But upon who's judgement will this be based? The humourless bastard down the block or some committee like the MPAA:
"It is the judgement of this panel that your Class 1-A Humiliating Joke (ref: AB3BCDFD-0035-DA36-071409C2DBE49D00 ) "Pants-ing" has been rated PG-13 -- thusly only requiring nominal parental notification, and negating the right of the subject to sue in the event the subjects' embarrassment, humiliation, etc. providing a fully executed hold harmless document is submitted to this committee with 10 days of final subject approval -- forms for identification of potential subjects of the referenced joke (AB3BCDFD-0035-DA36-071409C2DBE49D00) will be found attached. You will be notified of "go - no go" status in 3 to 6 weeks pending full investigation of the intended subjects' physical, mental and financial condidtions. If subject is not considered physically, mentall, financially able to withstand the full brunt of joke (AB3BCDFD-0035-DA36-071409C2DBE49D00) you will be notified and execution of said joke (AB3BCDFD-0035-DA36-071409C2DBE49D00) can proceed only if this committee receives the fully executed hold harmless document. Thanks and as always -- Have fun :-)" ^_^ will William Wheatley wrote: >So people can't do jokes anymore? Because alot of jokes have GOTCHAS and you >feel like a retard for a bit and then it passes. >Will we have a joke scale now to see when its TOO humilating? > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Haggerty, Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 4:33 PM >Subject: RE: Fat Brat sues > > > > >>I stand by my argument that a deliberate attempt to humiliate someone >>that results in significant psychological trauma should be grounds for >>litigation. That said, with every rule there are definite limitations as >>to what it is for and how it should be applied, and each case should >>have the ability to stand on its own merits. >> >>In the two cases you provided, war and the disturbance in the alley, >>this rule would not apply. It is generally acknowledged that one's >>presence in a wartime situation will be traumatic at some level. The >>soldier in a modern, volunteer army will have placed themselves in that >>situation knowing the potential for harm. Additionally, in this >>particular arena, soldiers on either side do everything they can to blow >>up the other guys, and nations recognize this. In the same way no one >>can be convicted for murdering an enemy combatant in the course of >>combat, no can should be able to sue for emotional distress resulting >>from being in a war. >> >>As for the case of people getting it on in the alley, one would presume >>the intent of these people was not to cause harm of any sort to anyone. >>If someone came before me to say they were traumatized by watching two >>people engage in consensual adult activities, I would find it difficult >>to sympathize with that person's argument. There is a massive difference >>between 'disturbed' and 'damaged', and it is reasonable to assume that >>most reasonable people would be able to quickly leave this event behind >>them. >> >>Now, if in the second case it were your mother, and she was being forced >>to do this, and the person did this to get back at you for whatever >>reason, that's another story. But I have trouble with seeing how either >>of these cases could be seen as a deliberate attempt to humiliate anyone >>or cause anyone lasting psychological harm. >> >>M >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: William Wheatley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 3:55 PM >>To: CF-Community >>Subject: Re: Fat Brat sues >> >> >>Ok let me try to take a Dana type logical approach and dissect your >>argument ;). >> >>And I agree they were trying to embarrass him. >> >>So saying because he was traumatized by that he can sue. Can the >>soliders who sign up for military service and see someone get blown to >>bits can they sue for emotional distress? What about when my daughter >>saw someone get murdered if she was emotionally disturbed should she be >>able to sue the murderer?? >> >>If i saw someone having sex in an alley and it disturbed me? >> >>I mean of course they can sue but i hope people are not rewarded for >>being dumbasses. >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Haggerty, Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 3:37 PM >>Subject: RE: Fat Brat sues >> >> >> >> >>>Bill, I got to disagree with you on this one. I think the actions of >>>those kids was intended to publicly humiliate this kid and that they >>>had no right to put that up without his permission. If the kid is >>>traumatized as a result, he should have the right to sue. This should >>>be regardless of the fact they made money off the action, the question >>> >>> >>>is whether or not they hurt this person in some meaningful way. My >>>take on it is, yes, they did. >>> >>>M >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: William Wheatley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 3:30 PM >>>To: CF-Community >>>Subject: Re: Fat Brat sues >>> >>> >>>Sure file a criminal complaint. >>> >>>And if they MADE money off it sue, or sue to get it removed but this >>>emotional distress crap has gotten way out of hand. People can't deal >>>with life so they have to get money to get comfort. The problem is >>>even spreading to canada now :) Oh boy that can be the american legacy >>> >>> >>>a bunch of whiney people who gotta sue for everything. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
