916-222-4456
CA, US
 | kevin 2014-04-29 15:53:12 Unknown |
Wow great copy and paste.
Dont you have your own words to use.
Dont you have your own words to use.
| kevin 2014-02-25 15:29:18 Unknown |
Question: What are the elements of a defamation claim?
Answer: The party making a defamation claim (plaintiff) must ordinarily prove four elements:
1.a publication to one other than the person defamed;
2.a false statement of fact;
3.that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
4.If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.
Question: What are the elements of a defamation claim?
Answer: The party making a defamation claim (plaintiff) must ordinarily prove four elements:
1.a publication to one other than the person defamed;
2.a false statement of fact;
3.that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
4.If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.
Question: Can an opinion be defamatory?
Answer: No ? but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database
Question: What is libel?
Answer: Libel is a false statement of fact expressed in a fixed medium, usually writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast. See What are the elements of a defamation claim?
Question: What is libel per se?
Answer: When libel is clear on its face, without the need for any explanatory matter, it is called libel per se. The following are often found to be libelous per se:
A statement that falsely:
? Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime;
? Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;
? Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits;
? Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity.
Of course, context can still matter. If you respond to a post you don't like by beginning "Jane, you ignorant s**t," it may imply a want of chastity on Jane's part. But you have a good chance of convincing a court this was mere hyperbole and pop cultural reference, not a false statement of fact. Question: What is the "publication" of a defamatory statement?
Answer: Publication is the dissemination of the defamatory statement to any person other than the person about whom the statement is written or spoken. Question: May someone other than the person who originally made the defamatory statement be legally liable in defamation?
Answer: One who "publishes" a defamatory statement may be liable. However, 47 U.S.C. sec. 230 says that online service providers are not publishers of content posted by their users. Section 230 gives most ISPs and message board hosts the discretion to keep postings or delete them, whichever they prefer, in response to claims by others that a posting is defamatory or libelous. Most ISPs and message board hosts also post terms of service that give them the right to delete or not delete messages as they see fit and such terms have generally been held to be enforceable under law.
Question: What is Malice or "Actual Malice"?
Answer: Malice is often defined as, "the intent, without justification or excuse, to commit a wrongful act." It is the conscious, intentional wrongdoing with the intent of doing harm to do the victim. In many civil cases, a finding that a defendant acted with malice will often open the door to liability or increased damages, such as punitive damages. "Actual malice" is a legal term of art that is mainly relevant to defamaton claims. "Actual Malice" is found to be present when a false statement is published with either a) actual knowledge of its falsity or b) reckless disregard for its falsity-- a "should have known" standard. One cannot be held liable for publishing untrue statements about public figures (or companies) without being found to have acted with "actual malice"
Question: What is a "false light" claim?
Answer: Some states allow people to sue for damages that arise when others place them in a false light. Information presented in a "false light" is portrayed as factual, but creates a false impression about the plaintiff (i.e., a photograph of plaintiffs in an article about sexual abuse, because it creates the impression that the depicted persons are victims of sexual abuse). False light claims are subject to the constitutional protections discussed above.
Question: What is a SLAPP suit?
Answer: SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or lawsuits aimed at squelching speech and involvement in government. Many states, including California, have anti-SLAPP statutes allowing one who has been targeted by a SLAPP to sue back.
Online, SLAPP suits typically involve a person who has posted anonymous criticisms of a corporation or public figure on the Internet. The target of the criticism then files a lawsuit so they can issue a subpoena to the Web site or Internet Service Provider (ISP) involved and thereby discover the identity of their anonymous critic. Many SLAPPers stop after discovering their critic's identity, using the tactic to intimidate or silence online speakers even though they were engaging in protected expression under the First Amendment.
Question: What are the elements of a defamation claim?
Answer: The party making a defamation claim (plaintiff) must ordinarily prove four elements:
1.a publication to one other than the person defamed;
2.a false statement of fact;
3.that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
4.If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.
Question: What are the privacy torts?
Answer: Much privacy law is state law, and may differ from state to state. As general categories, states may recognize interests in:
? unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another;
? appropriation of the other's name or likeness;
? unreasonable publicity given to the other's private life; and
? publicity that unreasonably places the other in a false light before the public.
(from the Second Restatement of Torts, ? 652A) Question: Can I be sued for publishing somebody else's private facts?
Answer: Some jurisdictions allow lawsuits for the publication of private facts. In California, for example, the elements are (1) public disclosure; (2) of a private fact; (3) that is offensive to a reasonable person; and (4) which is not a legitimate matter of public concern. Publication on a blog would generally be considered public disclosure. However, if a private fact is deemed "newsworthy," it may be legal to print it even if it might be considered "offensive to a reasonable person."
Question: What is "intrusion into seclusion"?
Answer: Intrusion into seclusion occurs when you intrude upon the solitude or seclusion of another person or his private affairs or concerns, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. It generally comes up in the context of paparazzi photographing celebrities, but covers any reasonable expectation of privacy that is intruded upon. If the person intruded upon gave you consent to do it - i.e., gave you permission to take his picture or write about him - then you have a defense against this claim. Interception of an electronic communication (i.e., an email or IM chat) can raise additional legal issues, such as federal wiretap laws.
Question: What is a statement of verifiable fact?
Answer: A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse. To illustrate this point, consider the following excerpt from a court (Vogel v. Felice) considering the alleged defamatory statement that plaintiffs were the top-ranking 'Dumb A***s' on defendant's list of "Top Ten Dumb A***s":
A statement that the plaintiff is a "Dumb A**," even first among "Dumb A***s," communicates no factual proposition susceptible of proof or refutation. It is true that "dumb" by itself can convey the relatively concrete meaning "lacking in intelligence." Even so, depending on context, it may convey a lack less of objectively assayable mental function than of such imponderable and debatable virtues as judgment or wisdom. Here defendant did not use "dumb" in isolation, but as part of the idiomatic phrase, "dumb a**." When applied to a whole human being, the term "a**" is a general expression of contempt essentially devoid of factual content. Adding the word "dumb" merely converts "contemptible person" to "contemptible fool." Plaintiffs were justifiably insulted by this epithet, but they failed entirely to show how it could be found to convey a provable factual proposition. ... If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim.
This California case also rejected a claim that the defendant linked the plaintiffs' names to certain web addresses with objectionable addresses (i.e. www.satan.com), noting "merely linking a plaintiff's name to the word "satan" conveys nothing more than the author's opinion that there is something devilish or evil about the plaintiff."
Question: What is cyberstalking?
Answer: It has been defined as the use of information and communications technology, particularly the Internet, by an individual or group of individuals, to harass another individual, group of individuals, or organization. The behavior includes false accusations, monitoring, the transmission of threats, identity theft, damage to data or equipment, the solicitation of minors for sexual purposes, and gathering information for harassment purposes. The harassment must be such that a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would regard it as sufficient to cause another reasonable person distress.
The law of defamation balances two important, and sometimes competing, rights: the right to engage in free speech and the right to be free from untrue attacks on reputation. In practice, the filing or even the threat to file a lawsuit for defamation has sometimes been used as a tool to shut down legitimate comments on the Internet.
uestion: What is false light invasion of privacy?
Answer: "False light" is a claim that publicity invades a person's (plaintiff's) privacy by a false statement or representation that "places the plaintiff in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person."
Question: How does the First Amendment to the Constitution affect defamation?
Answer: The free speech guarantees under the Constitution protect certain speech and commentary. The degree of protection generally depends on whether the person commented about is a private or public figure and whether the statement is regarding a private or public matter. According to the New York Times rule (from the case New York Times v. Sullivan), when the plaintiff is a public figure and the matter is one of public concern, the plaintiff must prove "malice" or "reckless disregard" on the part of the defendant. If both parties are private individuals, there is less protection for the speech because the plaintiff only needs to prove negligence.
Question: What is disparagement?
Answer: As defined in Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999), disparagement is "A false and injurious statement that discredits or detracts from the reputation of another's property, product, or business. To recover in tort for disparagement, the plaintiff must prove that the statement caused a third party to take some action resulting in specific pecuniary loss to the plaintiff."
Answer: The party making a defamation claim (plaintiff) must ordinarily prove four elements:
1.a publication to one other than the person defamed;
2.a false statement of fact;
3.that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
4.If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.
Question: What are the elements of a defamation claim?
Answer: The party making a defamation claim (plaintiff) must ordinarily prove four elements:
1.a publication to one other than the person defamed;
2.a false statement of fact;
3.that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
4.If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.
Question: Can an opinion be defamatory?
Answer: No ? but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database
Question: What is libel?
Answer: Libel is a false statement of fact expressed in a fixed medium, usually writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast. See What are the elements of a defamation claim?
Question: What is libel per se?
Answer: When libel is clear on its face, without the need for any explanatory matter, it is called libel per se. The following are often found to be libelous per se:
A statement that falsely:
? Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime;
? Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;
? Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits;
? Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity.
Of course, context can still matter. If you respond to a post you don't like by beginning "Jane, you ignorant s**t," it may imply a want of chastity on Jane's part. But you have a good chance of convincing a court this was mere hyperbole and pop cultural reference, not a false statement of fact. Question: What is the "publication" of a defamatory statement?
Answer: Publication is the dissemination of the defamatory statement to any person other than the person about whom the statement is written or spoken. Question: May someone other than the person who originally made the defamatory statement be legally liable in defamation?
Answer: One who "publishes" a defamatory statement may be liable. However, 47 U.S.C. sec. 230 says that online service providers are not publishers of content posted by their users. Section 230 gives most ISPs and message board hosts the discretion to keep postings or delete them, whichever they prefer, in response to claims by others that a posting is defamatory or libelous. Most ISPs and message board hosts also post terms of service that give them the right to delete or not delete messages as they see fit and such terms have generally been held to be enforceable under law.
Question: What is Malice or "Actual Malice"?
Answer: Malice is often defined as, "the intent, without justification or excuse, to commit a wrongful act." It is the conscious, intentional wrongdoing with the intent of doing harm to do the victim. In many civil cases, a finding that a defendant acted with malice will often open the door to liability or increased damages, such as punitive damages. "Actual malice" is a legal term of art that is mainly relevant to defamaton claims. "Actual Malice" is found to be present when a false statement is published with either a) actual knowledge of its falsity or b) reckless disregard for its falsity-- a "should have known" standard. One cannot be held liable for publishing untrue statements about public figures (or companies) without being found to have acted with "actual malice"
Question: What is a "false light" claim?
Answer: Some states allow people to sue for damages that arise when others place them in a false light. Information presented in a "false light" is portrayed as factual, but creates a false impression about the plaintiff (i.e., a photograph of plaintiffs in an article about sexual abuse, because it creates the impression that the depicted persons are victims of sexual abuse). False light claims are subject to the constitutional protections discussed above.
Question: What is a SLAPP suit?
Answer: SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or lawsuits aimed at squelching speech and involvement in government. Many states, including California, have anti-SLAPP statutes allowing one who has been targeted by a SLAPP to sue back.
Online, SLAPP suits typically involve a person who has posted anonymous criticisms of a corporation or public figure on the Internet. The target of the criticism then files a lawsuit so they can issue a subpoena to the Web site or Internet Service Provider (ISP) involved and thereby discover the identity of their anonymous critic. Many SLAPPers stop after discovering their critic's identity, using the tactic to intimidate or silence online speakers even though they were engaging in protected expression under the First Amendment.
Question: What are the elements of a defamation claim?
Answer: The party making a defamation claim (plaintiff) must ordinarily prove four elements:
1.a publication to one other than the person defamed;
2.a false statement of fact;
3.that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
4.If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.
Question: What are the privacy torts?
Answer: Much privacy law is state law, and may differ from state to state. As general categories, states may recognize interests in:
? unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another;
? appropriation of the other's name or likeness;
? unreasonable publicity given to the other's private life; and
? publicity that unreasonably places the other in a false light before the public.
(from the Second Restatement of Torts, ? 652A) Question: Can I be sued for publishing somebody else's private facts?
Answer: Some jurisdictions allow lawsuits for the publication of private facts. In California, for example, the elements are (1) public disclosure; (2) of a private fact; (3) that is offensive to a reasonable person; and (4) which is not a legitimate matter of public concern. Publication on a blog would generally be considered public disclosure. However, if a private fact is deemed "newsworthy," it may be legal to print it even if it might be considered "offensive to a reasonable person."
Question: What is "intrusion into seclusion"?
Answer: Intrusion into seclusion occurs when you intrude upon the solitude or seclusion of another person or his private affairs or concerns, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. It generally comes up in the context of paparazzi photographing celebrities, but covers any reasonable expectation of privacy that is intruded upon. If the person intruded upon gave you consent to do it - i.e., gave you permission to take his picture or write about him - then you have a defense against this claim. Interception of an electronic communication (i.e., an email or IM chat) can raise additional legal issues, such as federal wiretap laws.
Question: What is a statement of verifiable fact?
Answer: A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse. To illustrate this point, consider the following excerpt from a court (Vogel v. Felice) considering the alleged defamatory statement that plaintiffs were the top-ranking 'Dumb A***s' on defendant's list of "Top Ten Dumb A***s":
A statement that the plaintiff is a "Dumb A**," even first among "Dumb A***s," communicates no factual proposition susceptible of proof or refutation. It is true that "dumb" by itself can convey the relatively concrete meaning "lacking in intelligence." Even so, depending on context, it may convey a lack less of objectively assayable mental function than of such imponderable and debatable virtues as judgment or wisdom. Here defendant did not use "dumb" in isolation, but as part of the idiomatic phrase, "dumb a**." When applied to a whole human being, the term "a**" is a general expression of contempt essentially devoid of factual content. Adding the word "dumb" merely converts "contemptible person" to "contemptible fool." Plaintiffs were justifiably insulted by this epithet, but they failed entirely to show how it could be found to convey a provable factual proposition. ... If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim.
This California case also rejected a claim that the defendant linked the plaintiffs' names to certain web addresses with objectionable addresses (i.e. www.satan.com), noting "merely linking a plaintiff's name to the word "satan" conveys nothing more than the author's opinion that there is something devilish or evil about the plaintiff."
Question: What is cyberstalking?
Answer: It has been defined as the use of information and communications technology, particularly the Internet, by an individual or group of individuals, to harass another individual, group of individuals, or organization. The behavior includes false accusations, monitoring, the transmission of threats, identity theft, damage to data or equipment, the solicitation of minors for sexual purposes, and gathering information for harassment purposes. The harassment must be such that a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would regard it as sufficient to cause another reasonable person distress.
The law of defamation balances two important, and sometimes competing, rights: the right to engage in free speech and the right to be free from untrue attacks on reputation. In practice, the filing or even the threat to file a lawsuit for defamation has sometimes been used as a tool to shut down legitimate comments on the Internet.
uestion: What is false light invasion of privacy?
Answer: "False light" is a claim that publicity invades a person's (plaintiff's) privacy by a false statement or representation that "places the plaintiff in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person."
Question: How does the First Amendment to the Constitution affect defamation?
Answer: The free speech guarantees under the Constitution protect certain speech and commentary. The degree of protection generally depends on whether the person commented about is a private or public figure and whether the statement is regarding a private or public matter. According to the New York Times rule (from the case New York Times v. Sullivan), when the plaintiff is a public figure and the matter is one of public concern, the plaintiff must prove "malice" or "reckless disregard" on the part of the defendant. If both parties are private individuals, there is less protection for the speech because the plaintiff only needs to prove negligence.
Question: What is disparagement?
Answer: As defined in Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999), disparagement is "A false and injurious statement that discredits or detracts from the reputation of another's property, product, or business. To recover in tort for disparagement, the plaintiff must prove that the statement caused a third party to take some action resulting in specific pecuniary loss to the plaintiff."
| kevin 2014-02-25 15:14:54 Unknown |
Question: What are the elements of a defamation claim?
Answer: The party making a defamation claim (plaintiff) must ordinarily prove four elements:
1.a publication to one other than the person defamed;
2.a false statement of fact;
3.that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
4.If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.
Question: What are the elements of a defamation claim?
Answer: The party making a defamation claim (plaintiff) must ordinarily prove four elements:
1.a publication to one other than the person defamed;
2.a false statement of fact;
3.that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
4.If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.
Question: Can an opinion be defamatory?
Answer: No ? but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database
Question: What is libel?
Answer: Libel is a false statement of fact expressed in a fixed medium, usually writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast. See What are the elements of a defamation claim?
Question: What is libel per se?
Answer: When libel is clear on its face, without the need for any explanatory matter, it is called libel per se. The following are often found to be libelous per se:
A statement that falsely:
? Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime;
? Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;
? Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits;
? Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity.
Of course, context can still matter. If you respond to a post you don't like by beginning "Jane, you ignorant s**t," it may imply a want of chastity on Jane's part. But you have a good chance of convincing a court this was mere hyperbole and pop cultural reference, not a false statement of fact. Question: What is the "publication" of a defamatory statement?
Answer: Publication is the dissemination of the defamatory statement to any person other than the person about whom the statement is written or spoken. Question: May someone other than the person who originally made the defamatory statement be legally liable in defamation?
Answer: One who "publishes" a defamatory statement may be liable. However, 47 U.S.C. sec. 230 says that online service providers are not publishers of content posted by their users. Section 230 gives most ISPs and message board hosts the discretion to keep postings or delete them, whichever they prefer, in response to claims by others that a posting is defamatory or libelous. Most ISPs and message board hosts also post terms of service that give them the right to delete or not delete messages as they see fit and such terms have generally been held to be enforceable under law.
Question: What is Malice or "Actual Malice"?
Answer: Malice is often defined as, "the intent, without justification or excuse, to commit a wrongful act." It is the conscious, intentional wrongdoing with the intent of doing harm to do the victim. In many civil cases, a finding that a defendant acted with malice will often open the door to liability or increased damages, such as punitive damages. "Actual malice" is a legal term of art that is mainly relevant to defamaton claims. "Actual Malice" is found to be present when a false statement is published with either a) actual knowledge of its falsity or b) reckless disregard for its falsity-- a "should have known" standard. One cannot be held liable for publishing untrue statements about public figures (or companies) without being found to have acted with "actual malice"
Question: What is a "false light" claim?
Answer: Some states allow people to sue for damages that arise when others place them in a false light. Information presented in a "false light" is portrayed as factual, but creates a false impression about the plaintiff (i.e., a photograph of plaintiffs in an article about sexual abuse, because it creates the impression that the depicted persons are victims of sexual abuse). False light claims are subject to the constitutional protections discussed above.
Question: What is a SLAPP suit?
Answer: SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or lawsuits aimed at squelching speech and involvement in government. Many states, including California, have anti-SLAPP statutes allowing one who has been targeted by a SLAPP to sue back.
Online, SLAPP suits typically involve a person who has posted anonymous criticisms of a corporation or public figure on the Internet. The target of the criticism then files a lawsuit so they can issue a subpoena to the Web site or Internet Service Provider (ISP) involved and thereby discover the identity of their anonymous critic. Many SLAPPers stop after discovering their critic's identity, using the tactic to intimidate or silence online speakers even though they were engaging in protected expression under the First Amendment.
Question: What are the elements of a defamation claim?
Answer: The party making a defamation claim (plaintiff) must ordinarily prove four elements:
1.a publication to one other than the person defamed;
2.a false statement of fact;
3.that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
4.If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.
Question: What are the privacy torts?
Answer: Much privacy law is state law, and may differ from state to state. As general categories, states may recognize interests in:
? unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another;
? appropriation of the other's name or likeness;
? unreasonable publicity given to the other's private life; and
? publicity that unreasonably places the other in a false light before the public.
(from the Second Restatement of Torts, ? 652A) Question: Can I be sued for publishing somebody else's private facts?
Answer: Some jurisdictions allow lawsuits for the publication of private facts. In California, for example, the elements are (1) public disclosure; (2) of a private fact; (3) that is offensive to a reasonable person; and (4) which is not a legitimate matter of public concern. Publication on a blog would generally be considered public disclosure. However, if a private fact is deemed "newsworthy," it may be legal to print it even if it might be considered "offensive to a reasonable person."
Question: What is "intrusion into seclusion"?
Answer: Intrusion into seclusion occurs when you intrude upon the solitude or seclusion of another person or his private affairs or concerns, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. It generally comes up in the context of paparazzi photographing celebrities, but covers any reasonable expectation of privacy that is intruded upon. If the person intruded upon gave you consent to do it - i.e., gave you permission to take his picture or write about him - then you have a defense against this claim. Interception of an electronic communication (i.e., an email or IM chat) can raise additional legal issues, such as federal wiretap laws.
Question: What is a statement of verifiable fact?
Answer: A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse. To illustrate this point, consider the following excerpt from a court (Vogel v. Felice) considering the alleged defamatory statement that plaintiffs were the top-ranking 'Dumb A***s' on defendant's list of "Top Ten Dumb A***s":
A statement that the plaintiff is a "Dumb A**," even first among "Dumb A***s," communicates no factual proposition susceptible of proof or refutation. It is true that "dumb" by itself can convey the relatively concrete meaning "lacking in intelligence." Even so, depending on context, it may convey a lack less of objectively assayable mental function than of such imponderable and debatable virtues as judgment or wisdom. Here defendant did not use "dumb" in isolation, but as part of the idiomatic phrase, "dumb a**." When applied to a whole human being, the term "a**" is a general expression of contempt essentially devoid of factual content. Adding the word "dumb" merely converts "contemptible person" to "contemptible fool." Plaintiffs were justifiably insulted by this epithet, but they failed entirely to show how it could be found to convey a provable factual proposition. ... If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim.
This California case also rejected a claim that the defendant linked the plaintiffs' names to certain web addresses with objectionable addresses (i.e. www.satan.com), noting "merely linking a plaintiff's name to the word "satan" conveys nothing more than the author's opinion that there is something devilish or evil about the plaintiff."
Question: What is cyberstalking?
Answer: It has been defined as the use of information and communications technology, particularly the Internet, by an individual or group of individuals, to harass another individual, group of individuals, or organization. The behavior includes false accusations, monitoring, the transmission of threats, identity theft, damage to data or equipment, the solicitation of minors for sexual purposes, and gathering information for harassment purposes. The harassment must be such that a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would regard it as sufficient to cause another reasonable person distress.
The law of defamation balances two important, and sometimes competing, rights: the right to engage in free speech and the right to be free from untrue attacks on reputation. In practice, the filing or even the threat to file a lawsuit for defamation has sometimes been used as a tool to shut down legitimate comments on the Internet.
uestion: What is false light invasion of privacy?
Answer: "False light" is a claim that publicity invades a person's (plaintiff's) privacy by a false statement or representation that "places the plaintiff in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person."
Question: How does the First Amendment to the Constitution affect defamation?
Answer: The free speech guarantees under the Constitution protect certain speech and commentary. The degree of protection generally depends on whether the person commented about is a private or public figure and whether the statement is regarding a private or public matter. According to the New York Times rule (from the case New York Times v. Sullivan), when the plaintiff is a public figure and the matter is one of public concern, the plaintiff must prove "malice" or "reckless disregard" on the part of the defendant. If both parties are private individuals, there is less protection for the speech because the plaintiff only needs to prove negligence.
Question: What is disparagement?
Answer: As defined in Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999), disparagement is "A false and injurious statement that discredits or detracts from the reputation of another's property, product, or business. To recover in tort for disparagement, the plaintiff must prove that the statement caused a third party to take some action resulting in specific pecuniary loss to the plaintiff."
Answer: The party making a defamation claim (plaintiff) must ordinarily prove four elements:
1.a publication to one other than the person defamed;
2.a false statement of fact;
3.that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
4.If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.
Question: What are the elements of a defamation claim?
Answer: The party making a defamation claim (plaintiff) must ordinarily prove four elements:
1.a publication to one other than the person defamed;
2.a false statement of fact;
3.that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
4.If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.
Question: Can an opinion be defamatory?
Answer: No ? but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database
Question: What is libel?
Answer: Libel is a false statement of fact expressed in a fixed medium, usually writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast. See What are the elements of a defamation claim?
Question: What is libel per se?
Answer: When libel is clear on its face, without the need for any explanatory matter, it is called libel per se. The following are often found to be libelous per se:
A statement that falsely:
? Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime;
? Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;
? Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits;
? Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity.
Of course, context can still matter. If you respond to a post you don't like by beginning "Jane, you ignorant s**t," it may imply a want of chastity on Jane's part. But you have a good chance of convincing a court this was mere hyperbole and pop cultural reference, not a false statement of fact. Question: What is the "publication" of a defamatory statement?
Answer: Publication is the dissemination of the defamatory statement to any person other than the person about whom the statement is written or spoken. Question: May someone other than the person who originally made the defamatory statement be legally liable in defamation?
Answer: One who "publishes" a defamatory statement may be liable. However, 47 U.S.C. sec. 230 says that online service providers are not publishers of content posted by their users. Section 230 gives most ISPs and message board hosts the discretion to keep postings or delete them, whichever they prefer, in response to claims by others that a posting is defamatory or libelous. Most ISPs and message board hosts also post terms of service that give them the right to delete or not delete messages as they see fit and such terms have generally been held to be enforceable under law.
Question: What is Malice or "Actual Malice"?
Answer: Malice is often defined as, "the intent, without justification or excuse, to commit a wrongful act." It is the conscious, intentional wrongdoing with the intent of doing harm to do the victim. In many civil cases, a finding that a defendant acted with malice will often open the door to liability or increased damages, such as punitive damages. "Actual malice" is a legal term of art that is mainly relevant to defamaton claims. "Actual Malice" is found to be present when a false statement is published with either a) actual knowledge of its falsity or b) reckless disregard for its falsity-- a "should have known" standard. One cannot be held liable for publishing untrue statements about public figures (or companies) without being found to have acted with "actual malice"
Question: What is a "false light" claim?
Answer: Some states allow people to sue for damages that arise when others place them in a false light. Information presented in a "false light" is portrayed as factual, but creates a false impression about the plaintiff (i.e., a photograph of plaintiffs in an article about sexual abuse, because it creates the impression that the depicted persons are victims of sexual abuse). False light claims are subject to the constitutional protections discussed above.
Question: What is a SLAPP suit?
Answer: SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or lawsuits aimed at squelching speech and involvement in government. Many states, including California, have anti-SLAPP statutes allowing one who has been targeted by a SLAPP to sue back.
Online, SLAPP suits typically involve a person who has posted anonymous criticisms of a corporation or public figure on the Internet. The target of the criticism then files a lawsuit so they can issue a subpoena to the Web site or Internet Service Provider (ISP) involved and thereby discover the identity of their anonymous critic. Many SLAPPers stop after discovering their critic's identity, using the tactic to intimidate or silence online speakers even though they were engaging in protected expression under the First Amendment.
Question: What are the elements of a defamation claim?
Answer: The party making a defamation claim (plaintiff) must ordinarily prove four elements:
1.a publication to one other than the person defamed;
2.a false statement of fact;
3.that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
4.If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.
Question: What are the privacy torts?
Answer: Much privacy law is state law, and may differ from state to state. As general categories, states may recognize interests in:
? unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another;
? appropriation of the other's name or likeness;
? unreasonable publicity given to the other's private life; and
? publicity that unreasonably places the other in a false light before the public.
(from the Second Restatement of Torts, ? 652A) Question: Can I be sued for publishing somebody else's private facts?
Answer: Some jurisdictions allow lawsuits for the publication of private facts. In California, for example, the elements are (1) public disclosure; (2) of a private fact; (3) that is offensive to a reasonable person; and (4) which is not a legitimate matter of public concern. Publication on a blog would generally be considered public disclosure. However, if a private fact is deemed "newsworthy," it may be legal to print it even if it might be considered "offensive to a reasonable person."
Question: What is "intrusion into seclusion"?
Answer: Intrusion into seclusion occurs when you intrude upon the solitude or seclusion of another person or his private affairs or concerns, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. It generally comes up in the context of paparazzi photographing celebrities, but covers any reasonable expectation of privacy that is intruded upon. If the person intruded upon gave you consent to do it - i.e., gave you permission to take his picture or write about him - then you have a defense against this claim. Interception of an electronic communication (i.e., an email or IM chat) can raise additional legal issues, such as federal wiretap laws.
Question: What is a statement of verifiable fact?
Answer: A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse. To illustrate this point, consider the following excerpt from a court (Vogel v. Felice) considering the alleged defamatory statement that plaintiffs were the top-ranking 'Dumb A***s' on defendant's list of "Top Ten Dumb A***s":
A statement that the plaintiff is a "Dumb A**," even first among "Dumb A***s," communicates no factual proposition susceptible of proof or refutation. It is true that "dumb" by itself can convey the relatively concrete meaning "lacking in intelligence." Even so, depending on context, it may convey a lack less of objectively assayable mental function than of such imponderable and debatable virtues as judgment or wisdom. Here defendant did not use "dumb" in isolation, but as part of the idiomatic phrase, "dumb a**." When applied to a whole human being, the term "a**" is a general expression of contempt essentially devoid of factual content. Adding the word "dumb" merely converts "contemptible person" to "contemptible fool." Plaintiffs were justifiably insulted by this epithet, but they failed entirely to show how it could be found to convey a provable factual proposition. ... If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim.
This California case also rejected a claim that the defendant linked the plaintiffs' names to certain web addresses with objectionable addresses (i.e. www.satan.com), noting "merely linking a plaintiff's name to the word "satan" conveys nothing more than the author's opinion that there is something devilish or evil about the plaintiff."
Question: What is cyberstalking?
Answer: It has been defined as the use of information and communications technology, particularly the Internet, by an individual or group of individuals, to harass another individual, group of individuals, or organization. The behavior includes false accusations, monitoring, the transmission of threats, identity theft, damage to data or equipment, the solicitation of minors for sexual purposes, and gathering information for harassment purposes. The harassment must be such that a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would regard it as sufficient to cause another reasonable person distress.
The law of defamation balances two important, and sometimes competing, rights: the right to engage in free speech and the right to be free from untrue attacks on reputation. In practice, the filing or even the threat to file a lawsuit for defamation has sometimes been used as a tool to shut down legitimate comments on the Internet.
uestion: What is false light invasion of privacy?
Answer: "False light" is a claim that publicity invades a person's (plaintiff's) privacy by a false statement or representation that "places the plaintiff in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person."
Question: How does the First Amendment to the Constitution affect defamation?
Answer: The free speech guarantees under the Constitution protect certain speech and commentary. The degree of protection generally depends on whether the person commented about is a private or public figure and whether the statement is regarding a private or public matter. According to the New York Times rule (from the case New York Times v. Sullivan), when the plaintiff is a public figure and the matter is one of public concern, the plaintiff must prove "malice" or "reckless disregard" on the part of the defendant. If both parties are private individuals, there is less protection for the speech because the plaintiff only needs to prove negligence.
Question: What is disparagement?
Answer: As defined in Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999), disparagement is "A false and injurious statement that discredits or detracts from the reputation of another's property, product, or business. To recover in tort for disparagement, the plaintiff must prove that the statement caused a third party to take some action resulting in specific pecuniary loss to the plaintiff."
| Mike 2014-01-11 22:46:03 Unknown |
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/InmateReleases/deta ... ionID=215940778
| concerned 2013-10-22 11:31:37 Unknown |
Kevin Calvin is the name of the person that is doing the work. He and Jeff Harris worked together on their scam for about six months, then Jeff went back to FL.. Kevin Calvin uses Jeff's name to protect his own. Austin is a kid...Kevin is the real scumbag
| Paula 2013-10-08 23:18:00 Unknown |
Same thing happen to me gotta finda way to report him
| Scumbag Hater 2013-01-15 01:37:43 Telemarketer |
I am in the carpet cleaning business and own a couple of franchises. A customer of mine from 2009 made an appointment with us when we got there she said the rugs had already been done earlier that day and thought it was my company that was there. The rugs were soaked and this scumbag charged her 500.00 to clean 4 1/2 rooms and a recliner. My price with protectant and the works would have been closer to 300.00
After reading the info. on this site all I can think of is that she must have confused his calls with my company after she had made the appointment with us. (She called us, we don't cold call)
The customer showed me the invoice, there was no company name but there were 2 names on the invoice Jeffrey and Austin Harris. I got home and googled the name and found this site.
The phone number on the invoice is 772- 634-6331. This lady lived in Port Saint Lucie , Florida which is right next to Stuart, Florida where this scumbag has been traced to. This customer is an elderly lady I think this guy should be charged with a felony for exploiting the elderly. He is already a convicted criminal go to:
http://www.justmugshots.com/florida/stuart/4004994
http://mugshots.com/US-Counties/Florida/Browa ... 980566/details/
http://www.bbb.org/south-east-florida/busines ... art-fl-27004438
I will be contacting the local authorities
After reading the info. on this site all I can think of is that she must have confused his calls with my company after she had made the appointment with us. (She called us, we don't cold call)
The customer showed me the invoice, there was no company name but there were 2 names on the invoice Jeffrey and Austin Harris. I got home and googled the name and found this site.
The phone number on the invoice is 772- 634-6331. This lady lived in Port Saint Lucie , Florida which is right next to Stuart, Florida where this scumbag has been traced to. This customer is an elderly lady I think this guy should be charged with a felony for exploiting the elderly. He is already a convicted criminal go to:
http://www.justmugshots.com/florida/stuart/4004994
http://mugshots.com/US-Counties/Florida/Browa ... 980566/details/
http://www.bbb.org/south-east-florida/busines ... art-fl-27004438
I will be contacting the local authorities
| txgal 2013-01-05 14:59:19 Unknown |
Jeff Harris is actually Kevin Calvin. He has asked me several times to be one of the girls that he calls appointment setters and he said that I could make up to $1000 per month just making phone calls for an hour or two a day. Kevin is a childhood friend of mine and I like him as a friend but there is no way that I would ever get in the middle of this scam. He moves all over the U.S. because people find out what he is up to. Don't let them set an appointment for you and don't let them in your house. Ask for a number to call back at and then report it to the appropriate agency. Sorry Kevin.... but get a real job!!
| bstell 2012-11-27 05:13:24 Unknown |
I fell for this scumbag. A really nice lady called me back to schedule the appointment. 2 guys showed up at our house and gave us a cash price and a check price. Asked for the check to be left blank. I was at work and my husband allowed them to clean the carpet and wrote the a check. The carpets were soaking wet and filthy. I had to rent a machine to suck up all the dirty water. They tripped our electrical outlets and didn't tell us. We stopped payment on the check right away. Now I am getting these phone calls from someone named Hans using 408-401-9121. He leaves a message stating he is calling to check on the service we received. The receipt we got lists the company name as Quality Assured Carpet Care. DO not fall for this. It starts off with a telemarketing call "Are your carpets Dirty?"
| Black Hand 2012-10-16 23:09:07 Unknown |
For all that this individual has done, Jeff "Ray" Harris's tongue should be removed with a rusty spoon.
| Tony 2012-10-02 19:42:12 Unknown |
This is Jeff Harris. He is from Stuart, Fl, but travels the country doing this, He is a partner of Kevin Calvin
https://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.harris.92123
https://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.harris.92123
| Tony 2012-10-02 19:33:30 Unknown |
This is Jeff Harris. He is from Stuart Fl, but is a partner of Kevin Calvin.
https://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.harris.92123
https://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.harris.92123
| Tony 2012-10-02 19:30:34 Unknown |
This s the real Jeff Harris.
https://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.harris.92123
https://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.harris.92123
| Tony 2012-10-02 19:28:50 Unknown |
This is his partner. Jeff Harris from Stuart Fl
https://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.harris.92123
https://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.harris.92123
| Tony 2012-10-02 19:23:29 Unknown |
Jeff Harris if from Stuart Fl..His Family is still there. He stays in weekly hotels and travels from city to city with Kevin Calvin.
https://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.harris.92123?fref=ts
https://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.harris.92123?fref=ts
| Tony 2012-10-02 19:18:46 Unknown |
https://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.harris.92123?fref=ts
| tony 2012-10-02 19:17:35 Unknown |
http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&noj=1&tbm=isch&tbnid=Pkn4N8vROlE2_M:&imgrefurl=http://www.arrestcourtinfo.com/Criminal-Recor ... iw=1092&bih=533
https://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.harris.92123?fref=ts
https://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.harris.92123?fref=ts
| Tony 2012-10-02 19:15:55 Unknown |
Jeff Harris is his partner
https://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.harris.92123?fref=ts
Kevin Calvin
http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&noj=1&tbm=isch&tbnid=Pkn4N8vROlE2_M:&imgrefurl=http://www.arrestcourtinfo.com/Criminal-Recor ... iw=1092&bih=533
https://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.harris.92123?fref=ts
Kevin Calvin
http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&noj=1&tbm=isch&tbnid=Pkn4N8vROlE2_M:&imgrefurl=http://www.arrestcourtinfo.com/Criminal-Recor ... iw=1092&bih=533
| Tony 2012-10-02 19:09:29 Unknown |
His partner is Jeff Harris from Stuart Fl. https://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.harris.92123?fref=ts
Kevin Calvin erased his FB Page, but I heard that the phones have starting ringing in Sac, Ca again
Kevin Calvin erased his FB Page, but I heard that the phones have starting ringing in Sac, Ca again
| Tony 2012-10-02 19:07:16 Unknown |
Jeff Harris is from Stuart Fl. He is a business partner of Kevin Calvin.
https://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.harris.92123?fref=ts
https://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.harris.92123?fref=ts
| jeff harris 2012-10-02 18:41:57 Telemarketer |
https://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.harris.92123?fref=ts
Kevin Calvin skiiote@yahoo.com
Kevin Calvin skiiote@yahoo.com
| James Stephenson 2012-09-06 19:44:11 Unknown |
After a welcome period of quiet, this a**hole has started calling again. This time the caller ID says "Unknown Number" and he's calling himself Ray. The callback number is 916-234-9398. I'd love to meet this fine gentleman so I could thank him personally for his innovative and effective ad campaign.
| FireWithFire 2012-05-02 15:12:50 Unknown |
!!! Yes. I am in Boulder, Colorado... got a call from these guys this morning (May 2, 2012). He has CHANGED his name to Joe and the phone number IS a local area code (720) as well; however, scouring the i-net to find a company names "Carpet, Tile & Furniture Cleaning Experts" and NOTHING but this Unknown Caller Scammer postings comes up. !!!
If calls continue I WILL have him come out to a nearby Little Ceasars Pizza and waste his time. Seems the calls wont stop in this case anyhow.
If calls continue I WILL have him come out to a nearby Little Ceasars Pizza and waste his time. Seems the calls wont stop in this case anyhow.
| robsmama 2012-02-14 02:46:54 Telemarketer |
Hi! Not sure anyone is still checking these posts since some of these are mare than a year old. Yesterday I got a call from this guys and his cleaning carpet company at 11:30 PM!!! We were all asleep (I have little kids) and the phone rang. My kids woke up crying and I immediatly thought it was an emergency so I rushed to the phone only to be greeted by this idiot's recorded message. We are on the do not call list and so I am now on a personal crusade to take this F&^%head down,. I have called all of the numbers you all have listed but they are all disconnected. Any new numbers or any resolution to your complaints?
| W Borgs 2011-11-15 15:01:17 Prank Call |
We have been getting calls from different numbers, and I have been filing a complaint with donotcall.gov, but he changes numbers. The number 530-210-5537 I turned in and I got a not put on my door handle with this number for home repair around the time we went out of town and came back and someone had done something to our newer air condenser. Sunday at 6:49 pm got a call from 682-738-3436, left message said he was Jeff Harris and left a message to clean carpets with the number 530 .. . I am assuming he is the same person calling us from all these other numbers as well.
I see someone says his is really Keven Jay Calvin from Trukee, CA. Why doesn't someone do something about him and why is he calling us in Texas?
I see someone says his is really Keven Jay Calvin from Trukee, CA. Why doesn't someone do something about him and why is he calling us in Texas?
| Anne 2011-11-01 22:03:35 Unknown |
Jason, I'm sorry this has happened to you. Christ, it's hard enough making a living in CA as it is...
| Anne 2011-11-01 22:00:22 Unknown |
He lives in Texas when he's on the run from California warrants... ;) What a pig.
| Anne 2011-11-01 21:58:16 Unknown |
Nancy, believe it or not, the FTC reviews ALL complaints.
| Savior 2011-10-25 07:57:16 Unknown |
I know who he is. Join our Facebook page "Help Stop Jeff Harris". His real name is Kevin Jay Calvin, born April 25, 1964. He lives in Truckee, CA and sometimes Texas.
| Savior 2011-10-25 07:01:09 Unknown |
His real name is Kevin Jay Calvin, and he lives in Truckee, Ca and sometimes Texas. When I get his phone number, I will post it all over the internet and we can all call him and ask him if HIS carpets are dirty!!!
© WHOSCALL.IN 2011-2024 - Privacy