Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Toronto Sun)   Kid who outed porn secretary faces suspension, unliking, possible deportation to Sweden   (torontosun.com) divider line 252
    More: Obvious, Sweden, deportations, QMI Agency, suspensions, porn  
•       •       •

27419 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Mar 2011 at 11:43 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



252 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-03-27 07:32:03 PM  

Smashzen: FWIW:

Their = It is in THEIR room.

There = THERE is a computer. The computer is over THERE. THERE were consequences.

They're = (they are) THEY'RE going to be upset.

They're going to be upset if their dad looks over their shoulder when there is a porn star there on the screen.


Grammar Nazi is Nazi like.

images4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2011-03-27 07:36:21 PM  
Okay, I'm late here and ^ tl;dr but why was the kid's mom fired?
 
2011-03-27 07:42:31 PM  

Third In Line: Okay, I'm late here and ^ tl;dr but why was the kid's mom fired?


Probably something to do with the kid being a minor and parents are responsible for the actions of their minor children.
 
2011-03-27 07:45:32 PM  

Third In Line: Okay, I'm late here and ^ tl;dr but why was the kid's mom fired?


Google "Xvideo" and then search the site for "Samantha Ardente". She's the dark haired cum dumpster.
 
2011-03-27 07:48:04 PM  
Carry on.
 
2011-03-27 07:50:52 PM  
Came here to see lovely Farkettes contributing their own porn secretary photos, but I guess I'll leave disappointed.
 
2011-03-27 07:52:49 PM  

Hypothetical Snowmen: Came here to see lovely Farkettes contributing their own porn secretary photos, but I guess I'll leave disappointed.


YGM

(not at all what you're thinking)
 
2011-03-27 07:55:09 PM  

MIPSpro: xvideos is your friend.


Yes, it is, sir. Yes, it is
 
2011-03-27 08:08:54 PM  
Isn't the age of consent in Quebec 14? IAFD has a whole page on how Tracy Lord videos are still widely available in Quebec because she was 15 when she started in porn. How does a 14 year old boy not know he can legally have sex with a porn star and not pursue it? A little gray mail was what he was probably really after but he probably didn't realize the school district superintendent/principal was already banging her 6 times a day and didn't want some 14 year old fark wad getting in on his previously exclusive free trim job. He's probably going to find some interesting things on his permanent record. Good luck getting into any college that doesn't have "clown" in the name.
 
2011-03-27 08:09:55 PM  

Fissile: Third In Line: Okay, I'm late here and ^ tl;dr but why was the kid's mom fired?

Google "Xvideo" and then search the site for "Samantha Ardente". She's the dark haired cum dumpster.


Being quite the connoisseur of porn, I rate this as mediocre at best.
 
2011-03-27 08:20:38 PM  

URAPNIS: Fissile: Third In Line: Okay, I'm late here and ^ tl;dr but why was the kid's mom fired?

Google "Xvideo" and then search the site for "Samantha Ardente". She's the dark haired cum dumpster.

Being quite the connoisseur of porn, I rate this as mediocre at best.


Tell it like it is!
 
2011-03-27 08:31:09 PM  

OscarTamerz: Isn't the age of consent in Quebec 14? IAFD has a whole page on how Tracy Lord videos are still widely available in Quebec because she was 15 when she started in porn. How does a 14 year old boy not know he can legally have sex with a porn star and not pursue it? A little gray mail was what he was probably really after but he probably didn't realize the school district superintendent/principal was already banging her 6 times a day and didn't want some 14 year old fark wad getting in on his previously exclusive free trim job. He's probably going to find some interesting things on his permanent record. Good luck getting into any college that doesn't have "clown" in the name.


^This^
 
2011-03-27 08:34:49 PM  

sift: I really don't think a fake facebook page of a public figure is the same that as impersonating someone. it is a parody.


You made the claim several times that the fake FB page was a parody. It in no way is a parody, not even close. A parody, by its very nature, is obviously a parody. Any reader would immediately recognize it as a parody. In Hustler Magazine v. Falwell the SCOTUS ruled that reasonable people would not take the fake ad to be real due to it being so outrageous. Not even close to the case here.
 
2011-03-27 09:00:37 PM  
nightowl2255, yes weve all seen that movie. so your saying he is going to get sued for slander and libel because he made a true statement about her on a fake facebook account?
 
2011-03-27 09:06:05 PM  

sift: nightowl2255, yes weve all seen that movie. so your saying he is going to get sued for slander and libel because he made a true statement about her on a fake facebook account?


I really don't see how a person with an above room temp IQ could read what I wrote and come away with the above impression. Oh, I think I just found the problem.
 
2011-03-27 09:31:09 PM  

Third In Line: URAPNIS: Fissile: Third In Line: Okay, I'm late here and ^ tl;dr but why was the kid's mom fired?

Google "Xvideo" and then search the site for "Samantha Ardente". She's the dark haired cum dumpster.

Being quite the connoisseur of porn, I rate this as mediocre at best.

Tell it like it is!


Don't you agree?
 
2011-03-27 10:05:15 PM  
Fortunately for him, OscarTamerz, the clown college in Quebec is world reknowned.
 
2011-03-27 10:05:25 PM  

sift: as long as you are not lying you are doing nothing wrong.


As I noted, Canadian law lacks the effects of the Zenger trial on their history; additionally, I understand that even under US law there are some (rare) state level exceptions where truth is not a sovereign defense to all forms of defamation.

Further, I'll also note you appear to be having trouble keeping "wrong" and "unlawful" straight.

Fissile: How can revealing someone's legal name be a crime?


While not applicable here, an obvious example is if it in breach of legal privilege, such as an attorney revealing the real name of a "John Doe" client who desires to remain anonymous.

Separately, it's worth noting that there are various forms of unlawful; the offenses may be only civil rather than criminal.

As a political question: because if Canadian constitutional, statute and case law say it's unlawful, then it's unlawful.

If you want to know the exact legal framework that could make it unlawful in Canada, feel free to pay a Canadian attorney to give you an informed legal opinion, or pay attention to what one of the actual Juris Doctor equipped Farkers has to say. I don't pretend to understand the how and why of the law. I just know I've gotten occasional cautions about whats.

Thudfark: If it can be reasonably proved you were acting maliciously or prejudicial to the other party's interests, bingo, you have a successful suing.


...in some jurisdictions. As noted, the Zenger trial (along with the First Amendment) means the US treats truth as an all-but-absolute defense against defamation. (I expect anyone determined enough to fight one of the state-level exceptions all the way to the SCOTUS would have a good chance to prevail, though expensively.)

However, not all the rest of the world grants Truth sovereign immunity. (Which has philosophical, psychological, and anthropological implications that are quite interesting but irrelevant here.)

sift: she is a public figure, which you are allowed to parody or make fun of.


...under her stage name. Again, doing so in her private capacity after having taken the precaution of using a stage name and keeping her real name private may make a difference.

Also, Canada has different rules on parody than the US; and even in the US, merely saying "Parody! Fair use!" isn't a sovereign defense. It has to be proven in court - and in which proof intent is a factor.

sift: and im sorry, but facebook is not offical. ITS AN INTERNET TOY.


It's publication in durable form; that's enough for the courts to say, "No, that's not just a toy".

sift: it clearly states at the begning of a porno where you can obtain all legal documents reguarding the identification of all actors. it is public information.


No, the 18 USC 2257 requirements only mean the US Attorney General (or other officer of the court per associated regulations) can get the info. Furthermore, the use of the information is restricted even by that statute; see part (d)(1).

Flab: While her reputation may have suffered, she did not lose her job,


Yet; however, the administration are talking about it.

sift: how can you prove his intent was to do damage to her?


Ask a jury. Would they believe it is because he is a fan, or because he was jilted in his request for... ah, an autograph?

Also note, civil cases do not use the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard, but "preponderance of evidence".
 
2011-03-27 10:20:05 PM  

sift: thats a bullshiat standard.


Bullshiat or not, that's how the US legal system works. I'd get wise about it if I were you, because a judge isn't going to give a shiat whether you think it's fair or not.

sift: any media outlet


You didn't read the link I posted earlier, did you? Media outlets are protected by the 1st Amendment in cases like this because it's their job to report newsworthy information. If you can't see the difference between a reporter exposing a professional athlete's adultery, and a little punk kid trying to wreck a woman's career because he didn't get what he wanted, I don't hold much hope for you ever understanding anything about civil law.

sift: the worse thing he did was violate Facebook TOS and his page is subject to deletion.


Hey kid, I'm just trying to inform your ignorance, because you obviously don't understand the legal ramifications of messing with people's lives out of spite. You don't want to listen, it's on you. Good luck in your future endeavors.

This kid and his parents are in a fair amount of trouble over his shenanigans, and it's not for no reason. They might be in danger of being sued. Since the porn chick didn't lose her job I doubt she'll take legal action, but the fact remains that she's got one half of a tort case pretty well sewn up, and that's not counting the id theft angle, about which I can't really comment. Most likely, they'll just move her to another job, the kid will get ass beat by his dad, and the whole thing will blow over.
 
2011-03-27 10:36:27 PM  

abb3w: ...in some jurisdictions. As noted, the Zenger trial (along with the First Amendment) means the US treats truth as an all-but-absolute defense against defamation.


Defamation, yes. But it is specifically not a defense for invasion of privacy, negligence, or IIED, all of which might possibly be argued in this situation (Canada notwithstanding).

abb3w: Ask a jury. Would they believe it is because he is a fan, or because he was jilted in his request for... ah, an autograph?

Also note, civil cases do not use the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard, but "preponderance of evidence".


THIS. sift, if you're not going to listen to me, listen to abb3w. He's undoubtedly the smartest person in the thread, JD or not.
 
2011-03-27 11:06:09 PM  
Ratting out a porn star? Link (new window) (NTTAWWT)
 
2011-03-27 11:23:09 PM  
This is what bullies are for. Let the little turd face a beatdown every day while he's in public schools.

Yes, that makes me pro-bully. But some kids deserve to be picked on.
 
2011-03-27 11:36:10 PM  
You have to look at an awful lot of porn before you get to Samantha Ardewhatever videos... That kid was a) either stalking the woman or b) needs clinical help for his porn habit and likely carpal tunnel syndrome he'll be developing soon.
 
2011-03-27 11:54:02 PM  
OK, I've never even been to Canada, so I'm not going to guess as to the thought processes of Canadians, such as they are.

Let's look at it from an American perspective.

Here are the facts as established by the news article, I don't claim all this is true, just that it was presented in the article.

Facts:
1) The boy is 14 years old.
2) The school secretary in question DID perform in a pornographic video.
3) The boy discovered this woman's sex video and asked her for an autograph.
4) The boy admits he created a Facebook page about the porn star/school secretary.
5) The boy has been suspended from school.
6) The boy's mother is a teacher at a different school and his mother was suspended from her job as a teacher.
7) The school secretary was suspended.
8) The boy claims that the school administration threatened to bring criminal charges against him if he didn't take down the Facebook page, but the school administration denies this.

My personal feeling is that since the secretary does not work directly with children, she should not lose her job. On the other hand, when someone willfully becomes a public figure, appearing in movies for example, they open themselves up to ridicule or parody. I don't see anything in the Constitution that grants an exemption for porn stars.

Fact #1) The kid is 14 and he's looking at porn, a lot of you seem to have issues with this. Is there a Federal law establishing a minimum age for viewing porn? What is the local law regarding age of someone viewing porn? Does this school require sex education classes? At what age? Can a 14 year old be required to take a course in sex ed while being prohibited from view net porn?

#2) When this woman did the porn vid, she was required to sign a release. Didn't she understand that people all over the world could potentially watch her engaging in sex? Did it ever occur to her that people might recognize from her porn performances while she was out in public or at her job?

#3) The boy "found" her porn video. Did he find it by himself, or did someone at school tell him or hint about it? Maybe the kid Googled her real name and it returned the porn vids? In either case, how can you "out" someone and invade their privacy if their porn involvement is already public knowledge?

#4) The boy admits the created a Facebook page about this woman, nowhere does it offer proof, outside of accusations by the secretary, that he was engaging in identity theft. Did he impersonate her on Facebook, or did he create a fan page? If it was a fan page, since when is creating a fan page about a public figure a crime?

#5) On what basis did the school suspend this boy? Aren't there written guidelines for what constitutes a suspendable offense? The school never provided a reason as to why he was suspended.

#6) The boy's mother, who is a teacher at another school, was suspended as well. For what reason? Guilt by association? That's a pretty long stretch especially when you consider that they never gave a formal reason as to why the boy was suspended.

#7) The secretary was suspended? Why? The article reports that the school administration acknowledges that appearing in a porn vid is not against the law? Did she violate some other school policy? Perhaps she didn't disclose all her previous employment history as required under the hiring process? Or maybe there is more to it?

#8) Was this boy threatened with criminal charges by the school administration? If so, what crimes is it alleged that he committed? The school administration now admits that they are not going to be seeking a criminal complaint. Is that because they know the boy has not committed a crime?

All this makes me a bit suspicious, but hey, I'm a born cynic. If I was going to bet money, I would say that someone on that school board knew the secretary was a porn slut before she was hired, and hired her anyway. This person, or persons, was probably getting serviced by said porn slut. I'll also bet that someone else at that school knew what was going on and used this boy to uncover the entire sordid mess.

In the US this would certainly lead to a big law suit...brought by the boy and his mother against the school board and probably against the porn slut if it can be proven that her accusation of ID theft are false.
 
2011-03-27 11:56:53 PM  
I would like to know the basis for any legal action. It can't be slander or libel. Last time I checked you don't need permission to start a fan club.
 
2011-03-28 12:28:58 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: phenn: cmunic8r99: TFA is pretty harsh. I mean, sure, she's a porn star, but do they really have to call her a Facebook ho?

That is one painfully ugly biatch.

See, this is what women actually look like in Montreal. The really beautiful young women you keep hearing about? They're students from abroad. Take away the students, and Samanthas are all that's left. Recognize Celine Dion's hatchet face? That's the real Montreal Quebecois gene pool.


They make some really beautiful men though. But being french, they're all gay.

/Which suits me just fine.
 
2011-03-28 02:31:21 AM  

sift:
he intended to reveal public information.

if he released private information or made up lies i would understand there being an inssue. but he basically made an unwanted fan page.


OK, let's put it this way. What if I made a FB page, purporting to be you, and it had both your real name and your Fark handle, and linked to all of your postings on Fark? Then I told everybody at your work about it. Would that be OK?

/oh, and please learn the proper usage of there, their and they're.
//usually not a grammar nazi but it's been bothering me through this whole thread
///sorry, just had to say it, I couldn't stop myself
 
2011-03-28 02:51:59 AM  
I'm late to the party, but this is just horrible. Even if the woman did porn that doesn't mean that she's going to suddenly strip off all of her clothes and perform sex ed in front of the entire school.

I also think that this little **** should be charged with something. He made this in order to humiliate her and hopefully make her lose her job. All because she didn't sign an autograph or whatever else he asked her to do at the same time. (Odds are he wasn't asking her as a fan but as his way of harassing and possibly blackmailing her.) She's trying to live a normal life and have a job that doesn't involve her having to hump strange men on camera. Why should we punish her for that?

This kid did this to be malicious and out of spite. It's also pretty obvious that he's lying about losing the password as well. The kid isn't sorry. Now he's getting all this attention and this poor woman is getting all this attention that she didn't want. Mark my words, if this kid is willing to do this now then he'll do it again when the next object of his affections turns him down. This is just outright harassment.
 
2011-03-28 02:59:58 AM  
Basically it all boils down to intent. The kid can claim it was because he was a fan and that might save his skin unless the tone of the page was hostile, but at the end of the day it'll be obvious that the kid did it in order to get even.

He harassed this lady under the guise of asking for an autograph and when she told him no and to leave her alone, he then went out to make this page and then told everyone he could about it. He can say whatever he wants but in the end this was done out of spite and retribution.

Hopefully the kid will learn a lesson from all of this but I doubt it. I just pity any girl he sets his sights on in the future- if she turns him down or spurns him, he'll probably do something along the same lines.
 
2011-03-28 03:02:26 AM  
If memory serves, you can reset the password on a facebook account pretty easily, especially if you have access to the email account you linked it to.

Which means, if the kid is telling the truth that there's no way into that account again, then he used a complex password and a throwaway email account, which looks like malicious intent.

If he used his own email account to start the page up, then it shows he's not willing to take the page down, which shows malicious intent.

Either way, by refusing to take the page down, he's burned his main defense against showing he has no malicious intent. And he's too stupid to realize this.
 
2011-03-28 03:31:36 AM  
someone likes the sound of his own voice...or in this case the look of his own typing.
 
2011-03-28 03:37:02 AM  

Malacon: sift: i just dont understand how everyone on here says doing porn is her 'private' buisnes. the kid didnt peep in through her bedroom windows or follow her around. he saw her randomly on the internet in a porno.


Here's my question, with a preamble:

It seems if you google her real name, you can find her porn. Did she do porn using her real name?

If the answer is yes, I can't be mad at him for posting something on Facebook you can find in 2 mins on Google.

It was a dick move, but it's not like it was some well hidden secret he spend months figuring out just to blackmail her and try to ruin her life.


No, she didn't do the porn under her real name. So the real question becomes this: BEFORE the shiat hit the proverbial fan, could you find her porn by googling her real name? If the answer is no, then it is only because of this kid's actions and the resulting publicity that the her real name became linked with the porn. So that by itself would be damaging to her (if she has to look for another job, etc). I don't know how you would find the answer to that question though, since we can't go back in time.
 
2011-03-28 08:20:16 AM  
Lotta people in here throwing around the term "public figure" without any actual understanding of the legal definition of that term.
I don't know Canadian law, but in the US, she would not be a public figure under New York Times v. Sullivan. She is neither pervasively involved in public affairs, a public figure, nor has she thrust herself to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.

At best, she is an involuntary public figure as a result of the Streisand effect now, but she was certainly not one merely because she acted in one porno.
 
2011-03-28 09:14:30 AM  
If you find a porn actress working at your school and all you ask for is an autograph, you're doing it wrong.

/dumbass kid.
//GIS worthless
 
2011-03-28 09:22:20 AM  
French newspaper article (new window) has a different slant on the story, interview with actress.
 
2011-03-28 09:48:46 AM  

Theaetetus: Lotta people in here throwing around the term "public figure" without any actual understanding of the legal definition of that term.
I don't know Canadian law, but in the US, she would not be a public figure under New York Times v. Sullivan. She is neither pervasively involved in public affairs, a public figure, nor has she thrust herself to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.

At best, she is an involuntary public figure as a result of the Streisand effect now, but she was certainly not one merely because she acted in one porno.


You really are dim. SHE MADE A PORN THAT SHE KNEW WAS GOING TO BE SHOWN IN PUBLIC. Now she's shocked that people found out she made a porno. She's a poor little "victim". Another dumb tw@t that act's like a dumb tw@t and then plays the victim card when she's laughed at for being a dumb tw@t.
 
2011-03-28 09:54:57 AM  

Fissile: Fact #1) The kid is 14 and he's looking at porn, a lot of you seem to have issues with this. Is there a Federal law establishing a minimum age for viewing porn?


Nope.

What is the local law regarding age of someone viewing porn?

Since porn is covered by the criminal code, it's a federal competency. Provinces and cities can't regulate its content. They can only use zoning laws to restrict its sale.

Does this school require sex education classes? At what age?

At the very least, 9th grade biology classes will cover it, but it might also be covered in other classes before that. I've been out of high school for too long to know the current program.

Can a 14 year old be required to take a course in sex ed while being prohibited from view net porn?

Irrelevant.

#2) When this woman did the porn vid, she was required to sign a release. Didn't she understand that people all over the world could potentially watch her engaging in sex? Did it ever occur to her that people might recognize from her porn performances while she was out in public or at her job?

Probably not. I'd hate to jump to conclusions, but she doesn't appear to be the sharpest tool in the shed.

#3) The boy "found" her porn video. Did he find it by himself, or did someone at school tell him or hint about it? Maybe the kid Googled her real name and it returned the porn vids? In either case, how can you "out" someone and invade their privacy if their porn involvement is already public knowledge?

How many times has it been stated already that she did the porn movie under an assumed name? Do you have half the posters in the thread on ignore?

#4) The boy admits the created a Facebook page about this woman, nowhere does it offer proof, outside of accusations by the secretary, that he was engaging in identity theft. Did he impersonate her on Facebook, or did he create a fan page?

Impersonated her.

If it was a fan page, since when is creating a fan page about a public figure a crime?

Irrelevant.

#5) On what basis did the school suspend this boy? Aren't there written guidelines for what constitutes a suspendable offense? The school never provided a reason as to why he was suspended.

Don't assume the school didn't give a reason. Looks like the reporter never even asked, or didn't even bother printing the reason. Typical of QMI.

#6) The boy's mother, who is a teacher at another school, was suspended as well. For what reason? Guilt by association? That's a pretty long stretch especially when you consider that they never gave a formal reason as to why the boy was suspended.

See above.

#7) The secretary was suspended? Why? The article reports that the school administration acknowledges that appearing in a porn vid is not against the law? Did she violate some other school policy? Perhaps she didn't disclose all her previous employment history as required under the hiring process? Or maybe there is more to it?

In another article, a school board official said they suspended her for two weeks to review her case and decide her faith. In my opinion, it's to prevent drooling teenagers from clogging the hallway in front of her office.

#8) Was this boy threatened with criminal charges by the school administration?

School board says no. Article that mention charges doesn't say who threatened him. Again, kudos to QMI for being the worst. news agency. ever.

If so, what crimes is it alleged that he committed?

You guess is as good as mine. Maybe Ms. Ardente is suing for identifty theft. Maybe Pegas Production is stealing for copyright infringement... we don't know, all because the reporter did a shiatty job.

The school administration now admits that they are not going to be seeking a criminal complaint. Is that because they know the boy has not committed a crime?

Or it might simply be because it was not them who threatened the boy with charges in the first place.
 
2011-03-28 10:41:40 AM  
Flab: Fissile:

#3) She did the video under an assumed name, that doesn't answer the question. Did someone tell this boy the school secretary was doing porn, or did he Google her real name and find the porn video that way? Go have a look how much porn there is out there, what are the chances that this kid just blundered upon one porn video out of tens of thousands??? It's my guess that anyone with even amateur Google skills could have easily found out about Ms. Bimbostein's "art film" involvement. That's not irrelevant if you're gonna accuse the kid of invasion of privacy.

#4) How did you establish the fact that he impersonated her? I haven't seen the Facebook page in question, have you? There is no proof, only the accusation of the porn bimbo, and you stated yourself that she doesn't seem to be all that smart.

Judging from the porn video, I'm guessing that logic and Canadians don't go together. Have a look at the video, the inked-up dude is wearing a rubber while he's pounding the bimbos, but the video ends with him splooging into the school trollop's gaping hole. Um, if you're gonna do that, what's the point of using a rubber? I'm not even gonna try and guess as to what passes for Canadian legal reasoning.

I stand by what I say. If this had taken place in the USA, it's the kid and his mother who would be collecting a fat judgment against the school board and possible Ms. Bimbo-Secretary.
 
2011-03-28 11:16:10 AM  

Fissile: Theaetetus: Lotta people in here throwing around the term "public figure" without any actual understanding of the legal definition of that term.
I don't know Canadian law, but in the US, she would not be a public figure under New York Times v. Sullivan. She is neither pervasively involved in public affairs, a public figure, nor has she thrust herself to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.

At best, she is an involuntary public figure as a result of the Streisand effect now, but she was certainly not one merely because she acted in one porno.

You really are dim.


Au contraire, spanky, I actually study and practice in this area. "Public figure" has a very specific legal definition. She is not a public figure.

SHE MADE A PORN THAT SHE KNEW WAS GOING TO BE SHOWN IN PUBLIC. Now she's shocked that people found out she made a porno. She's a poor little "victim". Another dumb tw@t that act's like a dumb tw@t and then plays the victim card when she's laughed at for being a dumb tw@t.

Boy, do you hate women.
 
2011-03-28 11:38:49 AM  

Theaetetus: Fissile: Theaetetus: Lotta people in here throwing around the term "public figure" without any actual understanding of the legal definition of that term.
I don't know Canadian law, but in the US, she would not be a public figure under New York Times v. Sullivan. She is neither pervasively involved in public affairs, a public figure, nor has she thrust herself to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.

At best, she is an involuntary public figure as a result of the Streisand effect now, but she was certainly not one merely because she acted in one porno.

You really are dim.

Au contraire, spanky, I actually study and practice in this area. "Public figure" has a very specific legal definition. She is not a public figure.

SHE MADE A PORN THAT SHE KNEW WAS GOING TO BE SHOWN IN PUBLIC. Now she's shocked that people found out she made a porno. She's a poor little "victim". Another dumb tw@t that act's like a dumb tw@t and then plays the victim card when she's laughed at for being a dumb tw@t.

Boy, do you hate women.


I hate anybody who plays the victim card in an attempt to trump their stupidity.

"Gee, I'm not a dumb, middle-aged porn slut. I'm a victim. This is all the 14 year old kid's fault."
 
2011-03-28 11:43:38 AM  
Hypocrite.
 
2011-03-28 11:57:18 AM  

ZeroCorpse: At 14, he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Internet unless it's at school with a teacher around, or at home with a parent in the room.


Wow your kids must love you man. You sound like so much fun!
 
2011-03-28 12:07:00 PM  

OscarTamerz: He's probably going to find some interesting things on his permanent record. Good luck getting into any college that doesn't have "clown" in the name.


Luckily he lives in Canada (Well sort of -- Quebec) and the only thing the university gets to see is his transcript.
 
2011-03-28 01:27:26 PM  
Quebec Civil Code. Enjoy Link (new window)
 
2011-03-28 02:18:59 PM  

Theaetetus: Boy, do you hate women.


Based on the thrilling combination of willful ignorance, bad grammar, and vehement defense of the kid, I'm guessing that fissile and sift are both about 14 years old. It's the only explanation for all of the stupid in this thread.
 
2011-03-28 02:28:14 PM  

I am waiter hear me roar: Theaetetus: Boy, do you hate women.

Based on the thrilling combination of willful ignorance, bad grammar, and vehement defense of the kid, I'm guessing that fissile and sift are both about 14 years old. It's the only explanation for all of the stupid in this thread.


I'm leaning towards that conclusion. The alternatives are too depressing to contemplate. However, if they are both 14, then this frightens me, and I am glad I will be long dead or senile by the time they and their ilk can ruin what little is left to ruin.
 
2011-03-28 03:08:07 PM  

Thudfark: I am waiter hear me roar: Theaetetus: Boy, do you hate women.

Based on the thrilling combination of willful ignorance, bad grammar, and vehement defense of the kid, I'm guessing that fissile and sift are both about 14 years old. It's the only explanation for all of the stupid in this thread.

I'm leaning towards that conclusion. The alternatives are too depressing to contemplate. However, if they are both 14, then this frightens me, and I am glad I will be long dead or senile by the time they and their ilk can ruin what little is left to ruin.


In other words, "If you don't agree with my brilliant liar-for-hire...er, lawyer arguments, it's because you're (contraction for "you are")a 14 year old nitwit. Of course I accuse everyone with common sense of being stupid, because why would the world need glib, arrogant, egotistical lawyers if common sense were applied? I mean, I make a damn good living by running my mouth.....by making the plain complicated, and hey, I don't have any other real world skills, and there's only two ways you can make money with your mouth, lawyer being one of them. So that's why I, as a lawyer, relate so much to porn stars and street prostitutes."

FIFY
 
2011-03-28 03:27:05 PM  

Fissile: Thudfark: I am waiter hear me roar: Theaetetus: Boy, do you hate women.

Based on the thrilling combination of willful ignorance, bad grammar, and vehement defense of the kid, I'm guessing that fissile and sift are both about 14 years old. It's the only explanation for all of the stupid in this thread.

I'm leaning towards that conclusion. The alternatives are too depressing to contemplate. However, if they are both 14, then this frightens me, and I am glad I will be long dead or senile by the time they and their ilk can ruin what little is left to ruin.

In other words, "If you don't agree with my brilliant liar-for-hire...er, lawyer arguments, it's because you're (contraction for "you are")a 14 year old nitwit. Of course I accuse everyone with common sense of being stupid, because why would the world need glib, arrogant, egotistical lawyers if common sense were applied? I mean, I make a damn good living by running my mouth.....by making the plain complicated, and hey, I don't have any other real world skills, and there's only two ways you can make money with your mouth, lawyer being one of them. So that's why I, as a lawyer, relate so much to porn stars and street prostitutes."

FIFY


I never claimed to be a lawyer. I have, however, taken law courses relating to my field and am familiar with how the law works and is supposed to work. You seem to lack fundamental skills in logic, reasoning and coherent thought as well as a complete and utter lack of empathy. Not to mention a disturbing misunderstanding of right and wrong, legally or otherwise. I take it back, you must be a politician. No 14 year old could possibly be this farked up, they haven't lived long enough.
 
2011-03-28 03:45:33 PM  

I am waiter hear me roar: I'm guessing that fissile and sift are both about 14 years old. It's the only explanation for all of the stupid in this thread.


Agreed. No one older than that would call her "middle-aged".
 
2011-03-28 04:51:07 PM  

Thudfark: Fissile: Thudfark: I am waiter hear me roar: Theaetetus: Boy, do you hate women.

Based on the thrilling combination of willful ignorance, bad grammar, and vehement defense of the kid, I'm guessing that fissile and sift are both about 14 years old. It's the only explanation for all of the stupid in this thread.

I'm leaning towards that conclusion. The alternatives are too depressing to contemplate. However, if they are both 14, then this frightens me, and I am glad I will be long dead or senile by the time they and their ilk can ruin what little is left to ruin.

In other words, "If you don't agree with my brilliant liar-for-hire...er, lawyer arguments, it's because you're (contraction for "you are")a 14 year old nitwit. Of course I accuse everyone with common sense of being stupid, because why would the world need glib, arrogant, egotistical lawyers if common sense were applied? I mean, I make a damn good living by running my mouth.....by making the plain complicated, and hey, I don't have any other real world skills, and there's only two ways you can make money with your mouth, lawyer being one of them. So that's why I, as a lawyer, relate so much to porn stars and street prostitutes."

FIFY

I never claimed to be a lawyer. I have, however, taken law courses relating to my field and am familiar with how the law works and is supposed to work. You seem to lack fundamental skills in logic, reasoning and coherent thought as well as a complete and utter lack of empathy. Not to mention a disturbing misunderstanding of right and wrong, legally or otherwise. I take it back, you must be a politician. No 14 year old could possibly be this farked up, they haven't lived long enough.


Oh, boy! You got my number! Yup, I've lived too long, and seen too much, that's why I'm such a degenerate farker. The world made me this way. I'm a victim.
 
Displayed 50 of 252 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report