Porn Industry Running Scared & Bribing AHF

Even when no malice was behind it? I've read up on it and there has to be malice behind it or if you knew it wasn't true but still ran it. Whatever I say I believe is 100% true.

Here is what needs to happen.

Porn needs to get old school again and start busting fucking knee caps. You steal my shit, I break your fucking leg with a ball bat. Who wants some?

You support those who are pirates, we break your fucking leg too. You also want some?

You want to make us wear rubbers? Which leg do you want us to hit?

OLD SCHOOL is the only way out of this mess. It's gonna have to get ugly.

While it's easy to blame the tubes and everything else, the dinosaurs of the video era failed to adapt and are going bye-bye....

Slander and Liable are two torts that involve the communication of false information about a person, a group, or an entity such as a corporation. Libel is any Defamation that can be seen, such as a writing, printing, effigy, movie, or statue. Slander is any defamation that is spoken and heard.


Collectively known as defamation, libel and slander are civil wrongs that harm a reputation; decrease respect, regard, or confidence; or induce disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual or entity. The injury to one's good name or reputation is affected through written or spoken words or visual images. The laws governing these torts are identical.


To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication.


To prove that the material was defamatory, the plaintiff must show that at least one other person who saw or heard it understood it as having defamatory meaning. It is necessary to show not that all who heard or read the statement understood it to be defamatory, but only that one person other than the plaintiff did so. Therefore, even if the defendant contends that the communication was a joke, if one person other than the plaintiff took it seriously, the communication is considered defamatory.


Defamatory matter is published when it is communicated to someone other than the plaintiff. This can be done in several different ways. The defendant might loudly accuse the plaintiff of something in a public place where others are present, or make defamatory statements about the plaintiff in a newsletter or an on-line bulletin board. The defamation need not be printed or distributed. However, if the defendant does not intend it to be conveyed to anyone other than the plaintiff, and conveys it in a manner that ordinarily would prevent others from seeing or hearing it, the requirement of publication has not been satisfied even if a third party inadvertently overhears or witnesses the communication.


Liability for republication of a defamatory statement is the same as for original publication, provided that the defendant had knowledge of the contents of the statement. Thus, newspapers, magazines, and broadcasters are liable for republication of libel or slander because they have editorial control over their communications. On the other hand, bookstores, libraries, and other distributors of material are liable for republication only if they know, or had reason to know, that the statement is defamatory. Common carriers such as telephone companies are not liable for defamatory material that they convey, even if they know that it is defamatory, unless they know, or have reason to know, that the sender does not have a privilege to communicate the material. Suppliers of communications equipment are never liable for defamatory material that is transmitted through the equipment they provide.


In general, there are four defenses to libel or slander: truth, consent, accident, and privilege. The fact that the allegedly defamatory communication is essentially true is usually an absolute defense; the defendant need not verify every detail of the communication, as long as its substance can be established. If the plaintiff consented to publication of the defamatory material, recovery is barred. Accidental publication of a defamatory statement does not constitute publication. Privilege confers Immunity on a small number of defendants who are directly involved in the furtherance of the public's business—for example, attorneys, judges, jurors, and witnesses whose statements are protected on public policy grounds.



In short to answer your question, the absence of malice is no defense. Believing it is true and not using due diligence to verify that what you are writing is true and in fact what you write is not true=fucked! But if what you publish, you believe is true and in fact it is the truth you will be golden.

A perfect example where you put yourself in a bad legal position is when; A female performer calls you saying that this particular producer is a thief, doesn't pay talent, forces female talent to have sex with them, etc and in fact she is lying or has her own agenda and you run that story, she is liable for "slander" and by you writing it up, you are liable for the tort violation of "libel." Her for the "slander" and you for the "republication" of the "defamatory statements" in a libelous form.



Hope this little law lesson helps you out with what ever you choose to write.

..you mention you lifted your disclaimer from another site after seeing it in alot of places.....then you reprint/copy articles that are mentioned elsewhere etc....it seems that if you see something done elsewhere it will be ok for you ? ...maybe if they got it wrong ? then you would be screwed as well !

With the type of stories you distribute i would at least retain a lawyer to avoid a future post on gfy from you titled " Shit I just got hit with a $1 million dollar lawsuit "

Just my view...better to be safe than sorry...as it seems you really need one.

JustDave -- nice work.

Darrah read his post, re-read it and then memorize it.

You are a target waiting to be shot at -- realize that and govern your actions accordingly. Go ask Luke Ford about defending a libel lawsuit and what it cost him.

Even if you win, you will still be out a minimum of $50,000 just to defend the lawsuit and probably closer to $100,000 in legal fees.

Even when no malice was behind it? I've read up on it and there has to be malice behind it or if you knew it wasn't true but still ran it. Whatever I say I believe is 100% true.

My intent is to inform the women in this industry so they can better protect themselves. If I truly wanted to destroy anyone's reputation or business, I would have print a long time ago EVERYTHING that I know about both of them.

See, this right here is the basis of everybody's problem with you.

You've "read up on it" and you ACTUALLY believe that the standard for libel is what YOU BELIEVE to be true. You honestly think there's a glaring loop hole in the law the allows you to print libelous information simply because you believe it's true? Do you have any idea how juvenile that sounds?

It is well known in the industry that any current performer who comes out publicly in support of better working conditions can