Actor Gets Permission To Sue His Twitter Abuser For $10M

jpm100 said:
Usually public figures are fair game. Sounds like a double standard.
Click to expand...

Same standard applies to everyone, it is whether you want to front the lawyer and court fees to get things started if you are the victim of something like this. Also you would want a lawyer that can handle such a case as well.
 
NoOther said:
Twitter comments are written...so I am not sure where you were going with that?
Click to expand...

Because you can't substitute liable for slander in his statement and respond to that and have intelligent progression of the discussion?
 
Darunion said:
Same standard applies to everyone, it is whether you want to front the lawyer and court fees to get things started if you are the victim of something like this. Also you would want a lawyer that can handle such a case as well.
Click to expand...

To prove defamation, a "public figure", must pretty much prove the person knowingly lied. Woods would have a hard time proving that normally.
 
On the one hand...James Woods, just some celebrity who got butthurt, blah blah blah

On the other...fuck assholes who post shit talk on Twitter trying to cower behind anonymity.
 
According to that MR. Woods has said similar stuff to other people himself, seems like he wants to be protected but doesn't want to abide by the same rules.
 
How does he expect to get 10 million from this person. If the person in middle-class or lower, don't expect anything like that in their lifetime.
 
Mugato said:
Don't know him personally, but hate him as an actor, get some thicker skin!
Click to expand...

He's not easy to like, he's frequently caste as an asshole. Or maybe he is just an asshole, anyway. I would be remiss if I didn't admit that I have liked him in some roles he's played.
 
Sikkyu said:
how the hell do you sue an anonymous twitter account?
Click to expand...

File the law suite, if the compaint has standing the judge will issue a warrant/subpoena and Twitter has to try and hunt the anonymous user down. They get an IP, bada-bing-bada-boom, you have a winner.
 
ShagnWagn said:
If I could sue every bully that has made statements against me... I would be the richest person on Earth. How rich do you think Obama would be?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could, if you can show that the name calling cause you damages, damages that can be measured in monetory form.

James Woods is an actor and as an actor much of his livelihood relies on public perception. If that perception is damaged, maybe cause him to miss out on a role, then he has suffered damage and if borne out in court, should receive such compensation as the damages warrant.


That's basically how it works. So the $10 million dollar questions is, if I call you a child molester will it cause you problems, would you loose your job? Would your wife leave you and take the kids?

Or would it just make everyone laugh and click on the next hyperlinked article?
 
lcpiper said:
You're right, and it's a good thing too. And making libelous comments should be just as punishable whether they are made in person or on the internet.
Click to expand...

Meh I think that is a load of bunkus. If that's the case I should be able to sue all of the ass holes that picked on me in school, or any jerk off that said anything about me at any point in my life for that matter. It ALL affects me, maybe prevented me from pursuing certain avenues in my life that would have made me a lot of money.

The only difference between me and this guy is that he's famous and he makes more money than me.
 
Unless some person is posting personal information that physically harms another, I say its fair game. Personally insulting somebody is disrespectful, but its not a crime. There is however a line to be crossed where it becomes harassment I suppose, but if you dont want people posting shit you cant control on twitter than dont make a fucking twitter account.
 
I'd like to see the exchange, because it sounds like Woods is a notorious troll and often makes similar statements to people who disagree with him.
 
This is retarded. Fuck this gay earth.

If this is really okay, why don't presidents sue their rivals for libel then?
 
sfsuphysics said:
Criminally no, we are not. in a civil trial like this one, yeah you are not innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...


Ask the guys who have been falsely accused of rape or domestic violence. E.g mark pearson who was accused of sexual assault by a has been porn star guess where it happened in a busy train stattion but why because he bumped into her and never said sorry and she siezed her opportunity ruined his life and that went to trial thank socialists, liberals and feminists for that.
 
otherweeb said:
Not quite and that's the key:

If he said "James Woods is LIKE a cocaine addict"
He is merely comparing the two and suggesting they share traits.

Saying "James Woods IS a cocaine addict" implies James Woods actively consumes federally illegal substances for which he should investigated and punished.
Click to expand...

We all know actors don't do any type of drugs! :D
I don't know how long it stays in your system or for hair testing. I wonder if he gave a sample.
 
otherweeb said:
as noted by griffenhart, under the First Amendment you can slander all you want, but individuals have the right to defend their reputation. Chose your words wisely.
Click to expand...
So if someone calls me a motherf*er after I piss them off, I can sue them for $10M if I can prove I haven't ever had sex with a mother?

I think in defamation suits, first you should have to be able to PROVE DAMAGE. A random twitter from an anonymous nobody would not be taken seriously and therefor does not do any damage that can be measured to the so-called victim.

That is entirely different from say the Huffington Post making up lies about a presidential candidate during his campaign, which absolutely can do major damage.

This should have been thrown out, and the fact that it isn't shows that our court system is broken. I wish someone would make America Great Again.
 
he better hope the guy is not his dealer. he might lose it all
 
P4B said:
he better hope the guy is not his dealer. he might lose it all
Click to expand...

THAT WOULD THE BESTESTS MOST AWESOME OUTCOME EVER!!

How hilarious would that be? He sues his dealer, who can prove it. It would be hilarious, get rid of a pansy and a cocaine dealer.

That said, what was the tweet? I can't find it anywhere. All I get is that it called woods a cocaine user or something, but not how it is specifically phrased.
 
I can't figure out which countries denomination is represented with an "M". I think it's cool he's only suing for $10, but I was just wondering what country of origin the M was.

Like suing someone for $10AUD or $10CAN....right? .......right?

2zdu075.jpg
 
ebduncan said:
public slander, is a sueable offense.
I guess some folks forget that.
Click to expand...

It's hard to win if you're a public figure and I think it's going to be even tougher since it's a twitter war (i.e. a flame war on twitter). Apparently Woods is notorious for saying things like the person he disagrees with is on crack or should go back and smoke some more crack.

The idea that his reputation could be hurt in that manner (on twitter, no less) is ridiculous.
 
jpm100 said:
Because you can't substitute liable for slander in his statement and respond to that and have intelligent progression of the discussion?
Click to expand...

First it is "libel" not liable. Second, this thread is about someone being sued for defamation. Both libel and slander fall under defamation. Slandering someone is also considered defamation. So I am not sure where your comments are coming from or how we cannot 'have intelligent progression of the discussion' because of the comments?
 
NoOther said:
First it is "libel" not liable. Second, this thread is about someone being sued for defamation. Both libel and slander fall under defamation. Slandering someone is also considered defamation. So I am not sure where your comments are coming from or how we cannot 'have intelligent progression of the discussion' because of the comments?
Click to expand...
Idk. you're the one who wants to dwell on libel vs. slander and spelling.
 
jpm100 said:
Idk. you're the one who wants to dwell on libel vs. slander and spelling.
Click to expand...

Umm, your the one that was calling me out bro and making comments that made no sense. You still haven't answered the question, which was based on your statements. Obviously the discussion progressed, so I am curious why you would say it wouldn't based on the statements made?
 
If I was to bother sue my abusers I reckon I could go for 100m if he can go for 10m just for that.
 
rezerekted said:
If I was to bother sue my abusers I reckon I could go for 100m if he can go for 10m just for that.
Click to expand...

Remember, suits are based on damages done. If you were a highly paid individual, then perhaps you could get a lot of money, because the damage would be greater on a monetary level. That is usually the way the system works.
 
Well, you can also argue for mental damages, and medication or psychiatrics or whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top