

What about the depression and suffering they may cause someone by causing them to lose their job or be passed over for promotion?

That way they will never, ever, ever do anything! If they are more sensitive they will possibly suffer from depressions and have to go to the psychologist/psychiatrist. Those kinds of doctors can damage them for life!

It's really too much even for an adult when he screws something up to have his loved ones punished for it! NEVER do this to kids!

And what of the depression and years of therapy this vice principal will endure now that she has been "outed" in an area that is notably adverse to homosexuals? Does she warrant no consideration? To hell with the kids, they did something illegal and should be punished for it.

have you tried it.... Googling yourself?


I think you'll be shocked as to what appears. ;)
If I Google my NS name, I get asked if I meant to spell it properly. :p

Yep. Sarcasm again. Thanks for proving to everyone (even those on your side) that you have nothing to back up your claim.

Congratulations. Of course they check that stuff. You are representing the company. And 95% of my work involves dealing with the public. You are expected to maintain a level of professionalism both in the company and out. This is not uncommon. You can be fired for getting into a brawl outside of your work becuase you are not being professional.

Thats total bullshit. A company should not fire somebody for something that happened off company grounds.

lol sounds to me like she has sand in her vagina heh <3 Southpark.

Thats total bullshit. A company should not fire somebody for something that happened off company grounds.

No it is not bullshit. When you are expected to maintain a certian image. And they have the grounds to fire when you do not hold that image.

I will try to dig one up, but it's not at all uncommon. The only thing to note that children are held to the standards of...well...children. Your child is liable only if he deviates from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent...child. Not an adult. Children are only held to an adult standard if they are engaged in "adult like activities" such as driving a car etc.

Still waiting! You cant find one (especially in Texas) where a kid pays restitution where an actual crime was not commited. Can You?

Thats total bullshit. A company should not fire somebody for something that happened off company grounds.

Really? Like teachers getting fired because they posed nude on their own time?

Still waiting! You cant find one (especially in Texas) where a kid pays restitution where an actual crime was not commited. Can You?

um dude, I was asleep, and not really caring to look.

Really? Like teachers getting fired because they posed nude on their own time?

The difference lies in the fact that one affects another individual's right to enjoy life free of harassment and the other refers to someone doing something that may be questionable, but it doesn't inhibit another and doesn't stop another from performing their job.

we have some public policy exceptions, but they generally work in the other directions. In other words you can find someone guilty for doing something contrary "to public policy" but rarely if ever a judge will admit someone is liable but avoid sentencing them because doing so would be counter to public good.

It is also worth noting that in the United States parents are rarely directly responsible for the tortious acts of their children. The only acception to that is if by the parent's actions they put the child in a position to commit that act. In other words, it's not your fault if your 12 year old kid steals your car and hits someone with it, but it is your fault if you gave him the keys

According to this the parents my be responsible in this case then. Unless the kids both bought the pcs used and paid for the internet connections themselves then it could be easily argued that the actions of the parents directly facilitated the actions of the children.

I LOVE IT!! Parents SHOULD be held accountable for their childrens actions.

umm dude, I was asleep and not really caring to look.

one would think that, for your own interests, you would not engage in a topic you know nothing about, lest you look like a fool.

Since you apparently care little for that, carry on.

:rolleyes:

If you can't take people hating you and making fun of you, Vice Principal isn't the job for you. In my experience, the VP has always been the enforcer who gets all the flak. You have to be tough for that job. If you're not, you should have a different job.

There is a right to sue there, since it is legally libel. I think the whole thing is a bit silly, though.

Frankly I think she's doing exactly as she should. She has the legal grounds to see these kids punished in a way far more profound than some detention and a bad grade, and I salute her for taking it. Personally, I think accountability is a step in the right direction for this country.

I am against frivolous lawsuits, like the lady who sued Mc D's for having toilet seats that "were not regulation size". But slander, defamation, this is legitimate, and should find its way to the courts.

As for what harm it causes her, the answer is quite simple. Many "religeous" or simply "politically correct" parents would question the judgement of someone who does not conform to their standards of "morality". I would wager that anything she says or does would be met with a less open-minded and/or optimistic view because of the biases of various individuals.

Rumors would spread behind her back, it could cause her to recieve sexual harrassment lawsuits where none would have come before...

It's easy to put a price on lost wages, but what is her name worth? What is your name and your reputation worth? If she wins this case, it will be interesting to see what damages she is awarded, if any.

Sue.

...to see these kids punished in a way far more profound than some detention and a bad grade,


I think that might have been what started all this.
I'm guessing that these children were too severely disciplined in the first place. I'm guessing that the Vice principle probably said something inapropriate while disciplining them (or something like that), And thats what set these kids off to do what they did.

The fact of the matter is: NO crime was commited! This IS a frivolous law suit. And if the VP actually did endure any depression or whatnot, then she is in the wrong line of work.

"Hey!!! Teacher!!! Leave those kids alone!!!"

I think that might have been what started all this.
I'm guessing that these children were too severely disciplined in the first place. I'm guessing that the Vice principle probably said something inapropriate while disciplining them (or something like that), And thats what set these kids off to do what they did.

The fact of the matter is: NO crime was commited! This IS a frivolous law suit. And if the VP actually did endure any depression or whatnot, then she is in the wrong line of work.

"Hey!!! Teacher!!! Leave those kids alone!!!"

Slander is a crime you jackass.

The difference lies in the fact that one affects another individual's right to enjoy life free of harassment and the other refers to someone doing something that may be questionable, but it doesn't inhibit another and doesn't stop another from performing their job.

I'm not following you. It was earlier stated that it was 'bullshit' that what happened in a person's life off-duty, so to speak, affected their professional life. I just posed an illustration of how something that happened in an off-duty teacher's life affected their personal life.

The point being: what happens off your timeclock may both damage your reputation and your ability to find employment.

I think that might have been what started all this.
I'm guessing that these children were too severely disciplined in the first place. I'm guessing that the Vice principle probably said something inapropriate while disciplining them (or something like that), And thats what set these kids off to do what they did.

The fact of the matter is: NO crime was commited! This IS a frivolous law suit. And if the VP actually did endure any depression or whatnot, then she is in the wrong line of work.

"Hey!!! Teacher!!! Leave those kids alone!!!"

Slander and libel, I think you will find, are actionable.
Identity theft is a crime.
But please, let's all excuse the children. "The Vice Principal was wrong for punishing them in the first place! That's why they stole her identity and defamed her!"

Slander is a crime you jackass.
No, it's not. It's a tort.

You can't imprison someone for slander.

Oh, and incidently, this is libel anyway. :)

No, it's not. It's a tort.

You can't imprison someone for slander.

Oh, and incidently, this is libel anyway. :)

they can be fined and procecuted.

Slander and libel, I think you will find, are actionable.
Identity theft is a crime.
But please, let's all excuse the children. "The Vice Principal was wrong for punishing them in the first place! That's why they stole her identity and defamed her!"

But a "civil" suit has been filed. "Criminal" charges have not.

No it is not bullshit. When you are expected to maintain a certian image. And they have the grounds to fire when you do not hold that image.

Its idiotic do to do it if it didn't directly effect the company.



Really? Like teachers getting fired because they posed nude on their own time?


There's nothing wrong with that. If the school actually did fire them for something like that then it just proves that morons run our schools.

It's libel, and so she has a right to sue.
Yup, I have to agree with you here.

they can be fined and procecuted.
No, they can be taken to court in a civil action and made to pay compensation. There is a big difference; there will be no 'prosecution' whatsoever.

:rolleyes:

I can go around in circles about who knows more about the law, but let's settle this in one quick round.

I have a juris doctorate.

Do you?

I have a juris doctorate.



Were your law books written in crayon by chance?

Were your law books written in crayon by chance?

nice fallacy, appeal to ridicule if I'm not mistaken. I will restate my position, I have taken a torts class and have received a JD.

Have you done either?

nice fallacy, appeal to ridicule if I'm not mistaken. I will restate my position, I have taken a torts class and have received a JD.

Have you done either?

No. I have not. Which I find quite amusing.

lets settle this: as for this case I say "Case dismissed"

You give the impresion of big money. If I'm wrong, what is your prediction?

No. I have not. Which I find quite amusing.

lets settle this: as for this case I say "Case dismissed"

You give the impresion of big money. If I'm wrong, what is your prediction?

I have no idea what the money would be. I merely predicted that her reward will likely be comisserate with either any amount of specific damages she can plead and prove OR roughly comparable with damaged typically awarded in defamation per se.

Let me also note that JUDGE rarely decides the issue of damages. That issue is decided by a jury.

I merely predicted that her reward
"reward"-gotcha!
Let me also note that JUDGE rarely decides the issue of damages. That issue is decided by a jury.

I know. LoL :p

What I dont understand is why you dont think this helps my side of the discussion? How could her attorney possibly convince a jury that damage was done? She still could have been promoted She is obiously not a lesbian. She has children. It was the principle that brought the video to her attention. So the principle knows that the video is not a valid description of her. (of course, most likely will not be promoted, now that everybody knows she can get upset too easy[which blows the lost wages, mental anguish, and the rest of it]....but not because she is or is not a lesbian)


Sorry, but no chance in hell.