The consensus around a few years ago was that ATS is something akin to a honeypot, controlled disinfo site. Going from memory Tavistock institute cannot be mentioned on that site which, if true, is damn suspicious.
I joined ATS in 2006 and it was pretty good for awhile. However, that site has degraded so much over the years. I feel like they're just a joke now, and I can't take the site seriously anymore
except forums have safe harbor protections for user generated content, so no that is not the issue. Also libel requires proof of two things - 1) The person publishing statements knows they are false and 2) The person had malicious intent when publishing said statements.
Clearly the people saying these things believe them
If the owners of the forums knowingly allow something to be published which they know to be false than they can be sued for libel. The nature of the content abrogates the need for proving malicious intent.
If the owners of the forums knowingly allow something to be published which they know to be false than they can be sued for libel. The nature of the content abrogates the need for proving malicious intent.
It has been ruled that it is not the forums job to police content unless it is criminal, or a formal complaint has been received. Otherwise google would be fucked
Learn the law please
Also no one knows if this is true or false at this point. Reasonable doubt and all that
Quite so, so if they have received a formal complaint and don't take this action then they can be liable. Hence why they are taking the action to prevent subsequent legal action.
I dont think you understand how strong our first amendment protections are
In 1828 Andrew Jackson's wife — who had, shockingly for the time, been divorced — was called all sorts of lewd names by his opponents (they also called Jackson a jackass). In retaliation, Jackson claimed that incumbent John Quincy Adams had once tried to offer his maid as a concubine to Russian Czar Alexander I.
except forums have safe harbor protections for user generated content, so no that is not the issue. Also libel requires proof of two things - 1) The person publishing statements knows they are false and 2) The person had malicious intent when publishing said statements.
Clearly the people saying these things believe them
12 comments
11 modalert 2016-12-01
The consensus around a few years ago was that ATS is something akin to a honeypot, controlled disinfo site. Going from memory Tavistock institute cannot be mentioned on that site which, if true, is damn suspicious.
7 nottheoretical 2016-12-01
I think it was Godlike Productions that was connected to Tavistock but i never doubted that ATS was also full of shills.
6 ArchonFall4All 2016-12-01
I joined ATS in 2006 and it was pretty good for awhile. However, that site has degraded so much over the years. I feel like they're just a joke now, and I can't take the site seriously anymore
2 Juan__Lennon 2016-12-01
Yet more proof of this govt ran controlled opposition forum. Fuck ATS. They know all about Tavistock. Just go ask them.
-6 MJMurcott 2016-12-01
Presuming that they don't want to be one of the whole host of libel cases which are likely to be starting soon.
5 sh3rog 2016-12-01
except forums have safe harbor protections for user generated content, so no that is not the issue. Also libel requires proof of two things - 1) The person publishing statements knows they are false and 2) The person had malicious intent when publishing said statements.
Clearly the people saying these things believe them
-1 MJMurcott 2016-12-01
If the owners of the forums knowingly allow something to be published which they know to be false than they can be sued for libel. The nature of the content abrogates the need for proving malicious intent.
3 sh3rog 2016-12-01
It has been ruled that it is not the forums job to police content unless it is criminal, or a formal complaint has been received. Otherwise google would be fucked
Learn the law please
Also no one knows if this is true or false at this point. Reasonable doubt and all that
-2 MJMurcott 2016-12-01
Quite so, so if they have received a formal complaint and don't take this action then they can be liable. Hence why they are taking the action to prevent subsequent legal action.
1 sh3rog 2016-12-01
Complaint must be regarding criminal content, libel is a civil matter. Thank god for the 1st amendment
1 MJMurcott 2016-12-01
Incorrect.
2 sh3rog 2016-12-01
Oh yeah -
Bill clinton fucks kids
Go ahead report that "libel" see what happens lol
I dont think you understand how strong our first amendment protections are
In 1828 Andrew Jackson's wife — who had, shockingly for the time, been divorced — was called all sorts of lewd names by his opponents (they also called Jackson a jackass). In retaliation, Jackson claimed that incumbent John Quincy Adams had once tried to offer his maid as a concubine to Russian Czar Alexander I.
5 sh3rog 2016-12-01
except forums have safe harbor protections for user generated content, so no that is not the issue. Also libel requires proof of two things - 1) The person publishing statements knows they are false and 2) The person had malicious intent when publishing said statements.
Clearly the people saying these things believe them