Michael Jackson: The Experience

Ellis wrote:

We are all capable of evil things.

Sure, but are we all capable of killing people we loved at one point? Fuck no.

Ellis wrote:

It's not defamation since: 1) You can not prove it false as the out of court settlement does not allow for him to sue people for assuming he touched little boys. 2) He is/was a public figure. Huge double standard here. If famous people sued someone for making a statement that insulted them or made them look bad everytime it happened, our courts we be flooded with those cases and nothing else.

The only difference would be if you were to publish something (making then libel instead of defamation) that was a clear lie (which in this case it isn't) and can be proven to show damages to the victim.


All that being said: Why did Michael Jackson go to K-Mart? And for bonus points, what's Macaulay Culkin's favorite salad dressing?

I don't know about the glorious land of the free, but it certainly is defamation here. The onus is on the accuser to prove the accusation, not the accused to defend themselves.

Sure, if people sued everytime someone talked shit about them, the courts would be way too flooded, but that doesn't legitimise it in any way.

Here in the Glorious Land of the Free and Home of the Awesome public figures are held to a different standard. If that wasn't the case tabloids would be out of business, talk show hosts would bee sued for all they got, etc. Not like it's a bad thing tho. I hate tabloids.

Ellis wrote:

Here in the Glorious Land of the Free and Home of the Awesome public figures are held to a different standard. If that wasn't the case tabloids would be out of business, talk show hosts would bee sued for all they got, etc. Not like it's a bad thing tho. I hate tabloids.

They're held to different standards here too, it's just a different sort of standard, I guess. There're always huge controversies with AFL players (Brendan Fevola, Ben Cousins, Wayne Carey, etc) getting in trouble for doing stupid shit which is all over the news, the difference is they've actually done the stuff, and if they haven't there are a series of apologies.

As for talkshow hosts, I assume you mean making jokes (I don't watch any, so I don't really know) which is perfectly fine here too, so long as they are in fact just jokes and not actual accusations.

Yea. And what makes it tougher is the whole "freedom of speech thing".

You know that we have freedom of speech too, right? It's just we also have the right to a good image that reflects our character, or some shit.

No way. You commies get to express opinions openly? Man the iron curtain sure isn't what it used to be. I'm only joking but I was just trying to say that in both cases, and in most other developed nations, defamation and freedom of speech laws can clash and then its up to the courts for interpretation.

Ellis wrote:

No way. You commies get to express opinions openly? Man the iron curtain sure isn't what it used to be. I'm only joking but I was just trying to say that in both cases, and in most other developed nations, defamation and freedom of speech laws can clash and then its up to the courts for interpretation.

Yeah, that's really the biggest problem with balancing rights, those two would be a bitch to come up with a clear line for.

I say we go back to the old school way of dealing with defamation. Instead of sueing someone, just go kick their ass. You can't do that nowadays cuz they'll charge you with assault. Instead of courts we should just build Thunderdomes everywhere. That's where you go to solve all your problems.

Ellis wrote:

Still, he was one of the best football players ever.

So are you saying that Tiger Woods is incapable of cheating on his wife because he's one of the greatest golfers of all time?

No I'm just saying you can never take that away from the man. Just like you can't take that away from El Tigre

Oh OK. Yeah, that's true, he was.

Which single do you like best?/which one do you sing best?