Man sues chatroom pals: I was humiliated beyond what 'no man could endure'

CourtTV ^ | 01/12/2006 | J.K. Dineen

[BlessedBeGod]

Wuss! Girly man!

Sheesh!

[Fierce Allegiance]

Gee, thanks.

[Eagle Eye]

bashed him over the head with a half empty liquor bottle.

How repugnant!

You wasted half a bottle of liquor.

[jcb8199]

"where offending someone or directly cursing or attacking their dignity can give you a cause of action"

Kinda like the kid that got in trouble for calling a horse "gay"--had "homophobia" charges filed... And yet the same people who defend such laws are the same who think Orwell and Bradbury are on their side...

[MEGoody]

Uh, so how did these 'harrassers' end up with all this personal info (e.g. his address, his real name) on the 'victim'. 10 to 1 he gave it to them himself.

[ModelBreaker]

I just read that one! What a hoot! I guess we can ALL sue each other HERE on FR from time to time~ I have certainly been flamed! LOL

As for me, I have never said anything online that I later regret having said. And if you believe that . . .

[MEGoody]

Couldn't the President have used his line item veto on these midnight additions to congresional bills?

When did the President get the power for line item veto? I must have missed something.

[MEGoody]

The plain fact is, it's rather hard for someone in a chat room to 'threaten' you or 'harrass' you if you aren't sharing personal info with them. If you don't like what they say, you can click 'ignore' so you don't see their posts, and you can shut them out so they can't send mail or IMs.

In other words, don't share personal info with random people in chat rooms.

[mikrofon]

Probably -- but it would be really hard to pass off Ann-Margret as a guy...

[Fawnn]

omg u cnt b seris cud u rly su us??/???

I don't know which is most worrisome: the lawsuit or the fact that I understand what you wrote(?). ;)

[Jersey Republican Biker Chick]

I am only speaking on things I have seen done to others.

I am waiting to see what type of law suits arise from these new laws. It will be very interesting.

[BJClinton]

10 to 1 he gave it to them himself.

He was probably trying to hook-up with them and gave them some contact info.

[right-wingin_It]

I recalled it passed with Clinton in office when I was in college...

But I just looked it up right now, and see the SCOTUS struck it down in '98. That explains it!

[WayneS]

Possibly.

If my head had been hard enough to break the bottle, the liquor would have been spilled and you would have not been able to consume it. If you hadn't been able to consume it then you almost certainly would not have been (as) intoxicated, and you probably would have been able to maintain your balance when the fire hydrant stepped in front of you. Therefore, my fault.

If I were you, I would sue both me and the owner of the errant hydrant.

[WayneS]

Oh, and by the way, please return the stuffed panda.

[GraniteStateConservative]

His first mistake was becoming an AOL subscriber. It was all downhill after that.

[Kenton]

If that's true, there could be a cause of action.

Yeah, that shows malice aforethought, that's for sure. But the claimant publicly posted his private information, which may exclude him from the "private person" considerations.

Of course, anything discovered from the courthouse is public record anyway, and truth is a pretty good defense against libel.

Interesting case. That's why I stay out of chatrooms, too many losers and psychos hang out there.

[mad puppy]

"...a face that could scare a hungry wolf off a meat truck."


I don't care where you're from, that is funny. I'll be using that line at some point in the future.

[cripplecreek]

My favorite was....

"Maximum seating capacity 80 people....or you"