[edit; insult removed] The alleged victim has to have a character to defame in the first place! Opinions, no matter how malicious, are not the same as stated fact. Hurt feelings or loss of social status don't reach the legal definition of 'damages'. No one made up the crap that came out of his mouth; it was HIM who stated all the false facts. I highly doubt a jury of his peers will find him the victim. That is one of the most difficult cases to prove in court. How about some actual case #'s instead of a general statement like "people" have won judgments and "people" have gotten sued.

 

Humor/satire is generally exempt from libel/slander.

Especially since he created the situation by

1. Allowing himself to be publicly portrayed in a magazine.
2. Doing it in such a manner as to attract criticism and satire.

He doesn't have a case. Besides who would he sue? All of the anonymous members of the various forums?

 

Thank you.....

 

If this were the case, every famous actress who's picture was photoshopped and made into adult material would be bringing such suites. Those who have been successful in such areas can argue that such bad publicity damages their earning potential. In this case - it is what Tim has done that will damage any earning potential in his future.

USMCFLYR

 

 

HAHA! Good one!

 

I'll admit your points have merit, but does embellishing his experiences and credentials warrant pictures on the internet with his face superimposed and genitals exposed ?

Is that going too far ?

How would a sympathetic judge look at that (especially if he demonstrates a known illness) ?

I'll admit I don't have all the answers here, but I believe this isn't the same situation as celebrities who seek fame. He wasn't necessarily seeking fame with the article and it was a private trade publication.

I must say though, I find it incredably ironic that a few of the mods here have warned me (and even banned me for a few days) for supposedly not adhering to the standards that supposedly exist here and yet happily accept not only that picture of immaturity and poor taste above, but of the immeadiately above one portraying APC as a childish school girls club of petty bickering, infighting, cliques and ridicule.

But then again, pilots will be pilots and remian their own worst enemy.

 

This is what you get when you cross the ultimate in PC lack of sensibilities with amateur lawyering. There have been a lot of statements on this forum, and you chose that picture as the one that would be defamatory?

 

Just because I chose that one doesn't mean it doesn't apply elsewhere and it seems this forum is CHOCK FULL of amateur lawyers far better then me.

The only thing that outnumbers the lawyers here is the children.

 

I (and the other mods) didn't notice the genitals in the GW picture until this morning...posts deleted. Feel free to report such posts using the exclamation point icon in the lower-left corner.

The school girls thing is humor...not a TOS violation.