Soxbadger

That is a question of fact and why ultimately most defamation/slander cases go no where. Just to difficult to prove unless its blatantly obvious. But that doenst mean that people should just go around starting witch hunts either. We all have a responsibility.

The food at wrigley is terrible, but there are a lot of places to eat right around the park. If you have a specific type of food I can give some recommendations otherwise here are a few places that I like that arent really expensive (about $10 per person) http://www.luckysandwich.com/Wrigley/index.html Sandwich place, there thing is they put the fries in the sandwich. Pretty good, but most importantly, not excessively expensive. http://dimospizza.com/ Previously Ian's Pizza, I have a special place in my heart for it as it started next to my apartment in Madison. Exotic pizza by the slice, not as cheap as the old days, but 2 pieces for $7.50 isnt terrible either. http://www.crisponline.com/crisp.aspx The other 2 places were half a block from Wrigley, this one is maybe 4-5 blocks away. Ridiculously good Korean Fried Chicken. http://dmkburgerbar.com/ Another one that is a little bit further (south), but it has fun hamburgers and once again, is not extremely expensive.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 23, 2013 -> 03:08 PM) Does anyone actually have standing to bring a case against anyone here other than the guys who were featured in the NY Post? Those would likely be the only people who could really show damages. That is the other part, people actually have to be damaged. Generally internet nonsense doesnt result in tangible damages. But in this case, being alleged to be a terrorist, actually being brought in for questioning, I think most would agree that is going to damage your reputation. That is why most of the time (maybe even 90%+) it doesnt matter. Its just when it comes to matters like this, you need to use a bit more tact/common sense before you parade around like you are the next Sherlock Holmes.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 23, 2013 -> 03:00 PM) This is being caused by the over proliferation of social media, and peoples inability to handle it. The fact that the world largely doesn't understand social media, or the need to slow the f*** down and stop believing everything it reads simply because some unknown idiot posted it on Reddit, 4Chan, Twitter, Facebook, or thousands of other such forms of social media. Y2hh, The part you seem to be missing, is that those unknown idiots would be liable if they walked around the town making defamatory statements, etc. Its up to the individual to not start the witch hunt in the first place. Those are the people who are most responsible. But every other person who shared it, linked it, and disseminated it, also shares in the responsibility. Now the responsibilities drastically are reduced when it goes from publisher, to re-publisher to disseminator. The question for the future is who is a publisher, re-publisher and disseminator when it comes to the internet.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 23, 2013 -> 02:56 PM) Same would have to be said of Twitter, and the rest of them, too...they were all doing it, let's not single out Reddit since the media decided to be careless with it's power. Ive never said nor indicated that the exact same rules would not apply to twitter. They do. I was just focusing on Reddit because that was the argument.

You cant compare a rumor about professional athletes being traded. That would almost never be considered slander/defamation in any circumstance. They are public figures and therefore the law is extremely different. In comparison the people in the pictures on Reddit, were just ordinary people, and therefore the requirements are much lower.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 23, 2013 -> 02:29 PM) Again, it's a user forum, not a fact based source hard news website. They should have no more liability than a comedian would have for making a joke about killing someone, or than someone on Soxtalk saying Die, Ozzie, die!@#$!@, either... This is what happens when legit organizations take the word of a person off the street, which is essentially Reddit in this case. I don't see your point, whatsoever, not when it comes to what this is. It's a f***ing huge user forum. What responsibility? The only responsibility here are hard news organizations shouldn't be taking something someone posted on Reddit and re-printing it as fact, without bothering to check. Okay you are comparing apples and oranges. A joke on Reddit would have the exact same liability as a joke on tv, a joke on Soxtalk or a joke on the radio. Now lets compare starting a witch hunt based on pictures and theories. It should have the same liability if I did it on tv, if I did it on the radio, if I did it in a newspaper or if I did it on Soxtalk. Reddit should fall under the same laws that we all do. if I as an individual do not have that right, then I dont magically get it because Im posting anonymously on the internet. If its defamation/slander it doesnt matter if its on Reddit, it doesnt matter if its something I said in my house to 2 other people. The publisher of defamation/slander can be held liable, Reddit is the publisher, re-publisher or disseminator, this is not ground breaking. http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_docume...Defamation1.asp Now you could argue that this was all just "opinion" and therefore outside of defamation/slander. You dont have to be a "fact based news source" to slander/defame. You can be a single person.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 23, 2013 -> 02:17 PM) I understand your point, but when it comes to Reddit, this is the type of medium/forum it is. It's a user based community, what is printed on Reddit should be scrutinized by the reader, not reprinted as fact. This is more the fault of media outlets treating Reddit as fact checked sourced material. The community itself refers to itself as "Reddit", for example: Dear Reddit, loosely translates to "Dear everyone on Reddit," A "Redditor" is a citizen/user of Reddit. It doesnt need to be reprinted. Simply printing nonsense on Reddit should result in potential liability for Reddit if they do not use reasonable means to remove it. You just cant simply argue "Aint nobody got time for that" Well if you dont have time to moderate your business, dont start it. But Reddit has no problem making money off of this, so they should have no problem moderating their content.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 23, 2013 -> 12:27 PM) This is kind of inaccurate, as Reddit was not responsible for the subreddit nor did any Reddit representative start it. That's like blaming Facebook for Facebook Pages' content. Its up to the owner of Reddit/Facebook to handle their own content. At the end of the day, they are making money from the hits, views, advertisements, they have a responsibility. Just like a newspaper has a responsibility for an op ed. At any point the owners of Reddit could have closed or deleted the thread. They are responsible. Y2hh, That is also true the article wasnt really blaming the owners. But at the same time, there should be some responsibility if you are going to be profiting off of this type of stuff.

http://news.yahoo.com/reddits-boston-bombe...-225823288.html Shocking, Reddit now admitting that starting witch hunt not very smart. Welcome to the 18th century?

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Apr 22, 2013 -> 04:56 PM) I still can't believe how much the change to the 3 day format ruined the draft for me. Just no where near the excitement for the draft that I used to have. Agreed its terrible.

They say 30 is the new 13.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 22, 2013 -> 04:05 PM) You don't get to decide which American citizens get rights - start doing that, and yours are not far behind. And when that happens, you deserve it. This is pretty cut and dry, it's not even something more esoteric like debating what to do with Gitmo detainees. This one's settled, in black and white, and the fact that it's even up for debate is kind of creepy. People wanna talk about the government being the ones to take their rights but they're ready to give them away. All I can do is break out Star Wars: http://vimeo.com/25741586 So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause.

He will if he is smart. Because eviction lawsuits are a huge waste of time and money. I just more wanted you to realize that you have extreme leverage in this position.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Apr 22, 2013 -> 01:09 PM) Why does he get your sympathy when he took none on his victims? How would you feel if you were left a cripple or lost a loved one? I'm guessing you'd be singing a different tune. The moral high ground is always easy from an outside perspective. An eye for an eye and the entire world goes blind. I understand rage, which is why I try so very hard to control mine. No one will win, there will just be more suffering, and for what? So for one brief second I can feel better? It doesnt bring them back, it just makes me like the people who hurt them.

Give your landlord advance notice. Obviously there is very little chance that your agreement gives you the right to terminate (unless you have cause). Hopefully your landlord is smart and works out a deal with you, where they get their property at a specific time/date and you are released from the contract. Otherwise if its just 1 month, you can stick your landlord by not paying rent. That would mean a 5 day notice, then being served. That is likely 2 weeks. First court date another week, then filing jury demand, discovery, etc, it could be 6 months to trial. Landlord would have to mitigate damages, becomes nonsensical and thus its over. That is if you are in Chicago, another town may allow for attorney fees, in which case best bet is just to cut a deal.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 22, 2013 -> 01:36 PM) Its funny how reaction to stuff varies based on which amendment we are talking about. Not really, its sad. Most people just argue for whatever position most helps them, very few people selflessly argue against their position, just because it may be the right thing to do. Its the dividing line.

Because as long as we give the worst of us the same rights as the best of us, we will stay a free society. When we are presented with the most terrible acts, that is when we must be the most vigilant in protecting rights. Because why does (insert) deserve the same rights? Part of the price of being an american is that we believe in innocent until proven guilty. And regardless of how guilty the person may be, until that moment, they are guaranteed the same rights as anyone else. You dont let them change you, thats what they want.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Apr 20, 2013 -> 12:54 PM) You think death is great, I get it. Giving terrorists what they want, not too sure on that one. You keep contradicting yourself. If they wanted death, they could have have chosen a suicide bomb to begin with. Also, "eventually he'll die so the families will get what they want." Are you kidding me with this? Wait, everyone dies? No s***. Some of them don't want to wait for the natural death. Im not contradicting myself at all. I cant get into the head of each individual to tell what their belief is. If they believe they are going to heaven if they die, would you then all of a sudden say "We shouldnt give them the death penalty." If your answer is yes, then maybe there is some logic to your position. If your answer is no, that no matter what we should kill them, then there is no logic. Not every person believes in the same thing about death. Which is why its stupid to rush to judgment about death being bad. For all we know everyone goes to heaven, so death could be a gift. Not willing to take that risk. You wont ever convince me otherwise, its simply illogical. Death could be worse than life. Death could be better than life. If you arent willing to accept that as true, we really have nothing to discuss.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Apr 20, 2013 -> 12:27 PM) Maybe we can get him some cable, a nice workout program, access to the library, Internet access. Maybe he could learn to paint like John Wayne Gacy. They could share the same letterhead "execute the law not the people". Odd though, Gacy seemed to fight death instead of embracing the "falling asleep" easy path. I said solitary confinement. Perhaps you should read next time. QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Apr 20, 2013 -> 12:28 PM) You can take the hell factor out of this, we don't have to make it religious, that's fine. But, he doesn't deserve to live. He doesn't deserve to think, go outside a cell, eat, etc. He took that away from people on multiple occasions. Dying may be peaceful, but I don't want to take that "risk" either that it's not. Your risk argument is beyond weird, and it's all based on opinion. One's not more "risky" than the other one. It's all a matter of what you think. If faced with this, you'd rather die I guess. That's fine. For all we know he'd rather live than die. Who knows. He knew what road this was going down, if he didn't want that he could have killed himself anyway. Think about it from the families' perspective (those who lost people), do you think they want him alive? I'm not so sure all of them would. "Death is just falling asleep and never waking up." You make it sound so simple, but you're still f***ing dead. You're about suffering, other people are about game over. You can't simply say confinement is worse than death, there's nothing that can prove that. We can't hear from the other side. And not all of the families want him to be executed. But every family who wants him to die, will know that eventually he will die. So those families get what they want no matter what. Im going to side with objective/rationale thought, over mythical fantasy thought. We know that solitary confinement is miserable. I can put you in it for a year and you can testify to that fact. I do not know that death is miserable. Therefore when given the option of: A) A punishment I know is extremely miserable or B) A punishment that may be extremely miserable, but no matter what the person will always suffer it. I pick A. Im not into giving terrorists get out of jail free cards. That is why they suicide many times, because they are under the belief that death will be BETTER than life. Go figure, I dont want to give terrorists what they want.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Apr 20, 2013 -> 12:33 AM) I don't think life in hell is great. I dont believe in hell, so Im not going to take the risk on a fantasy punishment for the rest of his "eternal days". I believe that when you die its peaceful like falling asleep. So solitary confinement with no chance at parole is far worse. You can be entitled your opinion. I just would rather not take the risk you are willing to. You want to take the risk that hell exists and therefore by sending him to hell quicker he gets punished more. My belief is why take a risk that hell exists? He is going to die no matter what, and if hell does exist then he is going to suffer forever, so what does it matter if its today, tomorrow or 90 years from now? From an objective standpoint, where we dont believe in mythical places like hell, life imprisonment is worse. Milkman, Life imprisonment, especially solitary, is worse than death. Death is just falling asleep and never waking up. Life imprisonment is living a nightmare every day for the rest of your days. Ill pick the latter. Nothing is really going to convince me otherwise.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Apr 19, 2013 -> 09:31 PM) Your incentive to surrender is that you get a trial. If you don't surrender you get killed on the spot. But you've been arguing that life in prison is more punishment then the death penalty, so without the death penalty shouldn't the bad guys have LESS incentive to surrender? No because if they are considering surrender they are implicitly valuing life over death. Many terrorists dont care about living, so they are willing to die regardless.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Apr 19, 2013 -> 09:27 PM) At this point, I don't see a major downside to having a trial. I think people have watched too many legal dramas. The government has an obligation to not only these victims but future victims of other crimes because sentences to past similar crimes are used by judges in future sentencing procedures. Right the govt has to protect its people. And you cant have terrorist propaganda that says "Even if you surrender they will kill you, so you should suicide bomb, you should never surrender." We want them to surrender peacefully, we have to give some sort of incentive to that. We need to be able to tell terrorists "If you turn yourselves in, it will be better than killing yourself and others."

QUOTE (chw42 @ Apr 19, 2013 -> 09:25 PM) He's not. His brother was. So he could get deported although I heavily doubt that. No Im 99% sure the younger brother is the US citizen. http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/04/19/bombi...-us-citizenship

No they have an obligation to make the best decision given the current circumstances. If they think that more exposure will in the end cause more harm, they can take a plea deal to make sure that it does not happen. The govt doesnt even have to prosecute if it doesnt want. They can do whatever they want, its their case. No where in the law does it say that the US govt MUST prosecute a criminal.