Judge rules against Sandy Hook denier who authored book; trial for damages is next step

Apr 3, 2001
47,528
514
126
#2
Neither Fetzer nor Palecek was represented by an attorney. “Nobody wants to touch” their case, Fetzer said.
I guess there are limits.

 
Dec 7, 2004
13,013
483
126
#3
How these people acted toward grieving parents made it clear what irredeemable garbage they are.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,611
321
126
#4
Firstly, profiting over such conspiracies is awful, immoral stuff that I wouldn't support. I'm a little bit in conflict, though, as chiefly freedom of speech overall is not restricted to speech that is true. Also, I know that there are plenty of folks who spread the conspiracies because they actually believe them.

But if this is a case of someone creating media for the purpose of profit that is knowingly false and causes real damages to private individuals who had no intention of being public figure, then absolutely that is defamation that should result award for the victim.
 
Nov 29, 2006
13,359
607
126
#5
Instead of rewarding victims we should let it be known we wont stand for this and execute the perps. This kind of stuff would stop pretty fast. Lying for profit. I'm the weird pro death liberal :p
 

DarthKyrie

Senior member
Jul 11, 2016
947
683
116
#6
Instead of rewarding victims we should let it be known we wont stand for this and execute the perps. This kind of stuff would stop pretty fast. Lying for profit. I'm the weird pro death liberal :p
That would be the State violating his 1st Amendment rights. Now if you are talking about vigilante violence against these people I can agree because then it is the people responding to the persons 1st Amendment rights with their own 1st Amendment rights and maybe their 2nd Amendment rights as well.
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
3,358
238
136
#7
Lol. Case was so toxic no attorney took it and the guy had to represent himself. Lol
 

Triloby

Senior member
Mar 18, 2016
569
59
86
#8
Now if you are talking about vigilante violence against these people I can agree because then it is the people responding to the persons 1st Amendment rights with their own 1st Amendment rights and maybe their 2nd Amendment rights as well.
Well... let's just say that I won't lose any sleep if someone decides to take the law into their own hands when dealing with such criminal scum (the book authors).
 
Jan 28, 2002
13,933
344
126
#9
Firstly, profiting over such conspiracies is awful, immoral stuff that I wouldn't support. I'm a little bit in conflict, though, as chiefly freedom of speech overall is not restricted to speech that is true. Also, I know that there are plenty of folks who spread the conspiracies because they actually believe them.

But if this is a case of someone creating media for the purpose of profit that is knowingly false and causes real damages to private individuals who had no intention of being public figure, then absolutely that is defamation that should result award for the victim.

First Amendment free speech rights prevent the government from infringing upon your speech.

Others (private citizens) have every right to sue the pants off of slanderers.
 
Sep 5, 2000
25,724
937
126
#10
Well... let's just say that I won't lose any sleep if someone decides to take the law into their own hands when dealing with such criminal scum (the book authors).
That would just feed the conspiracy.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
52,272
948
126
#11
That would just feed the conspiracy.
This. Plus all this ever does is create martyrs who become mythical, unimpeachable rallying points.

No. Just no.
 
Jul 12, 2006
95,563
3,431
136
#12
That would be the State violating his 1st Amendment rights. Now if you are talking about vigilante violence against these people I can agree because then it is the people responding to the persons 1st Amendment rights with their own 1st Amendment rights and maybe their 2nd Amendment rights as well.
I can't disagree with this, lol.
 
Jul 12, 2006
95,563
3,431
136
#13
I guess there are limits.

can't be accurate. The court is required to appoint an attorney for the accused, and the state/local attorney is duty-bound to represent them.

These dumbshits rejected state representation. It's the only way this situation is possible. --the accused made that claim "no attorney would represent them." lol--what utter bullshit. That isn't in any way true. These guys are trying to be martyrs. I'm sure Steve fucking Bannon is fucking giving these cretins advice from afar, in his monastery palace in Italy, where he is leading the new Nazi regime takeover of Europe.

This goes all the way back to John Adams volunteering to represent the British Soldiers of the Boston Massacre and acquitting them among a virulently anti-British Boston public.
Our country essentially exists because of this right, and these dipshits rejected this thing that is so fundamentally rare in many parts of the world today. I mean...I'm kind of astonished that it would be reported any other way.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
52,272
948
126
#14
can't be accurate. The court is required to appoint an attorney for the accused, and the state/local attorney is duty-bound to represent them.

These dumbshits rejected state representation. It's the only way this situation is possible. --the accused made that claim "no attorney would represent them." lol--what utter bullshit. That isn't in any way true. These guys are trying to be martyrs. I'm sure Steve fucking Bannon is fucking giving these cretins advice from afar, in his monastery palace in Italy, where he is leading the new Nazi regime takeover of Europe.

This goes all the way back to John Adams volunteering to represent the British Soldiers of the Boston Massacre and acquitting them among a virulently anti-British Boston public.
Our country essentially exists because of this right, and these dipshits rejected this thing that is so fundamentally rare in many parts of the world today. I mean...I'm kind of astonished that it would be reported any other way.
"At present, the Supreme Court recognizes no express right to counsel in civil cases. Whether the Supreme Court will eventually hold that an indigent civil litigant is, under some circumstances, entitled as a matter of right to have counsel appointed by the court is at this point conjectural."
 
Feb 26, 2006
51,975
600
126
#15
"At present, the Supreme Court recognizes no express right to counsel in civil cases. Whether the Supreme Court will eventually hold that an indigent civil litigant is, under some circumstances, entitled as a matter of right to have counsel appointed by the court is at this point conjectural."
Yep..."court appointed lawyer" is a right reserved for criminal cases, not civil...and not all misdemeanor criminal cases.
 
Mar 11, 2004
18,638
927
126
#16
Buuuut guuuuuuys, this slope is slippery for the freeze peach! (Because people are being dumbfucks and defending shit like this under the guise of protecting freedom of speech.)

Well shit, already have one.

Firstly, profiting over such conspiracies is awful, immoral stuff that I wouldn't support. I'm a little bit in conflict, though, as chiefly freedom of speech overall is not restricted to speech that is true. Also, I know that there are plenty of folks who spread the conspiracies because they actually believe them.

But if this is a case of someone creating media for the purpose of profit that is knowingly false and causes real damages to private individuals who had no intention of being public figure, then absolutely that is defamation that should result award for the victim.
I'm not conflicted at all. Conspiracy theorists should be forced to either keep their garbage bullshit to themselves or plaster "this is a work of fiction" all over their shit and fess up to them just trying to scam people out of money by spreading fear and lies if that's what their goal is, or if they're just spreading shit (that harms others) then they should have to face consequences for it and should not have their speech protected. If they can provide real tangible evidence (as in, not the garbage bullshit they claim is such), then hey, it wouldn't be a theory it would be evidence of actual conspiracy. And if they're doing it because they believe it and aren't trying to make money off of it, then they need help and outreach and for damn sure need to not be allowed to harm other people by spewing it.

But they're doing real harm to the world through their shit, and if we don't do something about it, its going to majorly fuck things up (yes even worse than it already has; we're heading towards losing herd immunity due to the anti-vaccination assholes; and people like Bannon really believe they're prepping the world for some apocalyptic end times scenarios - although I think its more he's playing the idiots that believe that shit so he can get Europe and America back to his ideal white ethnostate; I'm seeing more and more people that believe society is heading towards collapse and because of it have started taking actions that will actually help major societal strife, which will just further their belief and then push them to act in more insanse/stupid ways creating a feedback loop where they make things worse and then use that to justify their belief that things are getting shittier and then make things worse still). These people don't just sorta believe in this shit (like its Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy), they're actively working towards such these days.

Yes and they'll just pull the same shit that makes enshrining untouchable religious protections dangerous, by claiming they really do believe it so they'll be protected due to their insanity, which won't help anything and will just make it worse. Which, just wait, they're gonna start claiming religious freedom over this shit soon when their "I was just joking/doing it for entertainment" defenses start failing. Hell, I'm not going to be surprised if Republicans even start that in order to try and be able to keep spreading their hateful rhetoric. Watch, if Turmp finally gets enough people to stop voting Republican, they'll rebrand - not rename, more just change their marketing and probably try to get religious tax exemptions - to claiming to be some Christian unity group and they'll use abortion as their key piece of agenda claiming that they're standing up against genocide and religious persecution (which obviously they need guns to protect themselves). Arguably they've already done this, but there's still enough of them that claim its over fiscal responsibility and other stuff that they can still somewhat plausibly claim they haven't gone full bore religious insane. I don't know if people realize the type of rhetoric that these people are utilizing and spreading, they really think they're fighting a holy war, while their politicians think they're fighting against Communism/Nazism (and doing their best McCarthy impressions), and then the greedy are making them do their bidding by offering them the creature comforts that keep them from just turning into crazy homeless people that are spewing no less crazy shit.

People need to start doing something about this crap and quick, because you going "it sucks, but free speech must be protected at all costs" is enabling the spread of hate speech and lies that is already directly leading to harm and its only going to get worse. If you want to protect freedom of speech that much then you need to start waking people from their stupor that's causing them to fall for all of this stupid crazy bullshit. Because while you're going "yeah this is a problem but freedom of speech..." they're telling people to go and kill.

And because inevitably people claim that saying that free speech has limitations means I'm wanting to ban it, free speech is important, but it should not be boundless and free of consequence. I'm trying to make people see that the group crying about free speech are the ones trying to push the hate. And that we need to recognize that and do something about it, because the next step is Putin's Russia and it doesn't get better from there. We're at the level where they're screaming fire in a crowded theater, but on the scale we're talking about is them calling for murder and genocide of groups of people.

The analogy at this point is closer to them hijacking planes and saying that there's a nuclear bomb in the World Trade Center so to save NYC they need to ram the planes and take the towers down. The people on the planes don't know any better as they're closed off and locked into their own bubble of ignorance and have been taught their whole lives that's how you deal with such a scenario and that they're making a heroic sacrifice, so they think they're doing good. Meanwhile the rest of society is busy toiling away in its normal every day lives' unaware there's a subset of society intent on "saving" things by killing a shitload of them. Oh and they're broadcasting to other planes and working to get more of them to do the same thing. Yet if the more benign people on the planes knew that they really think there's a cabal of aliens trying to subjugate humanity and that gay people need to die because they got touched inappropriately by a priest/teacher/other authority figure (which then made them also end up seeking child porn or child sex slaves), well then they probably wouldn't be able to dupe these other people that are more naive (and less malicious, or not maliciously willfully ignorant).

Something recently really highlights what I'm talking about. I listen to a podcast where they delve into a bunch of this type of shit (conspiracies, they especially get into alien/UFO ones), and they're too goddamned stupid to realize they're helping fuel these fucking nutjobs (that they clearly see as nutjobs, they call out incels and other conspiracy garbage a lot, but at the same time they also legitimize it and have on occasion actually spread it - they had an episode on Waco where they took that one conspiracy video that claims the FBI/ATF started the fire and intentionally murdered the people as truth even though there's absolutely clear evidence the Davidians did it and they rolled in with tanks in order to try and prevent all of them and especially the children from being killed; the podcasters later said they had screwed up by doing that but they regularly decry the media and do shit that furthers the overall sentiment spread by these conspiracy theorists and propagandists). Recently, one of them talked about being on a plane when a stewardess I guess knew them (and their podcast) and told them that she's had alien encounters (on planes), and that she's started confronting them (said she saw some alien posing as a human or something?) as she feels its her moral Christian imperative to and said there's like some coming war. They were both saying "she's crazy" but then saying they love it. I want to yell at them that see, you're actually enabling that type of craziness. But that's the type of shit I'm talking about. People don't seem to realize how fucking crazy a scary amount of people are going. It used to be those people would have to seek out such craziness (i.e. they'd have to subscribe to magazines and stuff and society would isolate them for being so stupid/weird), but now, they can go on Facebook, spout some shit, link some nutjob YouTube video, and then idiots that don't even agree on shit (that's the part that gets me, they often vehemently disagree on a lot of points), but just agree on some general vague "conspiracy" amplify their nuttiness, and then other people that see legitimate shit, get duped because they connected various things, when its not connected or at least not orchestrated like they believe. But they'll use legitimate stuff to get people to move to crazier steps, by exploiting their ignorance. For instance corporate greed, like say Monsanto, where then they'll go oh see they're genetically modifying stuff, they got it from government programs, but they got the technology from aliens. Or Operation Paperclip turns into the Nazis are still around and are in a secret base in either hollow Moon or Earth and they've been in cahoots with aliens. On a less completely total batshit insane, I've encountered people pointing to the synthetic opioids situation for being anti-vaccine (but trust me, those people will end up believing in some government cabal of child sex trafficking ring, and that's why refuse to vote because they're all in on it!). These are the types of idiots that voted Turmp in because they're too damn stupid to see that he's all of the things they claim they're afraid of in a President. But he's an outsider!!!
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,008
206
106
#17
Lol. Case was so toxic no attorney took it and the guy had to represent himself. Lol
Wow, I may have to revise my opinion on Lawyers I'd have thought one might take the case. Guess the author couldn't pony up enough funds.


___________
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,430
91
106
#18
Well to be fair lying for profit is now the Presidential way.
 

DrDoug

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2014
3,224
1,311
136
#19
Buuuut guuuuuuys, this slope is slippery for the freeze peach! (Because people are being dumbfucks and defending shit like this under the guise of protecting freedom of speech.)
...
I snipped the rest because it makes for a cleaner response. Read every word but hell, I thought I said a lot at times but you kicked my ass to the curb! :D I do agree with you on what you are saying and I believe that there already are provisions to enforce limits to free speech, such as you not having a right to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. With the internet and fragmented ways of communicating on it today, I think a lot of this inflammatory bullshit that incites individuals that identify with certain violent groups of people to violence and murder falls under that limit.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
4,970
190
126
#20
Buuuut guuuuuuys, this slope is slippery for the freeze peach! (Because people are being dumbfucks and defending shit like this under the guise of protecting freedom of speech.)

Well shit, already have one.



I'm not conflicted at all. Conspiracy theorists should be forced to either keep their garbage bullshit to themselves or plaster "this is a work of fiction" all over their shit and fess up to them just trying to scam people out of money by spreading fear and lies if that's what their goal is, or if they're just spreading shit (that harms others) then they should have to face consequences for it and should not have their speech protected. If they can provide real tangible evidence (as in, not the garbage bullshit they claim is such), then hey, it wouldn't be a theory it would be evidence of actual conspiracy. And if they're doing it because they believe it and aren't trying to make money off of it, then they need help and outreach and for damn sure need to not be allowed to harm other people by spewing it.

But they're doing real harm to the world through their shit, and if we don't do something about it, its going to majorly fuck things up (yes even worse than it already has; we're heading towards losing herd immunity due to the anti-vaccination assholes; and people like Bannon really believe they're prepping the world for some apocalyptic end times scenarios - although I think its more he's playing the idiots that believe that shit so he can get Europe and America back to his ideal white ethnostate; I'm seeing more and more people that believe society is heading towards collapse and because of it have started taking actions that will actually help major societal strife, which will just further their belief and then push them to act in more insanse/stupid ways creating a feedback loop where they make things worse and then use that to justify their belief that things are getting shittier and then make things worse still). These people don't just sorta believe in this shit (like its Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy), they're actively working towards such these days.

Yes and they'll just pull the same shit that makes enshrining untouchable religious protections dangerous, by claiming they really do believe it so they'll be protected due to their insanity, which won't help anything and will just make it worse. Which, just wait, they're gonna start claiming religious freedom over this shit soon when their "I was just joking/doing it for entertainment" defenses start failing. Hell, I'm not going to be surprised if Republicans even start that in order to try and be able to keep spreading their hateful rhetoric. Watch, if Turmp finally gets enough people to stop voting Republican, they'll rebrand - not rename, more just change their marketing and probably try to get religious tax exemptions - to claiming to be some Christian unity group and they'll use abortion as their key piece of agenda claiming that they're standing up against genocide and religious persecution (which obviously they need guns to protect themselves). Arguably they've already done this, but there's still enough of them that claim its over fiscal responsibility and other stuff that they can still somewhat plausibly claim they haven't gone full bore religious insane. I don't know if people realize the type of rhetoric that these people are utilizing and spreading, they really think they're fighting a holy war, while their politicians think they're fighting against Communism/Nazism (and doing their best McCarthy impressions), and then the greedy are making them do their bidding by offering them the creature comforts that keep them from just turning into crazy homeless people that are spewing no less crazy shit.

People need to start doing something about this crap and quick, because you going "it sucks, but free speech must be protected at all costs" is enabling the spread of hate speech and lies that is already directly leading to harm and its only going to get worse. If you want to protect freedom of speech that much then you need to start waking people from their stupor that's causing them to fall for all of this stupid crazy bullshit. Because while you're going "yeah this is a problem but freedom of speech..." they're telling people to go and kill.

And because inevitably people claim that saying that free speech has limitations means I'm wanting to ban it, free speech is important, but it should not be boundless and free of consequence. I'm trying to make people see that the group crying about free speech are the ones trying to push the hate. And that we need to recognize that and do something about it, because the next step is Putin's Russia and it doesn't get better from there. We're at the level where they're screaming fire in a crowded theater, but on the scale we're talking about is them calling for murder and genocide of groups of people.

The analogy at this point is closer to them hijacking planes and saying that there's a nuclear bomb in the World Trade Center so to save NYC they need to ram the planes and take the towers down. The people on the planes don't know any better as they're closed off and locked into their own bubble of ignorance and have been taught their whole lives that's how you deal with such a scenario and that they're making a heroic sacrifice, so they think they're doing good. Meanwhile the rest of society is busy toiling away in its normal every day lives' unaware there's a subset of society intent on "saving" things by killing a shitload of them. Oh and they're broadcasting to other planes and working to get more of them to do the same thing. Yet if the more benign people on the planes knew that they really think there's a cabal of aliens trying to subjugate humanity and that gay people need to die because they got touched inappropriately by a priest/teacher/other authority figure (which then made them also end up seeking child porn or child sex slaves), well then they probably wouldn't be able to dupe these other people that are more naive (and less malicious, or not maliciously willfully ignorant).

Something recently really highlights what I'm talking about. I listen to a podcast where they delve into a bunch of this type of shit (conspiracies, they especially get into alien/UFO ones), and they're too goddamned stupid to realize they're helping fuel these fucking nutjobs (that they clearly see as nutjobs, they call out incels and other conspiracy garbage a lot, but at the same time they also legitimize it and have on occasion actually spread it - they had an episode on Waco where they took that one conspiracy video that claims the FBI/ATF started the fire and intentionally murdered the people as truth even though there's absolutely clear evidence the Davidians did it and they rolled in with tanks in order to try and prevent all of them and especially the children from being killed; the podcasters later said they had screwed up by doing that but they regularly decry the media and do shit that furthers the overall sentiment spread by these conspiracy theorists and propagandists). Recently, one of them talked about being on a plane when a stewardess I guess knew them (and their podcast) and told them that she's had alien encounters (on planes), and that she's started confronting them (said she saw some alien posing as a human or something?) as she feels its her moral Christian imperative to and said there's like some coming war. They were both saying "she's crazy" but then saying they love it. I want to yell at them that see, you're actually enabling that type of craziness. But that's the type of shit I'm talking about. People don't seem to realize how fucking crazy a scary amount of people are going. It used to be those people would have to seek out such craziness (i.e. they'd have to subscribe to magazines and stuff and society would isolate them for being so stupid/weird), but now, they can go on Facebook, spout some shit, link some nutjob YouTube video, and then idiots that don't even agree on shit (that's the part that gets me, they often vehemently disagree on a lot of points), but just agree on some general vague "conspiracy" amplify their nuttiness, and then other people that see legitimate shit, get duped because they connected various things, when its not connected or at least not orchestrated like they believe. But they'll use legitimate stuff to get people to move to crazier steps, by exploiting their ignorance. For instance corporate greed, like say Monsanto, where then they'll go oh see they're genetically modifying stuff, they got it from government programs, but they got the technology from aliens. Or Operation Paperclip turns into the Nazis are still around and are in a secret base in either hollow Moon or Earth and they've been in cahoots with aliens. On a less completely total batshit insane, I've encountered people pointing to the synthetic opioids situation for being anti-vaccine (but trust me, those people will end up believing in some government cabal of child sex trafficking ring, and that's why refuse to vote because they're all in on it!). These are the types of idiots that voted Turmp in because they're too damn stupid to see that he's all of the things they claim they're afraid of in a President. But he's an outsider!!!


Defamation, libel and slander aren't protected by the first amendment, and the government is the enforcing party in both criminal and civil judgements if one is found to be guilty of defamation, libel or slander in court,

Since the legal system is in place to sue and win in court in this case without running afoul of the First Amendment, this case shouldn't be used as some sort of litmus test against others First Amendment rights because their beliefs or opinions may be downright stupid or reprehensible.

Laws are already in place to go after defamation, libel or slander, no need to erode our rights further just like the War on Terror and the Drug War has because of extreme cases that could have been handled under present laws.
Differences Between Defamation, Slander, and Libel

by Brette Sember, Esq.
Freelance writer

Differences Between Defamation, Slander, and Libel

by Brette Sember, Esq., August 2015

Defamation, slander, and libel are terms that frequently confused with each other. They all fall into the same category of law and have to do with communications that falsely debase someone’s character.
Defamation Definition
What is defamation
? Defamation is a false statement presented as a fact that causes injury or damage to the character of the person it is about. An example is “Tom Smith stole money from his employer.” If this is untrue and if making the statement damages Tom’s reputation or ability to work, it is defamation. The person whose reputation has been damaged by the false statement can bring a defamation lawsuit.
Defamation of character happens when something untrue and damaging is presented as a fact to someone else. Making the statement only to the person the statement is about (“Tom, you’re a thief”) is not defamation because it does not damage that person’s character in anyone else’s eyes.
Legal Difference Between Opinion and Defamation
There is an important difference in defamation law between stating an opinion and defaming someone. Saying, “I think Cindy is annoying” is an opinion and is something that can’t ever really be empirically proven true or false. Saying “I think Cindy stole a car” is still an opinion but implies she committed a crime. If the accusation is untrue, then it will defame her. This is why the news media is so careful to use the word “allegedly” when talking about people accused of a crime. This way they merely report someone else’s accusation without stating their own opinion.
Importance of Intent
Another crucial part of a defamation case is that the person makes the false statement with a certain kind of intent. The statement must have been made with knowledge that it was untrue or with reckless disregard for the truth (meaning the person who said it questioned the truthfulness but said it anyhow). If the person being defamed is a private citizen and not a celebrity or public figure, defamation can also be proven when the statement was made with negligence as to determining its truth (the person speaking should have known it was false or should have questioned it). This means it is easier to prove defamation when you are a private citizen. There is a higher standard required if you are a public figure.
Some states have laws that automatically make certain statements defamation. Any false statement that a person has committed a serious crime, has a serious infectious disease, or is incompetent in his profession are automatically defamatory under these laws.
Slander and Libel Definition
What is Slander
? What is Libel? Libel and slander are both types of defamation. Libel is an untrue defamatory statement that is made in writing. Slander is an untrue defamatory statement that is spoken orally. The difference between defamation and slander is that a defamatory statement can be made in any medium. It could be in a blog comment or spoken in a speech or said on television. Libelous acts only occur when a statement is made in writing (digital statements count as writing) and slanderous statements are only made orally.
You may have heard of seditious libel. The Sedition Act of 1798 made it a crime to print anything false about the government, president, or Congress. The Supreme Court later modified this when it enacted the rule that a statement against a public figure is libel only if it known to be false or the speaker had a reckless disregard for the truth when making it.
Damages for Defamation
Suing for slander
, libel, or defamation brings a civil suit in a state court and alleges that under the slander laws or libel laws of that state the person who brought about the lawsuit was damaged by the conduct of the person who made the false statement. A libel or slander lawsuit seeks monetary damages for harm caused by the statement, such as pain and suffering, damage to the plaintiff’s reputation, lost wages or a loss of ability to earn a living, and personal emotional reactions such as shame, humiliation, and anxiety.
Defending a Defamation Case
If you are accused of defamation, slander, or libel, truth is an absolute defense to the allegation. If what you said is true, there is no case. If the case is brought by a public figure and you can prove you were only negligent in weighing whether the statement was false, that can be a defense as well.
Defamation is an area of law that protects people’s reputations by allowing them recourse if false statements are made about them. This type of civil case is an effective way to protect your reputation.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS