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.

(MSN)   Duggar sisters sue InTouch for outing their touching experiences   ( msn.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Jim Bob Duggar, Josh Duggar, Josh Duggar FAYETTEVILLE, Jinger Duggar Vuolo, Jessa Duggar Seewald, Jill Duggar Dillard, Sibling, federal breach-of-privacy suit  
•       •       •

2897 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 19 May 2017 at 11:50 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-05-19 09:38:08 AM  
Brilliant application of the Streisand Effect.  People have moved on and ceased caring.

I'm touched that they want us to remember their brother is sexual predator.
 
2017-05-19 10:12:01 AM  
With that many kids,  you're bound to have a bad one or two.
 
2017-05-19 10:45:36 AM  
These Duggar people have no plans to actually work for a living do they.
 
2017-05-19 10:54:43 AM  

edmo: These Duggar people have no plans to actually work for a living do they.


To be fair, these are the females, who have been raised to be good Christian broodmares.
 
2017-05-19 11:31:39 AM  

edmo: These Duggar people have no plans to actually work for a living do they.


They're doing GOD'S WORK, which is soooo much more important than a normal job!  So keep sending us money so we can keep mooching... *cough* doing missionary work.
 
2017-05-19 11:53:47 AM  

Diogenes: Brilliant application of the Streisand Effect.  People have moved on and ceased caring.

I'm touched that they want us to remember their brother is sexual predator.


This is a calculated move.

There's no such thing as bad publicity.  Especially now that Joy-Anna is getting married on a special TLC episode.
 
2017-05-19 11:55:39 AM  
The stipulation should be that they will give them the money if they can read and understand The Handmaid's Tale.
 
2017-05-19 12:00:15 PM  
For the non-attorneys here (all two of you) there are different standards of privacy. When you put yourself in the media (or your parents do it for you) by giving you a starring role on a TV show you lose some of the privacy standards that the proles enjoy. It isn't fair, but it is a standard. Their attention whoring family is why they were easy to identify on the police reports.
 
2017-05-19 12:08:25 PM  
what kind of skullDuggary is this
 
2017-05-19 12:13:53 PM  
God I wish this family was sterile.
 
2017-05-19 12:23:25 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
XSV
2017-05-19 12:23:44 PM  
Is this the thread where we ignore people's civil liberties and instead attack their personal beliefs because you personally don't agree with them?
 
2017-05-19 12:27:45 PM  

XSV: Is this the thread where we ignore people's civil liberties and instead attack their personal beliefs because you personally don't agree with them?


Isn't that every fark thread? What am I missing here?
 
2017-05-19 12:28:13 PM  
jinger?????
 
2017-05-19 12:31:19 PM  

XSV: Is this the thread where we ignore people's

attention whoring politically active Duggars civil liberties and instead attack their personal beliefs because you personally don't agree with them?

I would guess so....
 
2017-05-19 12:32:13 PM  

madgonad: For the non-attorneys here (all two of you) there are different standards of privacy. When you put yourself in the media (or your parents do it for you) by giving you a starring role on a TV show you lose some of the privacy standards that the proles enjoy. It isn't fair, but it is a standard. Their attention whoring family is why they were easy to identify on the police reports.


I think it's fair. The Arkansas standard for public figures considers the extent to which you voluntarily place yourself in a position of public notoriety. So, if you become a public figure against your will, you can still claim that you're entitled to more privacy. If you decide to profit off of fame by, say, starring in a reality TV show, then you can be rightly said to have voluntarily opened your life up for public consumption.
 
XSV
2017-05-19 12:35:30 PM  

symptomoftheuniverse: XSV: Is this the thread where we ignore people's civil liberties and instead attack their personal beliefs because you personally don't agree with them?

Isn't that every fark thread? What am I missing here?


I guess I got wistful of the days where the memes would flow and fun was had. You're right though. I guess I'm just doing this number a lot lately:

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-05-19 12:42:18 PM  

HempHead: Diogenes: Brilliant application of the Streisand Effect.  People have moved on and ceased caring.

I'm touched that they want us to remember their brother is sexual predator.

This is a calculated move.

There's no such thing as bad publicity.  Especially now that Joy-Anna is getting married on a special TLC episode.


I'll take "Sentences that make me want to nuke the entire planet" for $1000, Alex.
 
2017-05-19 12:53:20 PM  
i1079.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2017-05-19 12:58:03 PM  

AlfalfaMale: [i1079.photobucket.com image 680x473]


Really?  This bizarre cult of brainwashed child molesters and baby factories is a "Stop liking what I don't like!" thing for you?  Enjoy this thing you like, then.  farking weirdo.
 
2017-05-19 01:03:59 PM  

mooseyfate: AlfalfaMale: [i1079.photobucket.com image 680x473]

Really?  This bizarre cult of brainwashed child molesters and baby factories is a "Stop liking what I don't like!" thing for you?  Enjoy this thing you like, then.  farking weirdo.


i1079.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2017-05-19 01:13:49 PM  
I don't see what the big secret was.  All religious whack jobs are molesters and rapists.  That's always true.
 
2017-05-19 01:36:44 PM  
Is this the thread where we white-knight AWs just because they personally don't agree with people that I personally don't agree with?
 
2017-05-19 01:52:20 PM  

XSV: Is this the thread where we ignore people's civil liberties and instead attack their personal beliefs because you personally don't agree with them?


Nope.
 
2017-05-19 02:17:07 PM  

XSV: Is this the thread where we ignore people's civil liberties and instead attack their personal beliefs because you personally don't agree with them?


No. This is a schadenfreude thread where we enjoy the misfortune that has befallen a tribe of smug, self-righteous layabouts who go through life with enormous planks in their eyes while focusing on the splinter in yours. The only reason any of us even know who these farks are is they built a cottage industry around attacking the beliefs of others. I don't know what YOU call a family who get paid to be on tv... then say on that TV show that TV is bad and they don't let their kids watch it. I call them hypocrites. Why anyone would take any 'family' advice from this carnival sideshow of abuse and adultery is completely beyond me. Hucksters gonna huckster I guess.
 
2017-05-19 02:20:14 PM  
blogs-images.forbes.comView Full Size
 
2017-05-19 02:25:38 PM  

BeotchPudding: [blogs-images.forbes.com image 850x619]


Somebody's been eatin' beets.
 
XSV
2017-05-19 02:31:11 PM  

JohnBigBootay: XSV: Is this the thread where we ignore people's civil liberties and instead attack their personal beliefs because you personally don't agree with them?

No. This is a schadenfreude thread where we enjoy the misfortune that has befallen a tribe of smug, self-righteous layabouts who go through life with enormous planks in their eyes while focusing on the splinter in yours. The only reason any of us even know who these farks are is they built a cottage industry around attacking the beliefs of others. I don't know what YOU call a family who get paid to be on tv... then say on that TV show that TV is bad and they don't let their kids watch it. I call them hypocrites. Why anyone would take any 'family' advice from this carnival sideshow of abuse and adultery is completely beyond me. Hucksters gonna huckster I guess.


I appreciate your eloquent response, but you do realize it only emphasizes my point, don't you?

Do you realize that you just said in your post that you enjoy the misfortune of girls who were molested and then the details of it were leaked to the general public?
 
2017-05-19 02:36:06 PM  

BeotchPudding: [blogs-images.forbes.com image 850x619]


Who's the fat dude?
 
2017-05-19 02:37:22 PM  

XSV: JohnBigBootay: XSV: Is this the thread where we ignore people's civil liberties and instead attack their personal beliefs because you personally don't agree with them?

No. This is a schadenfreude thread where we enjoy the misfortune that has befallen a tribe of smug, self-righteous layabouts who go through life with enormous planks in their eyes while focusing on the splinter in yours. The only reason any of us even know who these farks are is they built a cottage industry around attacking the beliefs of others. I don't know what YOU call a family who get paid to be on tv... then say on that TV show that TV is bad and they don't let their kids watch it. I call them hypocrites. Why anyone would take any 'family' advice from this carnival sideshow of abuse and adultery is completely beyond me. Hucksters gonna huckster I guess.

I appreciate your eloquent response, but you do realize it only emphasizes my point, don't you?

Do you realize that you just said in your post that you enjoy the misfortune of girls who were molested and then the details of it were leaked to the general public?


Yeah, that's totally what your OP said.
 
2017-05-19 02:42:07 PM  

XSV: JohnBigBootay: XSV: Is this the thread where we ignore people's civil liberties and instead attack their personal beliefs because you personally don't agree with them?

No. This is a schadenfreude thread where we enjoy the misfortune that has befallen a tribe of smug, self-righteous layabouts who go through life with enormous planks in their eyes while focusing on the splinter in yours. The only reason any of us even know who these farks are is they built a cottage industry around attacking the beliefs of others. I don't know what YOU call a family who get paid to be on tv... then say on that TV show that TV is bad and they don't let their kids watch it. I call them hypocrites. Why anyone would take any 'family' advice from this carnival sideshow of abuse and adultery is completely beyond me. Hucksters gonna huckster I guess.

I appreciate your eloquent response, but you do realize it only emphasizes my point, don't you?

Do you realize that you just said in your post that you enjoy the misfortune of girls who were molested and then the details of it were leaked to the general public?


I enjoy self-righteous hypocrites being exposed. Personally I've never seen a single second of the show. But I did grow up in a church 3x a week small town southern baptist shiathole so I feel like I know them just fine. The fact I get a chuckle out of the public exposure of supreme hypocrites affects them not at all and amounts to a proverbial speck of sand next to the mountain of abuse foisted upon these children by their abusive 'church' and parents. Let's face it - god ain't real and the entirety of religion itself is a colossal waste of time and resources. But if it's your thing... whatever. Feel free. I would ask that when choosing an imaginary muse and moral guide that you choose a flavor that hasn't codified being a huge dick to women as a primary tenet.
 
XSV
2017-05-19 02:55:15 PM  
JohnBigBootay:
I enjoy self-righteous hypocrites being exposed. Personally I've never seen a single second of the show. But I did grow up in a church 3x a week small town southern baptist shiathole so I feel like I know them just fine. The fact I get a chuckle out of the public exposure of supreme hypocrites affects them not at all and amounts to a proverbial speck of sand next to the mountain of abuse foisted upon these children by their abusive 'church' and parents. Let's face it - god ain't real and the entirety of religion itself is a colossal waste of time and resources. But if it's your thing... whatever. Feel free. I would ask that when choosing an imaginary muse and moral guide that you choose a flavor that hasn't codified being a huge dick to women as a primary tenet.

I'm sorry that's your experience, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with someone breaking the law of the land, aka the government.  Even if you don't ascribe to a moral guide, as you call it, you still are subject to the governing bodies and the law.  Remove the Duggars from this equation, would you be making the same sort of sentiments known publicly if it wasn't one of them? I would like to guess not.  Which again brings me back to my original point of stating that no one seems to be concerned about the law being broken that lead to this information being known.  Everyone just likes to trot out their own version of vitriol or ridicule for the affected people, which Christian or not, is still wrong.
 
2017-05-19 03:09:44 PM  

XSV: Which again brings me back to my original point of stating that no one seems to be concerned about the law being broken that lead to this information being known.


It's up to the Duggars to demonstrate the the law was broken, and that's not clear at this point.  However, by filing such a lawsuit, they're  inviting the Streisand Effect, and they don't seem to care about that aspect of the issue.

This is nothing more than an attempt to get some cash.  Guess ol' Jim-Bob can't find any legitimate work these days, so it's up to the kids to keep him warm, dry and fed with more of their self-righteous bullshiat.
 
2017-05-19 03:09:46 PM  

XSV: JohnBigBootay:
I enjoy self-righteous hypocrites being exposed. Personally I've never seen a single second of the show. But I did grow up in a church 3x a week small town southern baptist shiathole so I feel like I know them just fine. The fact I get a chuckle out of the public exposure of supreme hypocrites affects them not at all and amounts to a proverbial speck of sand next to the mountain of abuse foisted upon these children by their abusive 'church' and parents. Let's face it - god ain't real and the entirety of religion itself is a colossal waste of time and resources. But if it's your thing... whatever. Feel free. I would ask that when choosing an imaginary muse and moral guide that you choose a flavor that hasn't codified being a huge dick to women as a primary tenet.

I'm sorry that's your experience, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with someone breaking the law of the land, aka the government.  Even if you don't ascribe to a moral guide, as you call it, you still are subject to the governing bodies and the law.  Remove the Duggars from this equation, would you be making the same sort of sentiments known publicly if it wasn't one of them? I would like to guess not.  Which again brings me back to my original point of stating that no one seems to be concerned about the law being broken that lead to this information being known.  Everyone just likes to trot out their own version of vitriol or ridicule for the affected people, which Christian or not, is still wrong.


These people have filed suit. Neither you nor I know if the case has merit. They alleged that they received a promise of confidentiality from a city official - we most certainly do not know if it's true or or if the person who made it had the authority to grant it. I imagine the magazine attorneys are getting a chuckle - it's an average weekday for their legal department. The most likely scenario here is the family is out of money and kids' attorneys are fishing for a settlement.  At least three people should have served time for this fiasco - the perpetrator and the abusive parents who enabled and covered up the crime despite multiple occurrences - maybe you could write them a letter. I'm pretty sure none of them have any farking idea who I am.

If god is real I'm certainly going to hell - I take some solace in the fact Mr Duggar will be at least one circle below me and I will most certainly avail myself of that urination opportunity.
 
2017-05-19 03:18:24 PM  
If a law was broken, why file a lawsuit instead of pressing charges?
 
XSV
2017-05-19 03:20:27 PM  

indy_kid: It's up to the Duggars to demonstrate the the law was broken, and that's not clear at this point.  However, by filing such a lawsuit, they're  inviting the Streisand Effect, and they don't seem to care about that aspect of the issue.

This is nothing more than an attempt to get some cash.  Guess ol' Jim-Bob can't find any legitimate work these days, so it's up to the kids to keep him warm, dry and fed with more of their self-righteous bullshiat.


JohnBigBootay:These people have filed suit. Neither you nor I know if the case has merit. They alleged that they received a promise of confidentiality from a city official - we most certainly do not know if it's true or or if the person who made it had the authority to grant it. I imagine the magazine attorneys are getting a chuckle - it's an average weekday for their legal department. The most likely scenario here is the family is out of money and kids' attorneys are fishing for a settlement ...

I was hoping for more discussion of this.  n the article it states part of the problem was the freedom of information act revealing too much information in the released documents that made them easily identifiable.  I was more interested in hopefully a discussion of these kinds of issues rather than just crapping all over a family it's very obvious that most people on Fark hate.
 
2017-05-19 03:23:33 PM  

XSV: Is this the thread where we ignore people's civil liberties and instead attack their personal beliefs because you personally don't agree with them?


This is a case in tort. InTouch is not part of the government.
 
2017-05-19 03:30:49 PM  

XSV: I was more interested in hopefully a discussion of these kinds of issues


And yet you wasted every opportunity to begin that discussion.
 
2017-05-19 03:32:00 PM  

Moopy Mac: XSV: Is this the thread where we ignore people's civil liberties and instead attack their personal beliefs because you personally don't agree with them?

This is a case in tort. InTouch is not part of the government.


I should probably read the actual article.
 
XSV
2017-05-19 03:32:59 PM  

Moopy Mac: XSV: Is this the thread where we ignore people's civil liberties and instead attack their personal beliefs because you personally don't agree with them?

This is a case in tort. InTouch is not part of the government.


yeah that's true, I kinda lost sight of the forest through the trees on this one, but they did sue the county and city as well as the folks from InTouch.  I'm really curious as to how the FOI and local promises from officials of privacy effect the FOI.  Even the "redacted" police report published by InTouch blacks out the girls names. . . but then names Jim Bob and Michelle. I'm really curious as to the interplay between all this stuff.
 
2017-05-19 03:33:02 PM  

indy_kid: XSV: Which again brings me back to my original point of stating that no one seems to be concerned about the law being broken that lead to this information being known.

It's up to the Duggars to demonstrate the the law was broken, and that's not clear at this point.  However, by filing such a lawsuit, they're  inviting the Streisand Effect, and they don't seem to care about that aspect of the issue.

This is nothing more than an attempt to get some cash.  Guess ol' Jim-Bob can't find any legitimate work these days, so it's up to the kids to keep him warm, dry and fed with more of their self-righteous bullshiat.


Josh Duggars trial (for using DJ McCarthys photo in Ashley Maddison) is about to start soon anyhow.
 
2017-05-19 03:48:10 PM  

XSV: indy_kid: It's up to the Duggars to demonstrate the the law was broken, and that's not clear at this point.  However, by filing such a lawsuit, they're  inviting the Streisand Effect, and they don't seem to care about that aspect of the issue.

This is nothing more than an attempt to get some cash.  Guess ol' Jim-Bob can't find any legitimate work these days, so it's up to the kids to keep him warm, dry and fed with more of their self-righteous bullshiat.

JohnBigBootay:These people have filed suit. Neither you nor I know if the case has merit. They alleged that they received a promise of confidentiality from a city official - we most certainly do not know if it's true or or if the person who made it had the authority to grant it. I imagine the magazine attorneys are getting a chuckle - it's an average weekday for their legal department. The most likely scenario here is the family is out of money and kids' attorneys are fishing for a settlement ...

I was hoping for more discussion of this.  n the article it states part of the problem was the freedom of information act revealing too much information in the released documents that made them easily identifiable.  I was more interested in hopefully a discussion of these kinds of issues rather than just crapping all over a family it's very obvious that most people on Fark hate.


The parents are deserving of scorn. They literally made their living from books and speeches that professed a better way to live and oh by the way, earn your right to an eternal afterlife of abundance... While covering up multiple child rapes for years. I don't condone that. I don't know, I guess that's just how I am.

I don't profess any expert knowledge of the legal issues. I do find a bit of irony in reality TV stars asking for privacy when they made their living by televising what are extremely private situations for most people. I doubt they have a great case or it seems likely it would have been filed long ago.

That doesn't mean I don't think they deserve the same legal rights as me. They do. But if I was going to rank my worries regarding the minor members of the Duggar family, their privacy being invaded would be really far down the list. The best thing for these kids would be the utter destruction of their sadistic 'church'.
 
2017-05-19 04:04:45 PM  
Duggars are hoping to do to InTouch what Hulk Hogan did to Gawker, and they have the State of Arkansas and the Pence-wing of Evangelicals backing them.
 
2017-05-19 04:26:05 PM  

OtherLittleGuy: Duggars are hoping to do to InTouch what Hulk Hogan did to Gawker, and they have the State of Arkansas and the Pence-wing of Evangelicals backing them.


Oh wow. I'd have to say there are some pretty remarkable differences at play here. Not least of all that the Gawker attack was entirely funded by a billionaire willing to hire the best in the business and spend whatever it took to get it to trial.
 
2017-05-19 04:49:53 PM  

XSV: I was more interested in hopefully a discussion of these kinds of issues rather than just crapping all over a family it's very obvious that most people on Fark hate.


Well, you farked that up big time in your boobies. Good jorb on that.
 
2017-05-19 05:57:08 PM  

shut_it_down: madgonad: For the non-attorneys here (all two of you) there are different standards of privacy. When you put yourself in the media (or your parents do it for you) by giving you a starring role on a TV show you lose some of the privacy standards that the proles enjoy. It isn't fair, but it is a standard. Their attention whoring family is why they were easy to identify on the police reports.

I think it's fair. The Arkansas standard for public figures considers the extent to which you voluntarily place yourself in a position of public notoriety. So, if you become a public figure against your will, you can still claim that you're entitled to more privacy. If you decide to profit off of fame by, say, starring in a reality TV show, then you can be rightly said to have voluntarily opened your life up for public consumption.


Maybe if they had anything beyond a religious homeschooled education, they'd be able to read. As it is, I am pretty sure they just memorized the bible, and just pretend they actually know what the words mean on the paper.
 
2017-05-19 06:37:43 PM  
The parents sold the family's privacy. Perhaps they should sue them instead.
 
2017-05-19 07:19:56 PM  

philodough: The parents sold the family's privacy. Perhaps they should sue them instead.


I was just coming in to ask any Fark lawyers about that. Not having watched the show, when the piece was put out by In Touch, if the girls were minors, regardless of the parents consent on the TV Show being filmed, would that make a difference? In Touch basically gave the girls no option to remain anonymous about having been molested. Is that actionable?
 
2017-05-19 08:56:42 PM  

Moopy Mac: Moopy Mac: XSV: Is this the thread where we ignore people's civil liberties and instead attack their personal beliefs because you personally don't agree with them?

This is a case in tort. InTouch is not part of the government.

I should probably read the actual article.


Why? That would set a very dangerous precedent around here. It's much better to read the title, read a few comments, and draw your own conclusion..........no matter how ridiculous it might be. Then post it.
 
2017-05-20 12:30:45 AM  

groppet: God I wish this family was sterile.


In the last century, my family (on both sides) has shrank considerably.  We're not even at replacement levels anymore...

/ Instead of 5-8 kids per couple, it's 0-2...
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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