Currencies, Cars and Libel - Today's News

In a couple of days there will be a meeting of the power elite of government and business at the World Economic Forum and they are going to be discussing the coming global reset that happens after the international financial system collapses. Considering the fact that reported unemployment will show as 6.5% in the next couple of months and that the Federal Reserve will then stop buying $85 billion in bonds a month, I think their timing is impeccable.

USA Today - Push 'reset' button on world, WEF founder says.

CNN Money - Detroit bankruptcy judge blocks $165 million payment to banks. Keep your eye on Detroit and how it resolves it's "pension problem". The City of Detroit's manager wanted to cut the pensions and pay the banks and now he will have to cut payouts to everyone, possibly by the same percentage. Hmmmm, I think the banks that Detroit owes will no longer be as supportive of Detroit's bankruptcy because it was believed by them that pensions would get cut and they would get paid.

Wired - Google’s Car Guru Talks About a Future of Wildly Safe Roads
. Watch the video it is short. It is all about the wonderful future where your car will drive itself, determine your route and be monitored every second. I love the fact that one of Google's newest executives used to work as the head of DARPA and wants your biometrics to be your password. LowellSun - The Guardian - How Google is moving into the home with Nest Labs acquisition
. Soon, Google will track your every move on the road and everything you do in your house. Doesn't that make you feel warm and fuzzy.

Yahoo - ABC News - Courtney Love Defends Tweet in 'Twibel' Defamation Suit
. I love this story and just wrote about the subject a couple of posts or so back. In my post I was talking about why I always link to my source material, am careful to not slander others and only post what I feel would stand up under traditional legal rules regarding libel and why I do not make and never intend to make a penny from this blog. Courtney Love (a singer) is being sued for having libeled someone on Twitter. The case has been accepted by a judge and is going forth. There is a good chance she will lose. At least I won't have to go back and change any of my posts.

Let me explain the difference between slander and libel. Slander is spoken lies about another that hurt their reputation. Libel is written published lies about another that hurt their reputation. You can be sued for either; however, the penalties for slander are less than those for libel. Now I am going to make a prediction. The law of libel and slander will be applied to the internet including Twitter, Facebook and blogs. Pay sites, sites that make money and business sites will all be treated under the law of libel; but, sites like mine will be treated under the law of slander. And I think that is the right approach.

Consider this blog. Firstly, everything I wrote about my divorce and ex-wife is true and cannot be considered slander. I should also mention that I have never posted her my name or my name. If you don't personally know me, there is no way that you could know who my wife is. In fact, many people that do know me don't know who my wife was. There are people that read this blog, that know me in person and have no idea who my ex is and they don't need to. What if I had wanted to hurt her and used her name and the name of the man she cheated on me with? What if I lied about her and claimed that she cheated on her taxes (she did not and used the same accountant as me because we filed jointly. In fact, she never ever even suggested we cheat on our taxes. I never even ever heard her complain about taxes and neither did I). But, what if I claimed that she cheated on her taxes and it resulted in her being audited, shouldn't I get in trouble for that. Shouldn't she be allowed to sue me?

Let me give another example. What if some 14 year old boy wrote on Facebook that his teacher molested him and it was a complete and utter lie. It could cause a lot of grief for that teacher and possibly his job. What if it was all a lie, should he not be punished and forced to publish a retraction? We should also consider copyright law. You might notice that I never post videos, instead I link to them. I don't publish things that are copyright protected or even things that are not, I link to the source material. I do not have permission to publish their material so I don't and I also do not make anything for people clicking through to my links. If I wanted to slander someone, I could do it and get away with it because of how I approach this blog. It is an opinion blog not an investigative blog. When I accuse someone of something I back it up and don't publish things that I cannot substantiate without saying so.

For any of you who post anything on the internet, please follow the simple rules. If you make money off your site or posts, let everybody know how you make your money. Don't lie about people or say things that you cannot prove. Now in regards to public figures (politicians, famous people and people in the news) you can voice a stronger opinion. That is traditional libel law. Here is a question for you, what if you could sued for what you minor child said on the internet? Lets go back to my hypothetical, your 14 year old daughter lies and claims her teacher molested her and publishes this on her Facebook page. What if you ended up having to pay for her lies, would you require that all her posts were pre-approved by you? I bet you would or you would prevent her from using the internet at all.

Should people like Alex Jones be allowed to say that Bill Gates wants to kill 90% of the population to 15 million people a month? Mr. Gates believes in controlling our population growth and openly says so as do many others, he has never recommended killing people to reduce the population. In my opinion, based upon all the things Mr. Gates and his wife have done, he wants to see people living longer, healthier and that there be fewer of us being born through choice and reward. Mr. Jones also believes that genetically modified food is being produced to kill us off, he is an imbecile and public figure and runs an site that carries advertising. Under the laws of both slander and libel, I can call him an idiot; but, I don't know that I would be able to say that he was paid money to publish things against Mr. Gates as I have no knowledge that he was.

The bottom line is that we should all be careful what we say on the internet. My ex has a Facebook page, I don't read it and don't feel a need to. I doubt very much that she has ever written a slanderous statement about me and she does not understand the law of libel or slander. I doubt very much that she would lie about someone else on the internet just to hurt them, she didn't do that in person. You don't need to know the law to know what is wrong and it is wrong to make things up about others and say them to others. It is just wrong. She may have lied to me about somethings; but, I am not aware of her ever lying to me about others doing bad things when they were not.

I have openly called Mr. Elliot Broidy a crook. But he confessed to felony fraud. I have openly stated that CIM Group bought a property from Mr. Eddie Nash who admitted to bribery of a judge. I can back these things up with their own words and did. I am more than happy to name names when I can back it up. This site has had just shy of 50,000 hits. In the scheme of things that may be minor; but, if I just openly lied about people or said things without any proof, would that really be right? I have around 1,500 posts and 12 followers. Maybe each follower has read every post, that would account for around 20,000 of my hits (by the way, I know for a fact that not all my followers read every post). This means that as many as 30,000 people have read my blog, the number is high because I have many regular readers that are not "followers". Having said all that, lets assume that at least a thousand people have read my blog at least once. If I lied about people, if I accused people of things that I could not prove, should I get away with it?

One of the books I read when I was a child (12 or 13) was by a famous attorney named Louis Nizer. I was a strange kid. He wrote a book called, "My Life In Court" and one of his biggest cases was a libel case. He is my favorite attorney of all time. My favorite judge of all time is Billings Learned Hand, while obscure to most, he was my hero in law. His opinions are considered as important as anything the Supreme Court ever passed. He was called the tenth justice, lol. On freedom of speech issues, I always agreed with Mr. Hand even when the Supreme Court did not and I still got the American Jurisprudence Award for Constitutional Law. Nobody ever got in trouble for agreeing with Mr. Hand because he was laser on to the truth and good logic rather than convenient excuses. He was also very instrumental in developing tests for libel and slander. My two favorite legal people ever both believed that freedom of speech was the most important freedom and both understood that there had to be some limitations on communication. People should not be able to plan killing others for insurance pay outs on the internet, they would not be free to do so in person. All restrictions on public speech are not wrong. The most important thing is where the line is drawn.