Jump to content

Cache maggot arrested.

GOF and Bacall

By GOF and Bacall
in General geocaching topics

Followers 16

Recommended Posts

knowschad

knowschad

Posted
Posted
Not bad. But he needs a sign explaining why he has found himself in such a sticky situation.
Easy. He was looking for a cache, someone spotted him, he got scared, and so, naturally, he duct. Somebody got excited, called the cops, but before they arrived, a mob formed and since the punishment must fit the crime, they taped him to the tree with...
Link to comment
knowschad

knowschad

Posted
Posted

Does he float?

 

Oh, wait. Wrong type of trial. :shocked:

Well, I bet he wasn't expecting some sort of Spanish Inquisition! :blink:

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

You know, much ado has been made over the Spanish Inquisition, but so few are familiar with the terrible Swedish Inquisition. Now, those dudes.... ever hear of lutefisk? Dreadful!!
Link to comment
GOF and Bacall

GOF and Bacall

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Not bad. But he needs a sign explaining why he has found himself in such a sticky situation.

 

 

Yes!!! And the sign needs to read "GC _****** " and be listed. Tuck a logbook in his shoe and make him watch everyone come "find " it!!!

 

 

Sorry, guess my "dark side" is showing.

 

That isn't all that dark. Dark would have been "Plant an ammo can in his can..."

Link to comment
knowschad

knowschad

Posted
Posted

Does he float?

 

Oh, wait. Wrong type of trial. :shocked:

Well, I bet he wasn't expecting some sort of Spanish Inquisition! :blink:

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

You know, much ado has been made over the Spanish Inquisition, but so few are familiar with the terrible Swedish Inquisition. Now, those dudes.... ever hear of lutefisk? Dreadful!!

And the Romans...

?
I think you've brought YouTube to its knees with that. Its timing out for me. Shows how many lurkers we have on this thread, I guess.
Link to comment
sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted
It looks like he's gotten into trouble before.

That is unacceptable. It makes me ashamed for all geocachers, not only the idiot who wrote and posted it. It's also likely to fall afoul of libel laws.

Don't watch much late-nite TV, do you? Leno does that kind of parody every night, most folks get a laugh out of it. :blink:

It's OK to break the law as long as someone thinks it's funny? Interesting defense.

Link to comment
TheAlabamaRambler

+TheAlabamaRambler

Posted
Posted
It looks like he's gotten into trouble before.

That is unacceptable. It makes me ashamed for all geocachers, not only the idiot who wrote and posted it. It's also likely to fall afoul of libel laws.

Don't watch much late-nite TV, do you? Leno does that kind of parody every night, most folks get a laugh out of it. :blink:

It's OK to break the law as long as someone thinks it's funny? Interesting defense.

Please explain which law was broken.

Link to comment
TheAlabamaRambler

+TheAlabamaRambler

Posted
Posted (edited)

Let the nested quotes begin!

Well, we're pretty far afield from the topic, but I figure we're just biding our time with this thread awaiting the result of this man's actions, so the Moderator has been kind enough to let the debate roam a bit.

 

The question here is somewhat related to the OP, however, in that many are accusing the (alleged, not convicted) cache maggot of all sorts of things and talking about all sorts of punishments that cannot be supported by law.

 

If someone asserts that a law has been broken, or makes a comment like

"It's OK to break the law as long as someone thinks it's funny? Interesting defense."

then they should back that assertion with case law instead of unsupported opinion.

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment
Castle Mischief

+Castle Mischief

Posted
Posted
It looks like he's gotten into trouble before.

That is unacceptable. It makes me ashamed for all geocachers, not only the idiot who wrote and posted it. It's also likely to fall afoul of libel laws.

 

I really liked how when I clicked on the "home" link on that page my browser started opening up a million new windows and I had to shut down my PC with the power button to get control of it.

 

Awesome. :blink:

 

I only have to wonder if it's chock full of malware too.

Link to comment
sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted
It looks like he's gotten into trouble before.

That is unacceptable. It makes me ashamed for all geocachers, not only the idiot who wrote and posted it. It's also likely to fall afoul of libel laws.

Don't watch much late-nite TV, do you? Leno does that kind of parody every night, most folks get a laugh out of it. :blink:

It's OK to break the law as long as someone thinks it's funny? Interesting defense.

Please explain which law was broken.

It's like you didn't even read Fizzy's post.

Link to comment
sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted

It's like you didn't even read Fizzy's post.

Yep, read it, don't believe that it's likely to fall afoul of libel law, and ask either or both of you to show that it is.

 

I'm easy, I will always settle for facts, but rarely accept opinion as any sort of proof.

You're taking the position that libel is legal?

Link to comment
TheAlabamaRambler

+TheAlabamaRambler

Posted
Posted (edited)

It's like you didn't even read Fizzy's post.

Yep, read it, don't believe that it's likely to fall afoul of libel law, and ask either or both of you to show that it is.

 

I'm easy, I will always settle for facts, but rarely accept opinion as any sort of proof.

You're taking the position that libel is legal?

Nope, I am taking the position that the linked parody is not libel.

 

I am certainly not a lawyer, but when I Google "parody libel" I find information such as http://law.jrank.org/pages/9038/Parody.html

 

and in a very similar case http://www.rcfp.org/news/2005/0606-lib-suprem.html

 

The Supreme Court has been fairly clear and consistent on this ever since the Smothers Brothers made history on TV with some pretty strong stuff... http://www.rcfp.org/news/2004/0910newtim.html

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment
sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted

It's like you didn't even read Fizzy's post.

Yep, read it, don't believe that it's likely to fall afoul of libel law, and ask either or both of you to show that it is.

 

I'm easy, I will always settle for facts, but rarely accept opinion as any sort of proof.

You're taking the position that libel is legal?

Nope, I am taking the position that the linked parody is not libel.

 

I am certainly not a lawyer, but when I Google "parody libel" I find information such as http://law.jrank.org/pages/9038/Parody.html

 

and in a very similar case http://www.rcfp.org/news/2005/0606-lib-suprem.html

 

The Supreme Court has been fairly clear and consistent on this ever since the Smothers Brothers made history on TV with some pretty strong stuff... http://www.rcfp.org/news/2004/0910newtim.html

I'm taking the position that you didn't fully read the first article that you posted.

Link to comment
sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted

Libel per se

 

What Is Libel Per Se?

When libel is clear on its face, without the need for any explanatory matter, it is called libel per se. The following are often found to be libelous per se:

 

A statement that falsely:

 

• Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime;

 

• Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;

 

• Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits

 

• Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity.

Link to comment
reedkickball

+reedkickball

Posted
Posted
by sean i. mills Staff writer

 

Bates said Repak is charged with petty larceny and fifth-degree possession of stolen property. He was released after posting $100 cash bail, and is scheduled to appear in City Court.

 

Repak is an electrical engineer in the Cyber Operations Branch of the Air Force Research Laboratory Information Directorate, authorities said. Calls to the Air Force Public Affairs Office were not returned this morning.

 

Anyone know WHEN Repak is scheduled to appear in City Court?

Link to comment
sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted
... Justice Wallace B. Jefferson explained that the First Amendment requires that for satire to be libelous, it must be "reasonably understood as stating actual fact." The court held that although some intelligent people might have believed the story to be true, when read as a whole the story was too improbable for that belief to be reasonable.

Surely, even you can see that the fictional account in question does not meet the standard that was used in Texas.

Link to comment
4wheelin_fool

4wheelin_fool

Posted
Posted (edited)

It's libel if it is not humor and seems believable.

 

Really, now how believable is the story? :D:blink::shocked:

 

Clicking the home link does not open any additional windows or malware, it only gives a window to create another fake page.

 

Perhaps a lynch mob is no fun if a few people start to laugh? :blink:

 

Lets get out the pitchforks and go after Jay Leno!

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment
ReadyOrNot

+ReadyOrNot

Posted
Posted
... Justice Wallace B. Jefferson explained that the First Amendment requires that for satire to be libelous, it must be "reasonably understood as stating actual fact." The court held that although some intelligent people might have believed the story to be true, when read as a whole the story was too improbable for that belief to be reasonable.

Surely, even you can see that the fictional account in question does not meet the standard that was used in Texas.

 

Did you really think that it was stating actual fact? While I was reading it, it was clear that: "The story as a whole was too improbable for that belief to be reasonable.".. Never mind the "Fake News" pop-up that came up right in the middle of reading the first sentence. It was clearly meant as satire.

Link to comment
ReadyOrNot

+ReadyOrNot

Posted
Posted
by sean i. mills Staff writer

 

Bates said Repak is charged with petty larceny and fifth-degree possession of stolen property. He was released after posting $100 cash bail, and is scheduled to appear in City Court.

 

Repak is an electrical engineer in the Cyber Operations Branch of the Air Force Research Laboratory Information Directorate, authorities said. Calls to the Air Force Public Affairs Office were not returned this morning.

 

Anyone know WHEN Repak is scheduled to appear in City Court?

 

If you want to know, call them up. It should all be public record.

Link to comment
reedkickball

+reedkickball

Posted
Posted
by sean i. mills Staff writer

 

Bates said Repak is charged with petty larceny and fifth-degree possession of stolen property. He was released after posting $100 cash bail, and is scheduled to appear in City Court.

 

Repak is an electrical engineer in the Cyber Operations Branch of the Air Force Research Laboratory Information Directorate, authorities said. Calls to the Air Force Public Affairs Office were not returned this morning.

 

Anyone know WHEN Repak is scheduled to appear in City Court?

 

If you want to know, call them up. It should all be public record.

 

Yeah, I looked to see if they had they're court system online, but they don't. I was just interested. Not going to bother with a phone call.

Link to comment
geodarts

+geodarts

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

That's a funny idea (although some of the humor is beyond me). Better to use parody than threats. And perhaps that explains all the missing geocaching caps in the area. Although whoever took the picture of my bathroom and used it without permission is in real trouble. But then there was the insult to one of my ancestral foods - Lutefisk - in an earlier post. Can't we keep these discussions civil????

Edited by Erickson
Link to comment
sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted (edited)
... Justice Wallace B. Jefferson explained that the First Amendment requires that for satire to be libelous, it must be "reasonably understood as stating actual fact." The court held that although some intelligent people might have believed the story to be true, when read as a whole the story was too improbable for that belief to be reasonable.

Surely, even you can see that the fictional account in question does not meet the standard that was used in Texas.

 

Did you really think that it was stating actual fact? While I was reading it, it was clear that: "The story as a whole was too improbable for that belief to be reasonable.".. Never mind the "Fake News" pop-up that came up right in the middle of reading the first sentence. It was clearly meant as satire.

Like most people, no pop-ups ever appear on my computer. Also, the key words in your post are "as a whole".

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Too Tall John

+Too Tall John

Posted
Posted
Also, the key words in your post are "as a whole".
For someone who keeps accusing people of not reading something fully, you seem awfully ready to let the "article" be read as libel by not reading it "as a whole." Just from this last page:
It's like you didn't even read Fizzy's post.
I'm taking the position that you didn't fully read the first article that you posted.
Now, what was the topic again? :blink:

 

Oh, yeah. Someone arrested for stealing a cache & found to have stolen caches in their car.

 

Why don't we stick to that so if any real news comes down the line we all know where to post it and/or find it.

Link to comment
sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted
Also, the key words in your post are "as a whole".
For someone who keeps accusing people of not reading something fully, you seem awfully ready to let the "article" be read as libel by not reading it "as a whole."
The 'as a whole' verbiage was from the article that TAR posted and is part of the legal justification to allow a narrowly defined bit of slander to not violate libel laws.

 

I'm sorry that this side track conversation confused you.

Link to comment
7rxc

7rxc

Posted
Posted (edited)

And I'm taking the position that at least this is keeping the thread on page #1.

 

I'm taking the position that this thread has outlived its usefulness.

 

i'm not telling anyone what position i'm taking.

So glad to see people taking their own positions... :)

 

Doug

Edited by 7rxc
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
Followers 16
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...