TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
I only point out the factsK74T wrote:and mainly zoom rader on TriniTuner
zoom rader wrote:It's Mainly PNM ppl that post the most racists remarks on FBRovin's Audio wrote:ent it supposed to have an authority concerning social media posts or nobody does report stuff to them ?
d kinda dutty remarks & racism i does see on fb especially when it comes to politics is disturbing ...
A racist?K74T wrote:Agreed, you being the main racist is a fact. Well said buddy.
Some ppl can't stand the sad truths of reality bai. Crime and weave sales are at an all time low as well.zoom rader wrote:A racist?K74T wrote:Agreed, you being the main racist is a fact. Well said buddy.
Pointing out how people live or behave is not racist.
Who wears pants on their knees and bartex showing out, ent it's koolee ppl?
Who is child fadda and mudda, koolee ppl?
Jail full ah who, koolee ppl?
Power neck ppl is koolee ppl?
Holding a black bottle all night long is koolee ppl?
zoom rader wrote:Who wears pants on their knees and bartex showing out, ent it's koolee ppl?
Who is child fadda and mudda, koolee ppl?
Jail full ah who, koolee ppl?
Power neck ppl is koolee ppl?
Holding a black bottle all night long is koolee ppl?
Libel on Facebook: Ex-member to pay $.2m in damages to church
Leah Sorias 2 hrs ago
A former member of a Chaguanas church has been ordered by the High Court to pay $250,000 in damages after she made defamatory statements about the institution, calling it a “killer cult”, a “graveyard for babies” and that members were involved in witchcraft.
The matter was filed against Sapphire Carter by Prophetic Missions International, and was heard before High Court Master Martha Alexander.
Get caught up with news from the news leader
Prophetic Missions, founded by Dr Leslie Rogers in 1998, is headquartered in Chaguanas and has local, regional and international branches. According to ruling, Carter was a member of the church for five years and left sometime in 2015. She also performed household duties for Rogers.
Most likely a thot looking for attention...the usual trini on insta....vaiostation wrote:Boi, just this week some lady call meh and say I take she pictures of Instagram and post it up in a WhatsApp group, and saying that I say all kinda defamatory things about her...
Well for
1, I not on Instagram,
2, I not on part of any WhatsApp groups,
3, my number that she was quoting from the WhatsApp app group, don't even have a WhatsApp account.
4, just cause someone people sayin mean things about ya, you hadda go out ya way to call a stranger an tell them to stop...
Online posters will be sued for defamatory posts
Carol Matroo
There are no special favours for social media posters who post photos, letters or any kind of defamatory matter as they will face the same disciplinary action as journalists and media houses.
Justice Kathy Ann Waterman-Latchoo said people tended to value their reputation the most and anyone posting anything defamatory or breaching any confidence on social media could land in hot water.
Waterman-Latchoo was one of several speakers at Tuesday’s symposium to discuss “Freedom, Facts and Fake News: Straddling Media Communications in the 21st Century” at the Radisson Trinidad, Port of Spain.
“You get no special dispensation, no favours, no exceptions when you defame someone on Facebook instead of in the newspaper, on the radio or television. Defamation is words which tend to lower someone in the estimation of right thinking members of society. Tweeting that a politician is corrupt, a teacher is a sexual predator or a woman is an unfit mother will get you in hot water the same temperature as if you publish the accusation in traditional media.”
Waterman-Latchoo said bloggers, Instagram gurus and Facebook activists of any category have to abide by the law just like journalists or any other citizen.
She said the person who posted the material was the publisher and if it was defamatory, he or she was liable to be sued as soon as the material was accessed and read. She said forwarding an email that made harmful allegations about someone made the person liable to be sued for defamation.
Newspapers which carried articles on their website as well as the actual paper which allowed readers to post defamatory comments will be held responsible.
“The one thing people tend to value the most is their reputation. It has always been a bad thing to bad mouth people. Before Twitter and Facebook it has always been a bad thing. The advent of social media is the bad things can go viral in seconds and spread internationally. People also tend to be much looser on social media and the same thing they might not write in a letter to the editor of a newspaper.”
Waterman-Latchooo said while freedom of speech was guaranteed by the Constitution, it did not give people the licence to make unfounded statements on others.
She said while there was no immunity for social media users there were some differences in courts for defamation suits involving social media.
“When bad things are published in a newspaper it is really easy to know who to sue-- the newspaper and the person who wrote it. But when bad things are published in social media can you easily identify who that is? Social media accounts must be jealously guarded same as a bank account. The holder of a social media account must be held accountable for what is published there. Proof of ownership of an account in the absence of any evidence as to the IT address of the user can be established.” She said calling something a liar, thief or corrupt was libel, and so to was using innuendo.
“Readers are smart, they can read the innuendo.”
Advertisements, effigies and paintings and calypsoes can also be libellous.
“I don’t know of any case of anybody successfully suing about a defamatory calypso. It is not because they had immunity, but perhaps because of our cultural tolerance. And you know if you take them to court they will sing about you again next year.”
Waterman-Latchoo said a person had the right to express him/herself, but there were certain boundaries. She said there are certain defences available, but it was a balancing act.
Justification of truth was one, but was not easy to support without facts. Privilege meant whatever was said in court and Parliament can be reported. Also, if a journalist made an error but could show that he had done due diligence, the law could offer some protection.
Unintentional defamation, innocent dissemination and consent, apology and limitation were also defences that could be used. She said besides defamation, people can be sued for contempt of court which included predicting the outcome of a case, commenting on an active case, publishing a confession and using photos when identification was an issue.
She said there was also breach of confidence where while the words were not defamatory, the material was obtained and published in a breach of confidence. This included publishing trade secrets, medical reports, financial information, spousal communication and revenge porn.
hydroep wrote:^Well, in the case cited in the opening post of this thread the defendant claimed her account was hacked and the judge still buss she throat.
I suppose you would have to prove your account was hacked if using that as a defense, and if you were just negligent (e.g. not locking your machine before stepping away etc.) that's on you — hence the " Social media accounts must be jealously guarded same as a bank account" statement.
teems1 wrote:hydroep wrote:
Moral of the story, if you want to call someone a kant on fb or even tuner, create a throwaway account for it.
hydroep wrote:Online posters will be sued for defamatory posts
Carol Matroo
Defamation is words which tend to lower someone in the estimation of right thinking members of society. Tweeting that a politician is corrupt, a teacher is a sexual predator or a woman is an unfit mother will get you in hot water the same temperature as if you publish the accusation in traditional media.”
Newspapers which carried articles on their website as well as the actual paper which allowed readers to post defamatory comments will be held responsible.
She said calling something a liar, thief or corrupt was libel, and so to was using innuendo.
“Readers are smart, they can read the innuendo.”
Advertisements, effigies and paintings and calypsoes can also be libellous.
Waterman-Latchoo said a person had the right to express him/herself, but there were certain boundaries.
She said there was also breach of confidence where while the words were not defamatory, the material was obtained and published in a breach of confidence. This included publishing trade secrets, medical reports, financial information, spousal communication and revenge porn.
redmanjp wrote:innuendo is libel? home come it doh have ah string of calypsonians getting sued?
Pastor awarded $430,000 in damages for FB post
Joel Julien
Sun Mar 17 2019
A pastor has been awarded more than $430,000 by the High Court for the damages he suffered as a result of several defamatory Facebook posts by a former member of the church.
In a 15-page order by High Court Master Martha Alexander, Sapphire Carter has been ordered to pay damages to Dr Leslie Rogers, leader and founder of Prophetic Missions International (PMI), while Sunshine Publishing Company, which printed a story arising from Carter’s claims, was ordered to pay the pastor $350,0000 in damages.
Carter, who was also sued by PMI, was also ordered to pay the church $250,000 in aggravated and exemplary damages in a case which concluded last October.
“It is better someone takes a gun and shoots you, because defamation of character is much worse than that,” Rogers said in an emotional interview after the High Court ruling.
He took legal action against Carter after she took to social media and compared him to religious cult leader Jim Jones who initiated a mass suicide and mass murder in Guyana, in the 1970s.
PMI, based at Ramsaran Street, Chaguanas, started operating here in 1998 and expanded locally, regionally and internationally with branches in Antigua, Jamaica, Kenya, and Ghana. There were also plans to establish ministries in Togo, Russia, and Canada and at its peak claimed to have around 1,000 members.
Carter had been a member for five years and even did household duties for Rogers until she left PMI in 2015.
In December of that year, Carter began posting statements on social about Rogers and alleging flawed functioning of PMI as a religious organisation. Her posts spanned several years and were eventually repeated on television and in a weekly tabloid.
According to evidence in the lawsuit, she labelled PMI a “killer cult” and a “demonic power” and claimed the church was involved in illegal and unethical practices. She described Rogers as a “false prophet” and “the beast” and made several other defamatory statements about the pastor
The church took a hit from Carter’s claims. Membership fell to almost half and staff members left the organisation.
“This mass exodus, upon the defamation, handicapped the church’s ability to pay its rent, and to continue its missions or social assistance grants,” courts documents stated.
“In fact, the libel also affected the church’s ability to grow its membership, as its public image and sterling reputation were no severely injured. The situation was made worse as the church was blocked in its bid to renew its radio programme, which affected its growth and income. Members experienced untold emotional pain, suffering, and embarrassment.”
Rogers said his family was hit hard. His wife Josanne was pregnant, and the situation took a toll on her. They also moved out of their family home.
“It could have destroyed my marriage, it could have driven any one of us to commit suicide, or go astray. It could have taken a toll on our health,” he said.
“Defamation of character can actually cause somebody to run amok, we are talking about fighting crime but one of the ways that crime persists is because of anger, when you have anger and rage it is psychosomatic, this could have caused somebody to take up a gun and shoot somebody.”
Rogers said professional reputation was damaged. He had to cancel seminars and decided not to pursue public engagements.
PMI had a concert in Antigua and no one attended. Instead, Rogers had to call a general meeting to answer the allegations made by Carter.
However, even in the face of a series of posts by Carter questioning his leadership, he did not step down from the organisation.
“I didn’t consider stepping down because I knew I was totally innocent and was assured that everyone would know my character,” he said.
Rogers said prayer helped him through the situation.
Alexander, who focussed on the Facebook effect in the order, said: “Those who abuse social media or use it for petty revengeful vendettas, must recognize that the scale of their publications on Facebook would be for global public consumption.
“Facebook users could ill-afford to be mindless and reckless in their use of it or feign ignorance of the injury they caused or absolve themselves of the impact of such social media libel.
“(Carter’s) irresponsible and highly offensive use of Facebook must be considered in the context of the borderless reach of that platform. Facebook has the potential to cause unfathomable damage hence users must be responsible for the carnage created by their defamatory postings.
“They must use Facebook and other social media sites responsibly or pay for their ill-use of them. (Carter) went on Facebook to discredit and destroy the reputation of the Church by her ruinous postings, and when this proved insufficient, she went on television to spread her poison. While this court acknowledged the lack of tangible evidence of widespread damage to the Church’s reputation, it accepted that the libellous statements aimed to discredit the Church and, given the nature of this organization, would have done some form of damage to its reputation.”
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Dizzy28, Duane 3NE 2NR, Google [Bot], VexXx Dogg and 276 guests
