MetaFilter posts tagged with slander

.

amberglow — Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:37:50 -0800

UpdateFilter: Schiavo autopsy results --contrary to those who used this poor shell of a woman as a political football and fundraiser, Schiavo was not abused, was blind so could not possibly have seen a balloon or her loved ones, and had a brain half the normal weight that was massively and irreversibly damaged. previous posts here--and just one example of the many many lies printed about her and her husband here. Some people should really be ashamed of themselves.

Potsy — Wed, 28 Nov 2001 22:29:04 -0800

PrintCafe sues idiot. Literally. They are suing several individuals who posted anonymous comments on F---edCompany's message boards. So far, all they have are the aliases the comments were posted under, namely "Ex-DLJ", "sucky-me", and "idiot!". Apparently that's all they're going to get, since Pud says here, "FC servers contain no logs ". Also of note is item number 4 on this page of the letter Pud received.

Kino — Mon, 09 Jul 2001 23:28:04 -0800

Jumping on the infamous Interschool Ho voting booth story Salon is currently running a 4 page article charting/attacking the rise of 'cyber-bullying', a phenomena defined by students (mostly?) slandered their peers online. In the opening page of the piece the author, all orifices throthing, offers several graphic examples of the trend and gives not only details of the full name and school of a female sophomore victim, an extensive barrage of quotes of what ugly, retarded, hurtful stuff was written about her by some severely mentally unstable individual, but also a relatively prominent, in-your-face link to the smalltime message board in question causing them to replace it with the whimpering redirect message 'Unfortunately, due to an article posted on salon.com, the LHStudents.com website traffic has exceeded maximum capacity and we have no other option but to create a new LHBoard on a different server'..

Rastafari — Sat, 19 May 2001 00:51:31 -0800

The truth finally comes about trashing of the White House as earlier reported (remember the disinformation?). The question now is, will the mainstream press now cover this with the same fervor as the earlier (false) stories, or was it simply shoddy journalism in the first place to report and print "facts" without doing any background checks? Come to think of it, I never did see any photos of all the alleged damages created....