That's a twist

[CanteringCarrot]

@mbdsea

Okay. Just to be clear, I’m not in this camp, either. And in Morgan’s defense, she seemed to accept my point in a gracious way. I don’t think anything here is as clear as people would like it to be. Well, except that LK was shot, and it likely was not an appropriate use of lethal force. That much is clear.

I get that people want answers and want to make sense of things. Normal reaction to abnormal events. I just don’t think we are there yet - not even close - factually.

Exactly. The last part of this post. Not ALL of it is victim shaming, not all of it needs to be met with insults, not all of it is “lies” or “stalking” but still, the nastiness simply cannot be put aside it seems.

[Mersidoats]

@Wilbury Pie

I feel drama just thinking about cleaning cat boxes. Yikes ! So I just open the door and let them go outside. No drama in my woods, they are safe

I just helped a friend clean out her rental after her no-good tenants abandoned it. They let their cats use the laundry room as a cat box. It was very dramatic.

[mbdsea]

@CanteringCarrot

Exactly. The last part of this post. Not ALL of it is victim shaming, not all of it needs to be met with insults, not all of it is “lies” or “stalking” but still, the nastiness simply cannot be put aside it seems.

Well, except that none of us were the one who was shot. So I don’t think we are entitled to answers and definitely not at this point in time, as much as some may want them.

She is, though. She’s the victim of a shooting.

If I were the victim of a shooting, and people were questioning what I’d done to get shot or how I’d behaved in totally unrelated circumstances, I’d be pretty upset especially if I could not adequately defend myself because the criminal and civil matters were ongoing. I don’t know whether or not she did other things or how she behaved in those totally unrelated circumstances - I don’t know her or anyone involved at all. But for this matter - the shooting - it isn’t germane.

All I’m saying is that it would be nice to exercise a little grace in this situation and understand that someone going through a trauma - however unwisely or inappropriately you (not you in particular but a general you) think she’s dealing with it - may not react as that person might otherwise under less traumatic circumstances.

Getting shot IS a trauma. I don’t know her, so I can’t speak for her, but I’m sure it isn’t easy to deal with - certainly not objectively and rationally. Let’s not minimize the trauma with speculation and guesswork.

ETA a paragraph break for clarity.

[YankeeDuchess]

@La-LaPopRider

Excellent question. How would MorganSercu know any information whatsoever contained in the SS report? Actually, that’s a better question for me to ask SS & direct them to this thread. Although, by all means, @MorganSercu please share!

Here is Lauren asking Morgan directly how she would be privy to any information contained in a SS report (such as allegations of child abuse).

The answer, @MorganSercu ?

[Denali6298]

@YankeeDuchess

Here is Lauren asking Morgan directly how she would be privy to any information contained in a SS report (such as allegations of child abuse).

The answer, Morgan?

She doesn’t have one. She’s trying to be relevant as an accuse to routinely slam LK.

[CanteringCarrot]

@mbdsea

Well, except that none of us were the one who was shot. So I don’t think we are entitled to answers and definitely not at this point in time, as much as some may want them.

She is, though. She’s the victim of a shooting.

If I were the victim of a shooting, and people were questioning what I’d done to get shot or how I’d behaved in totally unrelated circumstances, I’d be pretty upset especially if I could not adequately defend myself because the criminal and civil matters were ongoing. I don’t know whether or not she did other things or how she behaved in those totally unrelated circumstances - I don’t know her or anyone involved at all. But for this matter - the shooting - it isn’t germane.

All I’m saying is that it would be nice to exercise a little grace in this situation and understand that someone going through a trauma - however unwisely or inappropriately you (not you in particular but a general you) think she’s dealing with it - may not react as that person might otherwise under less traumatic circumstances.

Getting shot IS a trauma. I don’t know her, so I can’t speak for her, but I’m sure it isn’t easy to deal with - certainly not objectively and rationally. Let’s not minimize the trauma with speculation and guesswork.

ETA a paragraph break for clarity.

Yeah, I agree, and I’ve said, we’re not entitled to answers. She only has to answer of she wants to. Her choice. Not ours.

[Scribbler]

Just had to chime in with some legal clarification.

People Twitter with their real names mostly. If they post something defamatory about another named person, yes, the general laws about libel apply. In my jurisdiction to win a libel case you need to prove that the statement was both damaging and untrue. Of course most such cases are going to begin and end with a warning letter from a lawyer because neither side really wants the expense of a court case. The lawyer has no power to order the item removed, his job is just to threaten the author.

If a media source believes their statement to be true they might call the lawyers bluff and say bring it on, knowing more dirt will come out in that case.

I have never heard of a libel case where the injured party was an enthusiastic part of an anonymous chat group, was aggressive and insulting themselves, but just didn’t like the replies they got. Also never heard of an online harassment case that was limited to rough and tumble within a chat group where the injured party was also playing rough

Internet harrassment could involve going to platforms outside the anonymous chat group and particularly contacting them personally.

The situation described by Girl Joey fits the definition of harassment. According to GJ, the former girlfriend of her current boyfriend, someone she had never met, began sending her ugly vicious messages using her real name on Facebook. I am unclear why GJ didn’t just block these messages right away. However the description of that situation as given in the previous thread is a textbook case of harassment. And GJ did get traction from law enforcement on this matter I think.

Very different from getting into a fight on a chat group where you don’t even know who everyone is.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Sparrowette

You’re funny! If you’d been following more closely, you would have gotten the joke. But you don’t, so you didn’t.

C’est la vie.

And I have no agreement, nor disagreement. This whole thing is just a soap opera I follow.

Well, I’m the one whose screen name you were insulting, and I don’t understand the joke. Please explain it to me. In great detail.

[mswillie]

So many sock puppets, so little time.

[x-halt-salute]

@YankeeDuchess

If you write a confidential letter of recommendation for someone for a university (student or job applicant), the university will warn the writer of the “confidential” letter that their identity will not be disclosed, up until the point that a court requires the identity, at which point they will hand it over without a fight.

Sensible people understand that just because a free BB gives you an account and lets you hide behind a screen name to post all sorts of crap, that doesn’t necessarily protect your identity in all situations.

But for a lot of these posters who have been gleefully and irresponsibly slinging mud for years, it may be too late to clean up their act. Too late to close the barn door after the horses have fled.

That’s not how recommendation letters work. 'Tis the season for recommendation requests, so I’m reading this thread as a break from writing those very letters. If you write a letter of recommendation for a university applicant (student or faculty search; review/advancement letters are a bit different) your identity may matter to the admissions/search committee and is not concealed (redacted in the applicant’s file). The applicant will have provided advance written approval for a letter authored by you to be attached to their dossier, so they also know who you are. Confidentiality agreements in academic letter requests focus on the content of the letter, and applicants typically waive their right to ever see that content. The more general confidentiality of student application files (in the U.S.) is down to FERPA. I’m sure how hard a university would fight w.r.t. confidentiality of letters would depend on their own exposure in the specific discrimination or defamation case in which letter content would be sufficiently germane to the question at hand that a court would compel its disclosure.

As for the nonsense here, a lot of it is being perpetuated by houseguest-like accounts or folks who’ve followed the scent of scandal from the SS/GM thread over here where there’s fresh sh*t to stir. I’m not confident that the regular dressage forum posters who have expressed opinions about LK (pro or contra) have enough lust for conflict with other posters to keep this thread going past the point of recipe swaps and litter box tales were there not a small number of scandal enthusiasts kindling little squabbles. I also have some doubts about whether any court would care enough about petty dissection of arguments or any individual’s “mean girl” status to establish identities of a majority of posters on this thread, nor are there years of mudslinging to examine in a thread that has been open less than a month (about a tragedy that happened less than half a year ago).

Hopefully those on this board who are close to the case are smart enough to realize that public statements and actions may not be anonymous, even if their identities aren’t obvious to those they’re interacting with. With no new information disclosed publicly about the case, the rest now just seems like folks who enjoy conflict hovering like moths around the hostility and disputed details of a high-profile violent crime.

[mbdsea]

@Scribbler

Just had to chime in with some legal clarification.

People Twitter with their real names mostly. If they post something defamatory about another named person, yes, the general laws about libel apply. In my jurisdiction to win a libel case you need to prove that the statement was both damaging and untrue. Of course most such cases are going to begin and end with a warning letter from a lawyer because neither side really wants the expense of a court case. The lawyer has no power to order the item removed, his job is just to threaten the author.

If a media source believes their statement to be true they might call the lawyers bluff and say bring it on, knowing more dirt will come out in that case.

I have never heard of a libel case where the injured party was an enthusiastic part of an anonymous chat group, was aggressive and insulting themselves, but just didn’t like the replies they got. Also never heard of an online harassment case that was limited to rough and tumble within a chat group where the injured party was also playing rough

Internet harrassment could involve going to platforms outside the anonymous chat group and particularly contacting them personally.

The situation described by Girl Joey fits the definition of harassment. According to GJ, the former girlfriend of her current boyfriend, someone she had never met, began sending her ugly vicious messages using her real name on Facebook. I am unclear why GJ didn’t just block these messages right away. However the description of that situation as given in the previous thread is a textbook case of harassment. And GJ did get traction from law enforcement on this matter I think.

Very different from getting into a fight on a chat group where you don’t even know who everyone is.

A quick Westlaw search revealed that anonymity in a chat room or message board is little protection at all from libel. Now, whether there’s an affirmative defense besides truth to that based on the victim’s actions, I don’t know. Again, I think circumspection is always a wise course.

[YankeeDuchess]

I misspoke, I really meant to refer to “tenure letters”, in which the identity of the writer and usually the contents of the letter are not disclosed to the candidate. Someone asked to provide a letter in a tenure or promotion case is told whether the contents are disclosed to the recipient with the name redacted or whether both contents and name are confidential and just read by the university. But even if the policy is that the name of the writer is confidential, my university specifically states that if asked by a court, they will hand over the identity.

My point is that just because you write stuff under the assumption that you are anonymous doesn’t mean that you can rest assured that your anonymity will never be broken.

[mbdsea]

@x-halt-salute

As for the nonsense here, a lot of it is being perpetuated by houseguest-like accounts or folks who’ve followed the scent of scandal from the SS/GM thread over here where there’s fresh sh*t to stir. I’m not confident that the regular dressage forum posters who have expressed opinions about LK (pro or contra) have enough lust for conflict with other posters to keep this thread going past the point of recipe swaps and litter box tales were there not a small number of scandal enthusiasts kindling little squabbles. I also have some doubts about whether any court would care enough about petty dissection of arguments or any individual’s “mean girl” status to establish identities of a majority of posters on this thread, nor are there years of mudslinging to examine in a thread that has been open less than a month (about a tragedy that happened less than half a year ago).

Hopefully those on this board who are close to the case are smart enough to realize that public statements and actions may not be anonymous, even if their identities aren’t obvious to those they’re interacting with. With no new information disclosed publicly about the case, the rest now just seems like folks who enjoy conflict hovering like moths around the hostility and disputed details of a high-profile violent crime.

Not really a houseguest but I don’t post much as I did on the old UDBB (difference handle over there). I do prefer non-conflict with people generally because my job is high-conflict. I was pretty shocked that someone got shot by a trainer. I mean, it’s just dressage - I’ve never thought of it as a life and death kinda thing.

[YankeeDuchess]

@x-halt-salute

That’s not how recommendation letters work. 'Tis the season for recommendation requests, so I’m reading this thread as a break from writing those very letters. If you write a letter of recommendation for a university applicant (student or faculty search; review/advancement letters are a bit different) your identity may matter to the admissions/search committee and is not concealed (redacted in the applicant’s file). The applicant will have provided advance written approval for a letter authored by you to be attached to their dossier, so they also know who you are. Confidentiality agreements in academic letter requests focus on the content of the letter, and applicants typically waive their right to ever see that content. The more general confidentiality of student application files (in the U.S.) is down to FERPA. I’m sure how hard a university would fight w.r.t. confidentiality of letters would depend on their own exposure in the specific discrimination or defamation case in which letter content would be sufficiently germane to the question at hand that a court would compel its disclosure.

As for the nonsense here, a lot of it is being perpetuated by houseguest-like accounts or folks who’ve followed the scent of scandal from the SS/GM thread over here where there’s fresh sh*t to stir. I’m not confident that the regular dressage forum posters who have expressed opinions about LK (pro or contra) have enough lust for conflict with other posters to keep this thread going past the point of recipe swaps and litter box tales were there not a small number of scandal enthusiasts kindling little squabbles. I also have some doubts about whether any court would care enough about petty dissection of arguments or any individual’s “mean girl” status to establish identities of a majority of posters on this thread, nor are there years of mudslinging to examine in a thread that has been open less than a month (about a tragedy that happened less than half a year ago).

Hopefully those on this board who are close to the case are smart enough to realize that public statements and actions may not be anonymous, even if their identities aren’t obvious to those they’re interacting with. With no new information disclosed publicly about the case, the rest now just seems like folks who enjoy conflict hovering like moths around the hostility and disputed details of a high-profile violent crime.

The issue, to me, is indeed whether those “who are close to the case” are “smart enough to realize that public statements and actions may not be anonymous, even if their identities aren’t obvious to those they’re interacting with.”

Well put.

[splitrockfarmnc]

Which one of these cats with the stinky/fancy/dramatic litter boxes has the condo in Wellington?

[CanteringCarrot]

@splitrockfarmnc

Which one of these cats with the stinky/fancy/dramatic litter boxes has the condo in Wellington?

Certainly not my freeloaders!

[Scribbler]

@mbdsea

A quick Westlaw search revealed that anonymity in a chat room or message board is little protection at all from libel. Now, whether there’s an affirmative defense besides truth to that based on the victim’s actions, I don’t know. Again, I think circumspection is always a wise course.

I think this would be if you were discussing an absent party. Let’s say a chat thread ends up slagging a celebrity. I think that’s different than someone participating in the thread aggressively.

In any case in my jurisdiction at least the putatively injured party needs to prove both damage done and that it is not true.

So if someone on a chat thread says a person has had outstanding warrants for arrest, that’s not libel unless the person can prove that they never had any such warrants. If the speaker can link to court records of these warrants it is not libel.

Now if a person causes damage to their own interests and reputation by unwise posting on a chat group, well that is their own lookout!

My understanding of this is based on spending some time in journalism. If it’s true there’s no libel case. And commentary on public figures can be quite wide ranging.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Scribbler

Just had to chime in with some legal clarification.

People Twitter with their real names mostly. If they post something defamatory about another named person, yes, the general laws about libel apply. In my jurisdiction to win a libel case you need to prove that the statement was both damaging and untrue. Of course most such cases are going to begin and end with a warning letter from a lawyer because neither side really wants the expense of a court case. The lawyer has no power to order the item removed, his job is just to threaten the author.

If a media source believes their statement to be true they might call the lawyers bluff and say bring it on, knowing more dirt will come out in that case.

I have never heard of a libel case where the injured party was an enthusiastic part of an anonymous chat group, was aggressive and insulting themselves, but just didn’t like the replies they got. Also never heard of an online harassment case that was limited to rough and tumble within a chat group where the injured party was also playing rough

Internet harrassment could involve going to platforms outside the anonymous chat group and particularly contacting them personally.

The situation described by Girl Joey fits the definition of harassment. According to GJ, the former girlfriend of her current boyfriend, someone she had never met, began sending her ugly vicious messages using her real name on Facebook. I am unclear why GJ didn’t just block these messages right away. However the description of that situation as given in the previous thread is a textbook case of harassment. And GJ did get traction from law enforcement on this matter I think.

Very different from getting into a fight on a chat group where you don’t even know who everyone is.

The “injured party” “playing rough” doesn’t prevent the injured party from gaining traction in court.

In Musk case, the “injured party” clearly started it by giving a TV interview in which he said that Musk only joined the rescue effort “for publicity” and said that Musk should shove his mini sub “where it hurts”. I believe that is anatomically the same place “where the sun don’t shine”. Nice. 

 When Musk then clapped back documenting he’d been asked to join the effort, and gratuitously referred to the diver as  “pedoguy”, the diver sued. He sued after Musk had removed the tweet and apologized. 

   The diver did not prevail, but despite literally starting the flap with untruths (that no one had asked for Musk’s help) and insults, the defamation case against Musk went to trial.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Scribbler

I think this would be if you were discussing an absent party. Let’s say a chat thread ends up slagging a celebrity. I think that’s different than someone participating in the thread aggressively.

In any case in my jurisdiction at least the putatively injured party needs to prove both damage done and that it is not true.

So if someone on a chat thread says a person has had outstanding warrants for arrest, that’s not libel unless the person can prove that they never had any such warrants. If the speaker can link to court records of these warrants it is not libel.

Now if a person causes damage to their own interests and reputation by unwise posting on a chat group, well that is their own lookout!

My understanding of this is based on spending some time in journalism. If it’s true there’s no libel case. And commentary on public figures can be quite wide ranging.

We all understand that the truth of the statement is a defense against libel. Beyond establishing that a statement is untrue, one must prove damages.

But if a poster anonymously posts something untrue and damaging about LK, on what basis are they protected against a libel suit?   I really don’t see how the statement “Well, she’s been participating in the chat non-anonymously” protects someone posting untrue and damaging things about her from a libel suit. 

I also doubt that LK would be a considered a public figure in the sense of warranting greater latitude for what can be said before getting sued.

[Denali6298]

@Scribbler please preface everything with the fact that you are in Canada. The thresh hold may be different and it’s relevant to the fact that this is US based.