Defamation etc.

About This Message Board
#1

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19024067&postcount=83

You know, it’s bad form to fraudulently present a person (in this matter an award winning bodybuilder) as being a prostitute. Specifically, it is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive and vulgar – all of which are prohibited in the registration agreement.

If you are not sure if it is being a jerk, ask yourself: “Would the person in the photo be able to obtain judicial relief?” (Hint – it’s a no-brainer.)

The poster removed the offensive pic without acknowledging the fraud. Is that a complete remedy, or should there be a warning or banning? I submit that there should.

#2

I’m not sure what to think anymore. She did mention that she shares a name with a well-known British actress, and indeed the OP in question does in fact share a name with a well-known British actress.

The OP might possibly be who we think she is. Beats me.

#3

Can you explain how a person would be defamed if their name was never posted, and their face was obscured as in the photo that was posted (and is now removed)?

#4

Well, just suppose a person were to find a copy of the picture in the “deleted photos” file on their phone and discover the original site on which it appeared. Would it not be a problem then?

#5

Simple. It is a picture of a person of some celebrity being presented as truth as having a second life as a prostitute. That’s defamation plain and simple.

Now that the offending pic has been removed, you can

  1. Unequivocally state that such defamation is not an SDMB violation, and thereby encourage similar defamatory posts in the future by other fraudsters.
  2. Unequivocally state that such defamation is an SDMB violation, and thereby discourage similar defamatory posts in the future by other fraudsters.
  3. Ignore and waffle.
#6

About the same as modifying the quote in a text box or posting an actual YouTube video of a Hollywood sound mixer.

#7

Are you licensed to practice law in Illinois? That’s what you appear to be doing.

#8

The picture was neither identified, nor easily identifiable.

#9

Very easily identifiable with tineye which is how more than one person did the identification.

#10

What a nonsensical allegation for you to make. Try for some grounding in rationality next time please.

#11

And yet it was indeed easily identified, go figure. I’ve seen the original picture (the one posted here was flipped to make it a tiny bit harder to image search) and the website of the actual person in the picture. Who does not appear to be engaged in either prostitution nor a ridiculously obvious wankfest with a bunch of naive middle aged message board denizens. Next pointless objection?

#12

Is it the official policy that the way that the user in question identified itself with that photograph is not a rules violation?

#13

The pic is posted on the bodybuilder’s website. That makes it easily identifiable.

#14

What I meant was the face was blurred. The person was not recognizable in the photo.

#15

I meant to ask that of Colibri.

#16

The face was not necessary to the pic being recognizable, and has been pointed out repeatedly, it in fact was recognized. For you to argue that it was not recognizable when in fact it was recognized is quite a contradiction.

#17

I didn’t think the face was blurred, just partially obscured by a cap. The original image was flipped.

#18

If the bodybuilder were truly the prostitute, does anyone really believe she’d post a picture of herself that was so easily found? Especially after giving so much credence to her overwhelming desire to protect her identity? I’d think if they were one and the same, she certainly wouldn’t have used one straight from her Instagram. With her name on it.

#19

This thread reminds me of a popular definition of insanity. Cue The Who

#20

The pic is recognizable. That’s not quit the same thing as the person in the pic being recognizable. Nobody looked at that picture and immediately went, “Hey, that’s Stephanie Smith!” One person vaguely thought they’d seen it before, but couldn’t connect a name to it. Another person was able to find the original picture using image search software. That’s a pretty far cry from someone running into the woman on the street, or in a professional setting, and assuming they’re a prostitute because they saw that thread on the SDMB.