Prepare for X-Play! Adam Sessler and Morgen Webb to to Pre/Post Show for Bethesda's E3 Convention - Polidicks

[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;47860249]First things first, "OP is a f**" is a stupid (and homophobic) meme and anyone who uses it should look inward and reconsider the life choices. But moreover, here's a post from this very same thread: That's already one person who (if nobody explained the joke) probably would have been convinced that Adam Sessler is in fact a drug addict. So I guess among other things if a joke is so shitty that people can't even tell it's a joke then it really isn't worth telling[/QUOTE] Max, your main account is unbanned, you don't need to keep making alts.

[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;47860872]Max, your main account is unbanned, you don't need to keep making alts.[/QUOTE] :rolleyes: [editline]2nd June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Swilly;47860733] And he's a public figure in the US. We can say whatever.[/QUOTE] Maybe you [i]can[/i], but that doesn't mean you [i]should[/i]

[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;47860101] So here's the tweet: [url=https://twitter.com/adamsessler/status/398142694653837312]I think chemical weapons dealers have a more tolerable consumer base than videogames. I am truly embarrassed for this industry.[/url] This statement is not only incredibly obvious hyperbole, but the goal is obviously to criticize the toxicity/anger of the gaming community and not to call gamers "worse than terrorists". It's not a very good analogy, but you're really stretching meaning out of a Twitter post, and IMO Death of the Author doesn't really apply to social media[/QUOTE] Well I doubt his family was the target of death threats from chemical weapons buyers so from his point of view, the chemical weapons industry probably did have more tolerable people in it. [editline]2nd June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Swilly;47860733] And he's a public figure in the US. We can say whatever.[/QUOTE] Actually, implying that he's a coke addict is libel and you don't have the freedom to say it.

[QUOTE=ThePanther;47858905]Geeezzuuuss [img]http://i.imgur.com/y2iRY29.gif[/img][/QUOTE] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Adam_Sessler_X-Play_at_Halo_3_launch_%28cropped%29.jpg/220px-Adam_Sessler_X-Play_at_Halo_3_launch_%28cropped%29.jpg[/img] Him in 2007. I know it's been a while, but holy shit the last 8 years haven't been nice.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47863712]Actually, implying that he's a coke addict is libel and you don't have the freedom to say it.[/QUOTE] Not really how it works. The US doesn't have strict slander laws, or any at all really. Sometimes newspapers, magazines, or television stations might be tried for defamation if they knowingly make shit up, but nobody really cares about regular old people shit talking other people in the US, and especially not on the Internet. It's that whole first amendment thing we got going on, so unless we're making shit up as a witness in court or something, we can pretty much say whatever we want about anybody.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;47863833]Him in 2007. I know it's been a while, but holy shit the last 8 years haven't been nice.[/QUOTE] For some reason he actually likes having those Wolverine chops.

[QUOTE=thisispain;47859447]Guy who markets consumer products all his life is anti-consumer, that's a new one.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's why I say he's bad at his job.

[QUOTE=Pretty Obscure;47865358]Not really how it works. The US doesn't have strict slander laws, or any at all really. Sometimes newspapers, magazines, or television stations might be tried for defamation, but nobody really cares about regular old people shit talking other people in the US, and especially not on the Internet. It's that whole first amendment thing we got going on, so unless we're making shit up as a witness in court or something, we can pretty much say whatever we want about anybody.[/QUOTE] The first amendment is a rule that the government has to follow. Slander is a civil issue in common law countries. Most people don't care enough or can't afford to sue, but they absolutely can. Because of the shit Sessler went through after a bunch of idiots decided they didn't like him, proving damages as a result of these statements would be trivial. The guy essentially had to give up his livelihood.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47865411]The first amendment is a rule that the government has to follow. Slander is a civil issue in common law countries. Most people don't care enough or can't afford to sue, but they absolutely can. Because of the shit Sessler went through after a bunch of idiots decided they didn't like him, proving damages as a result of these statements would be trivial. The guy essentially had to give up his livelihood.[/QUOTE] No, there is literally no federal slander/libel/defamation law in the US. Look it up. [editline]banana[/editline] The way slander works in the US basically only applies to public figures, corporations, publishers and the like. The only time a regular person might be tried for libel is if they lied in an official capacity, such as in court.

[QUOTE=Pretty Obscure;47865435]No, there is literally no federal slander/libel/defamation law in the US. Look it up.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statements_of_fact[/url] [quote]In United States constitutional law, false statements of fact are an exception from protection of free speech under the First Amendment.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47865508][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statements_of_fact[/url][/QUOTE] except; [QUOTE]a false statement of fact will not be exempt from some civil or criminal penalty, if a law has imposed one[/QUOTE] and there is no law that imposes one in the context of libel and also; [QUOTE]A major limiting factor to this concrete First Amendment exception are statements made against public figures.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The Supreme Court has also extended this doctrine to non-political figures who are simply famous or well known in the media.[/QUOTE]

There is no federal law but there are state defamation laws. And the exception for public figures is decided case by case because it's simply an extension of an original ruling that protected people defaming the government - whether or not a gaming journalist could be considered a public figure would be completely up to the judge. I'm not sure why you're arguing that nobody can be sued for defamation in the US because it can and has happened before. Just because it's difficult to do doesn't mean you have the inalienable right to lie about someone being a coke addict, which was my original point.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47865555]There is no federal law but there are state defamation laws. And the exception for public figures is decided case by case because it's simply an extension of an original ruling that protected people defaming the government - whether or not a gaming journalist could be considered a public figure would be completely up to the judge. I'm not sure why you're arguing that nobody can be sued for defamation in the US because it can and has happened before. Just because it's difficult to do doesn't mean you have the inalienable right to lie about someone being a coke addict, which was my original point.[/QUOTE] If the Supreme Court has stated there's an exception for famous individuals (and Sessler is a public and famous figure) as Pretty Obscure has pointed out then that protection is at the Federal level thus supersedes state law. Once it hits the Supreme Court and they make a ruling on it, that's final until they rule otherwise. If the Supreme Court says me calling Sessler a coke head that fucks dogs is protected speech even in civil matters as well as criminal ones, then it is. The state law essentially eats shit at that point. For all we know he really does like coke and dog sex. I'm not saying Pretty Obscure is right when it comes to libel/slander laws, I'm just pointing out how the SCOTUS and their rulings works. I'm interested in seeing the relevant case, though.

Reading about that [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertz_v._Robert_Welch,_Inc.]Supreme Court case[/url] further, it seems that public figures aren't actually excepted at all if you purposely defame them with the intention of causing harm. And even the original wikipedia article says: [quote]False statements that are on matters of public concern and that defame public figures are unprotected if either the speaker has knowledge that his statements are false, there is a negligence in the statement, or there is "actual malice" to inflict harm.[/quote] So I think we're back to square one. Public figures appear to only be absolutely protected if the defamation is accidental.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47865657]Reading about that [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertz_v._Robert_Welch,_Inc.]Supreme Court case[/url] further, it seems that public figures aren't actually excepted at all if you purposely defame them with the intention of causing harm. And even the original wikipedia article says: So I think we're back to square one. Public figures appear to only be absolutely protected if the defamation is accidental.[/QUOTE] But how do you know sessler isn't an actual coke head? Or people aren't just taking the piss? But just reading the wiki on not just Gerz v. Robert Welch Inch, but also NY Times v. Sullivan: [quote=Gertz]After reviewing the case history and prior decisions, Powell began with a reminder that "Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea ... (it) requires that we protect some falsehood in order to protect speech that matters." [/quote] [quote=Gertz]Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the standard of First Amendment protection against defamation claims brought by private individuals.[/quote] The key word there is PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, which Sessler is not. He's a very, very public figure who willingly made himself public. [quote=Gertz]The consequence is that strict liability for defamation is unconstitutional in the United States; the plaintiff must be able to show that the defendant acted negligently or with an even higher level of mens rea. In many other common law countries, strict liability for defamation is still the rule.[/quote] [quote=Strict Liability] In law, strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by his/her acts and omissions regardless of culpability (including fault in criminal law terms, typically the presence of mens rea). Under strict liability, there is no requirement to prove fault, negligence or intention. In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortious intent). The claimant need only prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible.[/quote] [quote=NY Times v. Sullivan]New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case that established the actual malice standard, which has to be met before press reports about public officials can be considered to be defamation and libel. The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty of proving the defendant's knowledge and intentions, such cases—when they involve public figures—rarely prevail.[/quote] The fact you need to really really really need to prove mens rea (criminal intent) alone makes going after slander and libel incredibly difficult. The Actual Malice/Sullivan standard is harder than you think to apply to libel cases. I can call Sessler a massive coked out dickhead all I want and all he can do about it is call me an asshole and block me on Twitter.

Well if he's actually a coke addict then everything I've argued so far is irrelevant because saying so can't possibly be defamatory in the US since truth is a defense against it. I was wrong that anyone could ever be found guilty of libel in this case (too easy to pass it off as a joke and make it impossible to prove an intent to harm), but the fact remains that you don't actually have first amendment protection when you're being maliciously libellous.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47865763]Well if he's actually a coke addict then everything I've argued so far is irrelevant because saying so can't possibly be defamatory in the US since truth is a defense against it. I was wrong that anyone could ever be found guilty of libel in this case (too easy to pass it off as a joke and make it impossible to prove an intent to harm), but the fact remains that you don't actually have first amendment protection when you're being maliciously libellous.[/QUOTE] Good luck proving malice though. It's near impossible unless the defendant admits their guilt.

[QUOTE=DemonElite;47865783]Good luck proving malice though. It's near impossible unless the defendant admits their guilt.[/QUOTE] Would finding an internet forum where the person outright admits that they're going to target someone with lies for the sole purpose of ruining their career be enough to prove it?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47865883]Would finding an internet forum where the person outright admits that they're going to target someone with lies for the sole purpose of ruining their career be enough to prove it?[/QUOTE] Maybe, maybe not. You'd then have to prove that's the actual person in question and not someone with a similar user name and all that stuff. If you can prove that person's actual identity then yeah maybe you could. There's quite the burden of proof on these matters.

Morgen and Adam! Sweet fuck I missed you both!

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47863712] Actually, implying that he's a coke addict is libel and you don't have the freedom to say it.[/QUOTE] In the US courts, its libel not because of the context but because he's a public figure which at that point he'd have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that implying he's a coke addict is any sort of malice. And the bar is set really damn high. [editline]2nd June 2015[/editline] I'm talking, phone call of me saying out right, "I'm doing this to ruin in his life, fuck Adam Sessler." Thats the bar minimum.

BTW I'm still waiting on evidence for the claim that Sessler knew the developers of Gone Home personally