My Brad! What Strong Arms You Have!

Another thread……Thanks Jared!
The kids are so adorable!
Brad is sooooo HOT
Lucky Angie, having those strong arms wrapped around her everyday!

Brad is so fine~~with a hat,without a hat, with facial hair, without
facial hair, with clothes, without oh!oh! i mean Brad is so fine~~yeah!:)

#62 I second that. I laughed hard when I looked at her expressions. She made my day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q7loRlt3-g

37
TBI Says:
May 17th, 2007 at 11:41 pm - flag comment
Thank you Lylian, for again bringing that troll theory to another
thread and boring the s-it out of us again-lol-not!

Troll Bureau of Investigation

___________________

Hey TBI, you are MOST welcome. It was my pleasure. So, just for you then:

12
thank you lylian Says:
May 17th, 2007 at 11:05 pm - flag comment
lylian Says:

May 17th, 2007 at 10:24 pm - flag comment
FOR SARAICITA: thought I’d bring my comments over to the new thread:

341
lylian Says:
May 17th, 2007 at 9:19 pm - flag comment
134
saraicita Says:
May 17th, 2007 at 12:47 pm - flag comment
Saraicita, you can google on libel/slander and click on Wikipedia’s explanation. It is actually very very good. It compares UK and US law. However, there is not much mention of Spanish law. Not sure if spanish law is based on the Napoleonic Code or not.

I’m also a lawyer and I wrote a rather long piece about why paid trolls probably do exist and why the threat of a law suit isn’t gonna be enough to put off publicists and tablies from PAYING trolls to make comments in an old thread.
Here it is:)
OK first, I’m here to say, no more responding to the trolls because I’m convinced there are paid trolls here paid either by publicists or tablies. Why??

I read the “article” from US magazine about the alleged lap dancing Angelina did with an old friend, Olivier and thought of our old friend ‘interesting” (and oxymoronic moniker for her, don’t you think??). My first thoughts were, this poster’s used the words “baby sitting, doing the wrong thing by Brad, etc etc.” Remember those? Then lo and behold, out pops an article on US weakly about exactly this topic using exactly the same words, with exactly the same sentiments. Call me lainey but “Coincidence or conspiracy?? Which is it, you decide”. I’m on the conspiracy side.

I came to this conclusion after doing some research. I read the comments from 2 sources in an older thread with interest. One from Sheri about how Huvane would not hire people to post on sites because of the legal risks of being sued for slander or libel. Because Sheri works for a large media company, I did pause to rethink my opinion that Huvane pays trolls. The other poster had found information on astroturfing and people that offer services to influence opinions and perceptions on the net.

Whether these trolls are paid for by Huvane or paid for by these disgusting tablies I don’t know. But I’m absolutely certain there are paid trolls are astroturfing on Just Jared. I don’t think its just the case of the tablies coming to JJ’s boards to get ideas, but its tablies coming to JJ’s boards to seed ideas, to influence opinions and perceptions. And so, I don’t believe interesting was sentient as much as she is a paid troll.

Sheri, I’d love to hear your comments on what I have to say coz you do work in the media industry and I dont. I have no experience in the laws of slander and libel. However, I think I have enough legal expertise to draw some general conclusions about libel and slander laws in the US and UK.

It seems the laws of slander and libel in the US requires that the writer not only write what is untrue but must also have done so with Actual Malice. (Wikipedia: This changed with the landmark 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan, in which the Supreme Court of the United States announced constitutional restrictions to state defamation law. The court held that where a public official was defamed, the plaintiff had to prove not just that an untruthful statement was made, but also that it was made with “actual malice” - that is, with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.) Also, OPINIONS can be a defence against an action for libel and slander in the US in certain situations:
(wikipedia: Finally, the term opinion comes up again in tort law, specifically defamation / libel law, and separates statements into three classes:
-1. statements of opinion or pure opinion (not actionable)
-1. mixed statements of opinion and fact (actionable)
-1. statements of fact (actionable)
In order to win damages in a libel case, the plaintiff must show that the statements were first “statements of fact or mixed statements of opinion and fact” and second that these statements were false. Conversely, typical defenses to libel are that the statements made are opinion or that the statements (if factual) are true. One of the major tests to distinguish whether a statement is fact or opinion is whether the statement can be proven true or false in a court of law. If the statement can be proven true or false, then, on that basis, the case will be heard by a jury to determine whether it is true or false. If the statement can not be proven true or false, the court may dismiss the libel case without it ever going to a jury to find facts in the case.”)

The problem for someone to prove defamation in the US is very very difficult because they have to prove ACTUAL MALICE as defined above.
Take the US weakly story about Angelina dancing with Olivier. Angelina probably did dance with Olivier. She probably danced sexily with him and all her friends who were with her that night. Christ, I’m in my 40s and I dance sexily when my friends and I decide to paint the town red with my friends – especially with my friends because I feel safe with them. So, US Weakly would say that as a matter of fact, Angelina did dance with Olivier and there was no falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.

“Articles” of them breaking up would be based on some photos showing them looking “unhappy” (as opposed to just focused and serious) and having an opinion that they are upset with each other and may be at the verge of breaking up. How can anyone, ever prove that this statement was made by Janice Mean with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth? With great difficulty. Meanie would just argue she thought it could be true because after all, this is Hollywood and people break up, often and regularly.

US weakly’s suggestion that she was flirting with Olivier as she danced with him is an opinion based on facts. But the facts are true and the opinion is arguably, an opinion of how Angelina looked when she was dancing to the unnamed source. Janice Mean knows what she is doing when she edited the ‘article”. She knew that US weakly cant be sued, because she is merely wrote an opinion based on certain facts and writing it down using a certain tone. This is what spin is about. A clever spinner never needs to ACTUALLY LIE to TELL A LIE. He or she merely needs to know what tone to use, what facts to emphasise, what to leave out. So Janice Mean probably conveniently left out some other truths – how long did Angelina dance with Olivier, did she also dance with other people? How many people were there on the dance floor?? And so on.

UK law however, appears to provide that a person may successfully be sued for libel and slander if the statements he makes are untrue and can cause direct damage to the person – usually of the financial nature (UK and other commonwealth countries do not have punitive or compensatory damages and financial loss must be calculable). (wikipedia: English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.)
Hence, Reese could sue in the UK, about her being pregnant on the basis that it harmed her career – no one would want to hire her for the next 12 months if she were pregnant. Marc and JLo did the same based on harm to their brand. But Reese would not succeed in the US because the tablie can produce photos of her potbelly and say that that looks like early pregnancy and so, there was no reckless disregard for the truth or knowledge of falsity – even if there was no knowledge of the truth. See what I mean??

But someone like Alexa Ray (billy joel’s and Christie brinkley’s daughter cannot sue either under the UK law or US law because expressing whether someone is ugly or not, is a matter of pure opinion and though truly offensive, is protected by freedom of speech.
Now on the matter of paid trolls – whether paid for by the publicist or the tablie.

Sheri’s point was that Huvane or anyone in the industry wouldn’t hire paid trolls to write lies on the internet is legitimate because of the legal risks. She is correct if a person or tablie hired someone to write LIES. However, what if a paid troll DOESN’T LIE?? I think if a paid troll takes proper precautions, I would say, that the LEGAL risks are negligible for publicist or for a tablie.

First, how can a paid troll be caught? Who will know whether someone is a paid troll? Not even the owners of the blog. So someone comes repeatedly on line to attack Angelina and praise Jen. She’s just an obsessed fan. So what?? Who is going to trace the IP address of a paid troll if she hasn’t committed a crime?? Sophisticated tracing mechanisms exist, but is used to catch criminals. People who write and spread viruses, Trojan horses. Terrorists etc.. These tracing and surveillance mechanisms are not available to track an astroturfer.
Second, even if a paid troll is caught, what are her LEGAL risks of being sued for libel or slander?? So long as a paid troll doesn’t LIE, there is, in my humble opinion, little legal risks. The paid troll can agree with another hater’s comment – a genuine hater to inflame the situation. The paid troll can give her opinion about Angelina’s behavior – she is smiling at Wyclef and so, I think she’s disrespectful of Brad who in my opinion is being over shadowed. The paid troll can even say that they believe the tablies and the tablies opinion – Angelina danced with Olivier and she was sexy and in their opinion, flirtatious and there fore cheating (or about to cheat) on Brad who in their opinion is being emasculated because he isn’t with his woman but baby sitting the children, something real men (like KFed, wouldn’t do). So long as they aren’t lying, just commentating on published “information” I don’t believe the legal risks are that great. And a paid troll doesn’t have to lie. They are there to create misinformation, to influence perceptions and opinions. In fact, it is better for a paid troll not to lie but to keep the desired spin going on and on and on. (The best lies are based on truths).

The greatest risk should a publicist’s or tablies’ astroturfing be leaked out would be that he and his clients or the tablie loses credibility and become the laughing stocks of the media world.
So, the last few threads posts from a certain person was NO interesting coincidence but an ugly conspiracy. All the more reasons NOT to respond to the trolls at all.

______________________

heheheheheh

#66, this one is R rated, an old one but another hot one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWXlWKur4qc

shakira = a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding., where mischief is caused in order to ensure chaos is spread

the new Nanny…………. my adorable Brad!!!!!!!!!!!

Shakira, poor poor thing. Maybe the jerk will adopt you since he doesn’t care about his own flesh and blood!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNurneov0Jw

SHAKIRA = TWOKIDS2.

To 73 branzasipama aka Shakira, You’re green with envy , how many women wish they could have Brad as their husband. devoted , responble dad , supportive partner , super sexy and hot, rich and famous. God, he is so perfect !

Goodnight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0SkaRYayeQ

70
shakira Says:

May 18th, 2007 at 1:35 am - flag comment

Remember this?? since your bible is the tabloids you sure believe what Jen is saying:

“Jen considered herself divorced when she and Brad were separated and couldn’t care less what happened after that,” says a source, adding that “Jen is not angry over the new revelation and thinks Shiloh is a cute baby.”

So what’s your problem if Jen got no problem with Shiloh???

Both Brad and Jen consider each a FREE person the minute divorce papers were filed which was 3/25/2005.

1) According to Aniston, she considers one is free and can do whatever she/he wants when the divorce papers was filed. Judging from this VF interview which was done in June 2005.
from VF interview, ……. But it’s not my life,” she says. “He makes his choices. He can do—whatever. We’re divorced, and you can see why.”

2) If you go back and look at those pictures, during the separation period , Brad still wore the wedding ring as can be seen on Jen’s birthday party. But Jen took off her ring even during the separation period.

3) When Jen filed the divorce paper on 3/25/05, pictures show that Brad’s ring is gone.

4) Brad also bought the house in Malibu in 4/2005, and also moved out of the house.

5) In the video with Diane Sawyer aired in May, 2005, Brad did NOT have a ring in his ring finger. Instead, we see a ring with a “cut out ” shape in his middle finger.
US mag is playing on the mini van’s IGNORANCE.

Some key dates:–

1/5/2005 separation was announced
3/25/2005 filed divorce papers
8/19/2005 the judge signed the divorce decree

“And there are people in my own profession I admire, who have done things and made substantial change, like Bono and Angelina Jolie. They are models for how you can meaningfully devote your life to causes. It’s not just lending your face. It’s giving yourself. A lot of people lack meaning in their lives, and that’s why getting active in issues like microfinance gives you such a center to your life.”

- Add Natalie Portman to the list of Angelina’s admirers.