Ringo Deathstarr's Blog

AND IN INDIA. WHAT'S UP Y'ALL~

Thank you for your time.

I always amazes me just how much straight men underestimate the potential cisgendered women hold to commit violence. I routinely hear men who are against women in dangerous and violent careers wax about how females are mothers and life-givers, about how they are the core of the family and should not be put in a position which jeopardizes their lives. Of course, these men are always the first to defend this position and say they are not sexist, but a battlefield or a war is not a woman’s “place.”

Which, of course, a simple study of history extending beyond the past few hundred years of Western civilization would prove is both a fallacy and a total patriarchal construction. You don’t even have to go that far out— Jean Hachette and Hannah Duston are two fairly modern examples of women completely going into full beserker mode and just fucking everyone’s shit up. More than just examples of the odd woman not taking it anymore and deciding to defend herself or her children or country, they are examples of the woman warrior trope, amongst one of the oldest archetypes of civilization. This isn’t some modern, radical cultural trend, which is why it’s so ridiculous that heterosexual men suddenly bemoan about the loss of what they perceive as womanhood when headlines about horrific acts of violence committed not just by grown women by by girls are presented. In fact, the only radical cultural trend about womens’ capacity for violence is that it’s been so suppressed in modern culture.

There’s also a pattern of thinking that while women may be capable of violence, this violence only manifests during the instinctive need to protect their offspring. One example of this is Rudyard Kipling’s poem “The Female of The Species” that, while making excellent points about how far females will go to defend the family unit, fails to take into account that women are both capable of reasoned and planned violence. Hundreds of queens, from the illustrious Elizabeth I to the lesser-known Egyptian badass, Queen Hatshepsut have led successful military campaigns while others worked as analysts, strategists, and spies.

Even these specific examples are only parts of a greater whole. The list of women warriors in folklore is staggering, and whether or not these women truly existed and did the feats they are celebrated for is irrelevant in what they contribute towards. In the West and other places where the ancient practice of goddess worship has been almost totally eradicated outside of history texts, we no longer have metaphysical examples of warrior women. Many warrior goddesses have existed throughout the ages— Ishtar, Athena, the Valkyries and Freyja, Sekhmet and Oya to name only a few— and their modern counterparts exist still in other religions today. Kali-Ma and Durga are probably two of the most important Hindu goddesses and their man focus is destruction; destruction of evil, of false ideals, of enemies of life and rebirth. They are benevolent and terrible mothers who take life in order to further the cosmic cycle.

The lesson for men here is that we’re not all delicate flowers. Women are people, whether we are cis, trans, or somewhere in-between. That means we have bouts of irrational anger or hatred, that we lash out and not just in the impotent “she’s just PMS-ing” way. Some of us are beautiful but also cunning, devoted mothers and fierce warriors, both or one or neither. All of us carry our own strengths.

I think it’s pretty common knowledge amongst those of us who have ever belonged to a social networking website that there are people online who have something against you, whether it’s a legitimate complaint or that they just don’t like you. So let’s say someone says something about you online that is derogatory, maybe outright mean. It sucks and your feelings might be hurt for about five minutes, but then someone sends you a link to a youtube video of a cat sneezing and the butthurt passes.

But let’s say you are wound way too tight to just let this shit go. What do you do? You threaten to sue, of course! Now first off, for the sake of argument, we’re going to completely ignore the fact that bringing libel and slander cases against private citizens is essentially using the first amendment as your personal toilet paper and look deeper into this. Can we really get sued for telling a person that they are flat out crazy on the internet? Buckle in and let me use the combination of my e-lawyering and google-fu to find out.

Well first off, the theoretical plaintiff in this situation wants us to believe she’s already had two attorneys say that there’s grounds for a libel lawsuit based on the whole twitter drama and the fact that she was called out for acting totally fucking insane. As a precursor to this, let me remind you that libel and slander are specific branches of a “defamation” lawsuit. [Note: for proof/examples of what was said in the exchange please check the links at the end of the article. All sources are linked.]

So potentially libelous, huh? Let’s take a look at the definition of libel (from cyberlibel.com):

"a publication without justification or lawful excuse which is calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule." (Parke, B. in Parmiter v. Coupland (1840) GM&W 105 at 108)

One could make an argument, though not a very strong one in my opinion, that Kia has been exposed to hatred, contempt, or ridicule. So we’ll give her that half of the definition. That first part of the definition though is the most important in this case- “without justification or lawful excuse”. Our lawful excuse would be private citizens (NOT a corporation and NOT even Buzznet.com) exercising their right to free speech. Our justification would be that she has also made remarks that border on harassment before any publication was made that could even be considered remotely libelous in a court of law. These remarks include (but sadly are not limited to) claiming that a Buzznet user was not really gay and another user was not really transsexual because they were trying to be “trendy”, calling one Buzznet user “fat” and another a “crack whore” and referring to the users who called her out as “Nazis” (Where’s Godwin’s Law when you need it?). It should be pointed out that emails have been the source of libel lawsuits before, but from the little details there are I glean that the emails were calculated threats intended to destroy someone’s reputation in the world—not to state an opinion.

Now that we’ve established that this would make the world’s flimsiest case of libel and therefore any attorney in their right mind would not attempt to do so without largely skewing the facts first, we must take a look at the other side of libel—slander. So, what is slander? The important difference to remember here is that in a libel suit, damages of some kind are PRESUMED to have taken place. In a slander lawsuit, there’s none of that presumption. You have to prove some kind of other damage went on except in the following four circumstances (quote from cyberlibel.com):

• the words charged that the plaintiff committed a criminal offence

• the words impute that the plaintiff has certain contagious diseases, or

• the words impute unchastity or adultery to any woman or girl, or

• the words are calculated disparage the plaintiff in any office profession, trade, calling or business held or carried on by him at the time of the publication.

There’s the difference, now here’s the definition of slander broken down further (from uslegal.com):

Slander is the oral communication of false statements that are harmful to a person's reputation. If the statements are proven to be true, it is a complete defense to a charge of slander. Oral opinions that don't contain statements of fact don't constitute slander. Slander is an act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation[…]The basic elements of a claim of slander include;

1. a defamatory statement;

2. published to third parties;

and 3. which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false.

So can this count as slander? My answer is a pretty firm no. Firstly, slander is defined as “oral” communication, and the communication in this case was not oral. The IT Law Wikia says that “online defamation is generally considered to be libel.” While there is legal precedence under general defamation lawsuits to force an anonymous blogger’s identity to be revealed for the sake of bringing a case against the blogger, this isn’t a case of unknown identity. Even if it was, there are other instances where the court ruled that there was insufficient grounds for the names behind the pseudonyms to be released. In the former case, it was determined that there were not enough assertions considered to be actual facts to have the statements be proven or disproven. Calling someone “crazy” or even a “bitch” still counts as opinion, not a fact or a piece of information that the publisher should have known was false.

This brings us the worrisome concept that Buzznet could be in legal trouble for allowing these posts. Let’s explore this using current law governing owners/operators of boards and websites, again with the help of cyberlibel.com:

• If the defamer is a disreputable publication or person, the statement could simply be treated with contempt, to avoid further republication.
  
• A computer network service is not a "periodical", which would require an opportunity for retraction under the defamation statute of Wisconsin. (In the Cards Inc. v. Fuschetto 193 Wis.2d 429, 535 N.W.2d 11 C.A.).
  
•  Owners and/or operators of a network of computers are liable for defamatory material which they write and publish on the network, or receive from third parties and cause to be published on the network. Consequently, a corporation could be vicariously liable for statements published by employees.
  
• If a third party publishes defamatory material on the network and the material is then retransmitted via the network, the owner and/or operator of the network may be liable, but only if:
  
• they or their agents knew that the material was defamatory; or
  
• they or their agents had reason to be suspicious that some or all of the material was defamatory. The nature and previous history of the newsgroup or mailing group where the defamatory material was posted, the previous history of the person posting the message, and reading the defamatory material are all factors which might spark the suspicions of network owners and/or operators. 

Well, I don’t know if Buzznet counts as a disreputable publication, firstly, and secondly, since the company is based in Los Angeles they are not subject to Wisconsin statutes. Now Buzznet could only theoretically be held liable for what Mark said, as an employee of theirs. The original blog that has been the target of the world’s most ridiculous defamation threat was user-generated content. The blog would only be removed if something blatantly illegal was posted (such as pictures of someone engaging in illegal activities or making genuine threats) or violated the terms of service. I don’t know the TOS by heart (though it is easily accessible) but even the clause about not harassing other uses would not apply because if this could even be considered harassment, the user had since been banned from Buzznet and their accounts either frozen or removed. Even if the blog violated the site’s personal Terms of Use, there’s no legal obligation for them to remove it unless ordered to by a ruling. Now that we’ve established Buzznet is not liable for the blog, it’s easy to judge whether or not they’d be liable for anything Mark has said. We need to discern whether anything Mark said was in fact grounds for libel. The provided screenshots lead me to argue “no”—especially considering that Kia was the first to make statements that could be construed as defamatory (so there would be grounds even if libel had occurred). Ergo, since Mark did not commit any clear act of libel Buzznet is not responsible and therefore has no legal obligation to remove the blog, fire him, or do anything outside of normal operations.

As to whether or not his remarks could still get him fired by Buzznet acting outside of a legal obligation, it depends on the terms of his contract. However, I am guessing that Buzznet would not let go one of their most recognized and liked community managers, one who has consistently provided good content over the years he has been at the company and who many people would likely leave the site over if fired.

The final thing I want to go over is something that Kia mentions specifically in her twitter called “IC3”. IC3, according to their website, is a partnership (though she referred to it as a law) between the FBI, the National White Collar Crime Center and the Bureau of Justice Assistance whose purpose is to “to serve as a vehicle to receive, develop, and refer criminal complaints regarding the rapidly expanding arena of cyber crime. The IC3 gives the victims of cyber crime a convenient and easy-to-use reporting mechanism that alerts authorities of suspected criminal or civil violations.” The IC3 has dealt from everything from hacking to Intellectual Property theft to scams and frauds. There is absolutely no indication that they deal with any sort of libel or slander issues; the complaint forms one can fill out on the site are for victims of fraud.

In short, Kia has no real basis for a defamation suit, and if she does manage to hire a lawyer risky enough to take the case, it would likely be thrown out by a judge without so much as a peep from the defense. It will probably never make it past an initial consultation with an attorney because there’s no clear-cut defendant to be charged in this situation, as I have explained. So the moral of the story is this—it’s really hard to sue someone for saying something about you that you don’t like on the internet. It’s even harder if you’ve proved time and time again you’re willing to stoop far lower than them in a vain attempt to make an impact.

Examples of The Exchange/Drama:

The Open Letter to Kia written by bznetgossipgrl

One screencap courtesy kasperobscence

Bznetgossipgirl's twitter

(Other sources may come as I collect them)

Review: Where The Wild Things Are

by xmisspreternaturalx

 

“Where The Wild Things Are” is the type of movie that has enjoyed so much acclaim and hype since the first trailer was released that it’s hard to imagine the movie could live up to the excitement. With a list of names behind this movie that could make the most jaded hipster want to dance in his thrift store boots, the movie could have been the type to suffer from its star power and from the fact that it is an adaptation of what is a classic children’s book for many people. Thankfully, it doesn’t. This is the type of film where once it starts, everything takes a backseat to the quiet exploration of the power that our imaginations hold and the potency of being a child.

The plot is both simple and dreamy in the way that only a kid’s story can be, as lovers of the book can attest. In the story by Maurice Sendak, Max dons his white wolf costume and runs around the house making mischief, causing his mother to send him to bed without any supper. While he’s in his room, Max dreams up an ocean that he begins to sail and finds the island where the Wild Things live. He becomes their king by showing no fear to the monsters he encounters, and soon all of them are engaged in the “rumpus”, dancing and causing mayhem. After a while, Max becomes homesick and sails back home to find his supper on the table and still warm. In the movie, instead of being banished to his room, Max runs away and finds the boat moored. Director Spike Jonze’s vision of Max is a lovely portrait of a kid who feels out of place but possesses a certain spark that can’t be ignored. Max could have easily been a heavy-handed depiction of the clichés of modern childhood- upset about his single mother dating and no dad in the picture, a teenage sister who cares more about her friends than him, and a general sense of being the type of child who is inches away from a prescription of behavioral meds. Yet, through the genuine and almost brutally honest writing, Max is shown as a child desperately trying to find a place where he fits in and is shown the love and attention he craves. It’s the sort of thing that a person of any age can relate to, but it especially recalls the lonely times of childhood, when we equated constant attention with love and imagination was always richer than reality. The honesty is shown in believable action, like Max’s furious wrecking of a craft he made for his sister when her friends wreck his snow cave and she does nothing (along with the subsequent tears afterwards). This realism can’t go without a nod to the boy who plays Max, aptly named Max Records. It’s difficult sometimes to remember that Records is acting, because the subtlety of his facial expressions and tone of voice seem impossible for someone his age to be acting instead of living the story. There’s a solemn sense of wonder in the way he approaches playing Max that fits excellently with that same quality in the writing.

This sense of wonder that is at once playful and pensive is only helped along by cinematography and visuals which can be described as nothing less than incredible. This movie could, and should, set a new standard for every dreamy indie flick that wants the viewer to be swept up in the beauty of a moment onscreen. The views of the sea Max sails across will take your breath away, along with the island where the Wild Things live, the would-be Utopia they attempt to build, and the Wild Things themselves. It’s easy to forget they aren’t real, such is the dedication of the special effects team to making the Wild Things seem more than alive, close enough to human in their gestures and manners that their physical appearance is secondary. Going by names that are both ridiculous and yet strangely appropriate (the one who names Max king is a male Wild Thing called Carol), the Wild Things all possess personalities that are distinct and never too wholesome. Several times throughout the movie you are reminded that these are, essentially, tamer monsters. There are moments when the physical play of the Wild Things becomes too intense and you become frightened for Max’s safety, but even more unsettling is the way Carol’s frustration and high expectations of people play out when things don’t end up as planned. This, along with a deep distrust which borders on violent that Judith, another Wild Thing, displays often on the island seem to be almost reflections of Max himself, of the sides of him that he must shed to become the strong adult the story shows us he could be. These displays remind us that as fantastic as Max’s adventure is, it’s inherently a personal story and a journey through a childhood into the hard choices. This is bolstered by the whimsical, wistful soundtrack by Karen O and the Kids, a band formed for the soundtrack composed of Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, members of the Liars, Deerhunter, the Raconteurs and a chorus of children’s’ voices. It’s beautiful indie pop/folk that could be enjoyed entirely separate of the movie; my immediate move once I sat down to the computer after coming home from the movie was to download two of my favorite tracks. Thankfully, the indie influence of the soundtrack does nothing to detract from what you’re seeing onscreen, only add to the sense of adventure.

The negatives of this movie are few, but those that do exist color too much of the movie to brush away. The time Max spends with the Wild Things ends up feeling a bit too short, his departure almost too abrupt. Had he spent just a little more time getting to know the island and its inhabitants, the already emotional scene where he says his goodbyes and sails back home could have had the entire theater in tears, rather than just left feeling sad. His interactions with the Wild Things, while on the whole approached very well, could be played up in some parts and wound down in others. There’s a cathartic sense of wildness in Max’s play with the Wild Things, and it’s so infectious that children and adults were laughing with delight during these scenes, and these should have been stretched out. While the more quiet scenes are presented with proper sense of weight, they sometimes move too slowly, which can be a serious negative in a movie targeted primarily for children. The most disappointing aspect of the movie is the ending that seems both rushed and unfinished. Though under Spike Jonze’s direction both Max Records and Catherine Keener (Story-Max’s mom) act the scene to its best potential and deserve much credit for that, the scene still has a strong sense of missing something. I’m typically a person who loves ambiguous endings and tends to feel exasperated when people complain about “not getting it”. Sometimes you’re not supposed to get it, but here it feels like the story’s not quite done. There’s no explanation as to where exactly Max was or if he was really gone as long as it seems. In a children’s book, where the fantastic reigns, this is not an important factor, but in a movie that is otherwise doused in emotional realism behind the mythical adventure it becomes a serious distraction. When discussing this with a friend after the movie, I thought more about how maybe that explanation doesn’t really matter.

This is a movie for children that adults can enjoy on levels they don’t get to experience with most children’s movies, but it is still for kids. Maybe kids don’t need that explanation, because the situation is not what’s important, it’s the connection they can make to it. This is a movie that works on both the personal and visceral levels. It’s the type of film that grabs hold of you and doesn’t let go, that brings back the best and worst of childhood in a bittersweet blend that can be so real and raw at times that it hurts. It doesn’t matter that the movie is rated PG, that the typical tropes of a movie about childhood innocence and growing up are mostly absent; it feels true on a deep level. The emotional resonance “Where The Wild Things Are” possesses shows us that adventure has to be experienced on a personal level, and that we never really leave our senses of wonder behind.

Grade: A-

Photo courtesy movies.ign.com

Holy fail, batman.

"After pleading guilty to battery charges related to a brawl [involving guns] that lead to the death of a boy named Michael Cook, Ronnie Radke has been sentenced.
There were six people involved in the brawl; the only one who has been held accountabe, however, is Ronnie. Two other people involved in the brawl were brothers Michael and Marcel Colquitt. They were charged with murder, but the charges were dropped. Marcel Colquitt committed suicide last September.
 
As for Ronnie, he pled guilty to one charge of battery with substantial bodily harm for his involvement in the brawl. He has been sentenced to five years' probation -- which includes stipulations that he must be employed full-time, go to drug and alcohol rehab, and stay out of trouble. He also can't transfer his probation to other states, which means he is unlikely to be able to tour with the band. He also has to pay nearly $100,000 in restitution to the mother of Michael Cook."

All I have to say is...

LOLFAIL

(In case it isn't clear to you, this is a joke.)

IT HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT SOME JESUS-HATING QUEEROSEXUALS ON BUZZNET ARE DENOUNCING CHRISTMAS

I KNOW, IT'S SICKENING

DECEMBER 25TH MARKS THE EXACT DATE OF THE BIRTH OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR, J.C. (DON'T LISTEN TO THOSE FRILLY-ASS HISTORIANS, IT'S SERIOUSLY DECEMBER 25TH)



NO NOT THAT J.C.

THIS J.C.:



NOW WE ALL KNOW THAT CHRISTMAS IS A TIME FOR JESUS AND PINE TREES. PINE TREES ARE AN ANCIENT SYMBOL OF JESUS. IF THEY ARE IMITATION PINE AND BRIGHT PINK WITH LIGHTS THAT MAY CAUSE EPILEPSY, EVEN BETTER. EPILEPSY AND PINK PLEASE JESUS.


ANOTHER EXCELLENT FEATURE OF CHRISTMAS IS THE FOOD. YOU SHOULD BE SURE TO STUFF YOURSELF TO THE SEAMS WITH ALL THE EXCELLENT FOOD SUCH AS


YUM YUM YUM. BUT I AM FORGETTING ANOTHER EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ASPECT OF CHRISTMAS. THE FAMILY. I MEAN THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE ONLY TIMES OF THE YEAR YOU GET TO SEE YOUR UNCLE JIM. HE EVEN SAID HE'D BRING HIS RAT HUNTING GUN THIS YEAR LIKE HE'S TOTING IN HIS CHRISTMAS CARD



IN CONCLUSION, THIS IS WHY CHRISTMAS IS THE MOST GLORIOUS OF ALL HOLIDAYS.

CELEBRATE IT CORRECTLY OR BURN IN HELL, YOU HEATHENS.

LOVE,
ALEX

P.S.- GIVE ME ALL YOUR PRESENTS SO I CAN DONATE THEM TO THE POOR