LET DOWN!

[Peter]

Matt P wrote:

> "Not wishing to argue the point but how would the site be
> "helping to spread liable" when it's the opinions of it's
> contributors."

Because when you post something on here, the site spreads your words to (tens, hundreds of?) thousands of people who read it.

I have a friend who works for WH Smith Wholesale, they're always paying out libel claims, and all they do is distribute the magazines to the shops. But they are, quite literally, spreading the libel.


>" I'm curious as to why you site common carrier & not the more
> apt defamation, unless you're an American & your arguement is
> that BGAFD isn't providing a service to it's members."

Common Carrier Status applies to BT phone lines, etc, who cannot possibly monitor, intercept and censor the millions, billions of bits of information they carry every second. So although they spread the information, they are not responsible for it.

Sites like this can monitor and censor postings, whether they choose to is a matter for them, but they are responsible for the information they carry, and liable to any legal action that may result in.

Demon Internet ended up paying Laurence Godfrey ?250,000 for carrying defamatory material about him on their servers. (After not removing it when requested)

[Matt P]

Thanks Tanya. Masie & Satine went through what I should ask & I can't thank them enough else I wouldn't of had a clue.

I'm reliable, my 1st full sex was when I had a horrible cold & at last minute it's my "porn story" , so it really fustrates me that when they're others that aren't so fustrating. The "travel cost" thing really annoys me the most though as even established producers have argued that I should pay my own .

The reason I've enjoyed the things I've done with Pumpkin is they dont bullshit me it's like here's what it is & here's how much, that's perfect as I can say yes or no without getting stressed out 50 emails later.

I pretty much want to work no stop as I love it, not that I'm too keen on opening myself up to timewasters again. If any of you want someone to work with then get in contact with me through my email. I've got referances & examples not many solo pics though. Lol forgive the shameless self-promotion .

[HarveyJay]

Grr how annoying Tammie, nothing more annoying!! I have been let down several times by a couple of togs now and it's the most frustrating thing ever.

At the end of the day though it's her job she's loosing out on and now her name is being passed around people will get wind of it and not book her.

Although you feel the pressure is on you babe, in the long run it's not. It's her rep that has gone down the pan along with her career path.

Chin up princess xx

[karenkay]

oh Tammie
give me a shout hon
i wont let u dont if they want the milf look of course
xkx

[one eyed jack]

"It's the potential losses a libel claim against this site that stops them allowing naming and shaming"

Most people who threaten this kind of thing will NEVER follow through unless they had really strong cause and good grounds too take action, plus most people in porn are broke anyway so why bother?

[one eyed jack]

Tammie.

Might save you posting it 20 times if you post her name on forums that allow it. Myself and another have already mentioned two sites that you can within this thread

[Matt P]

one eyed jack wrote:

Most people who threaten this kind of thing will NEVER follow
through unless they had really strong cause and good grounds
too take action, plus most people in porn are broke anyway so
why bother?

True very true & at least you make a good point.
I'm not sure how many people would try to sue under non applicable legistation anyway lol & plus what he fails to grasp is the site wouldn't be a culpable party unless they endorssed or failed to act on a complaint.

I read his follow up post & have no idea what he's talking about WH Smith Wholesale as can't find one singel case history, if they had be held accountable under defamnation, hence liable/slander then I'll conceed my point.

[Matt P]

Give me an example of a case history where WH Smith Wholesale has paid out due to a liable suit concerning the example you give & I'll conceed my point. I can't see how 1)Goods carrier could be used to enable a liable suite & 2)How the publishers were they themselves not sued.

Your sencond example illustrates what I say, they became a culpable party by failing to act upon his complaint which seems to have been upheld as a result of him using defamantion not Goods Carrier.

Again this has nothing to do with the point this post was making so please if you wish to continue this discussion either email me directly or refer me to a forum where we can discuss it as it is very unfair to hijack this post.

[one eyed jack]

You see, the problem is that when you suggest something like this, you might be accidentally implying someone else is the person, when they are not

Absolutely Paul and why io looked into it with a lawyer I know. I can only think its because the mods can do without having to turn the forum into a battlefield of mudslinging which is fair enough but then it cannot purport to be a friendly place by encouraging it. Again fair enough.

It all comes down to a time and place to do such things and I for one got tired of the conjectures and false accusations that it was just best to out with it than protect these timewasters who cost people money when they should be making it on their investment.