Warpath)x( said:Well, for one thing, he has no idea what the requirements are to make a prima facie case for defamation. Like, at all.
Defamation and other "accounts?"
For another, this is likely an employment-at-will contract so they can pretty much fire his ass for whatever reason (even though there is cause here) as long as its not based on race or the like.
Oh, and then theres the fact the D.A. is the one that files the criminal complaint. (True, D.A.'s are lawyers, but its not the victim's counsel that decides if charges are pressed which is what seems to be implied).
WarAngel said:No he can't. To be a sexual offender you must have committed an offense. He hasn't committed any offense. All you 17 year old lawyers need to shut the fuck up about shit you don't understand.
The LP only mentioned the cops to scare Blitz into ratting out what other things happening in the store that he might have known about.
Edit: I think it is funny you all drool over the Hard Rock pics, but think what Blitz did is somehow different.
Taurus said:First of all you dont know shit about me and what I understand. I dont hate on Blitz, *but* as an employee posting pictures of unknown women in a sex thread he could be hualed in very easily, I dont know what sex offender laws are in AZ but here in FL they will put you on the list for almost anything.
This also doesnt fall under the catagory of just taking a picture in a public place either. While legally it wouldnt be prosecuted, if any of those women DID find out they could/would sue the shit out of them.
Taurus said:First of all you dont know shit about me and what I understand. I dont hate on Blitz, *but* as an employee posting pictures of unknown women in a sex thread he could be hualed in very easily, I dont know what sex offender laws are in AZ but here in FL they will put you on the list for almost anything.
This also doesnt fall under the catagory of just taking a picture in a public place either. While legally it wouldnt be prosecuted, if any of those women DID find out they could/would sue the shit out of them.
Dann, who has since been interviewed by other media, says he did not invade anyone's privacy. If a person acts like a jerk in public, "what's the difference if you have a camera phone or a regular camera to take a picture?"
For now, the law agrees. By going out in public, people surrender some privacy; a cam phone's immediacy alone does not violate privacy laws, says Daniel Solove, a law professor specializing in privacy law. So users are unlikely to be sued for taking shots like Dann's. But there are limits.
Some courts recognize an invasion of privacy if one's reputation is hurt or a photo causes severe embarrassment, says Solove, but such shots must be very offensive and not legitimate news--someone in an adult bookstore, for example.
Other cam phone uses are clearly illegal. In Japan, people have been arrested for taking photos up women's skirts (which is also illegal in parts of the U.S.), and shopkeepers are cracking down on digital shoplifting--photographing pages from books and magazines without paying for them.
NetStalker said:We know Mr "I get paid to take pictures of hot semi-naked women" knows his Photography laws ( I hate you by the way Taurus), but atleast in Ontario he could get away with it. Hell up here woman can go topless in public he could get some better shots
Terra said:LADIES LADIES....
You're both pretty.
if you would like to. Hell full frontal nudity allowed on regular TV.Terra said:Are you saying I should move to Canada?
NetStalker said:also the employment laws that you guys in the states have, suck ass. Up here as long as you are past your probationary period (3 months, unless stated in a contract) then they have to follow alot of steps before they can fire you.
Taurus said:First of all you dont know shit about me and what I understand. I dont hate on Blitz, *but* as an employee posting pictures of unknown women in a sex thread he could be hualed in very easily, I dont know what sex offender laws are in AZ but here in FL they will put you on the list for almost anything.
This also doesnt fall under the catagory of just taking a picture in a public place either. While legally it wouldnt be prosecuted, if any of those women DID find out they could/would sue the shit out of them.
WarAngel said:Hauled in for what? None of the pictures he took were sexual. Just because YOU wanked off to them, doesn't make them sexual.
Getting sued in America is always possible, but I don't care how many times you get sued in civil court, that WILL NOT PUT YOU ON THE SEXUAL OFFENDERS LIST. You have to be convicted in criminal court of a criminal act. He has not performed any criminal act in either taking or posting these pictures.
I was thinking.... like... your bed...NetStalker said:if you would like to. Hell full frontal nudity allowed on regular TV.
if you need a place to sleep you can sleep in my car. but it is a 4 seater so the 4 bucket seats are not the best for sleeping in.
Warpath)x( said:Yeah, god forbid the owner (or owners if its a corporation) of a private business/Corp. decide who they want working for them. Better the government do that.