|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Jun 13, 2011 23:44:46 GMT -5
I wouldn't be anywhere nearly as interested in you if you were. ;D
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jun 14, 2011 1:20:18 GMT -5
You ain't kiddin', this guy's got "creeper" written all over him. I'd be afraid to be his neighbor for fear he'd be rummaging through my trash and if I was female, afraid this douche would stalk me with made-by-himself trinkets *adds some creep to the creeper* s1223.photobucket.com/albums/dd516/whtrbt2011/
|
|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Jun 14, 2011 4:13:36 GMT -5
I'm sort of split on this. But maybe I'd be more on his side if he hadn't put her name on the billboard, or put his own photo, so the woman couldn't be identified.
And he tells a few jokes, so people accuse him of being a wife-beater? How many of us have told off-color jokes? Maybe he is a wife-beater, but we can't determine that from a few jokes told on twitter.
And last, some of you are being assholes as well. I even saw someone say he should be raped. Should everyone who discloses possibly personal information be raped?
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Jun 14, 2011 6:51:53 GMT -5
I looked up Tort Law, and despite the the person in question not being bound to medical confidentiality, his actions can be seen as a violation of Tort law. When she told him that she had a miscarriage / abortion, medical confidentiality did indeed go out the window. However, his usage of that information on the billboard is definitely designed to cause emotional distress and possibly defamation. Thus, he is in violation of Tort Law.
Of course, if she had a miscarriage, it is definitely Libel and he can get his ass sued off for that one.
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Jun 14, 2011 7:51:00 GMT -5
I looked up Tort Law, and despite the the person in question not being bound to medical confidentiality, his actions can be seen as a violation of Tort law. When she told him that she had a miscarriage / abortion, medical confidentiality did indeed go out the window. However, his usage of that information on the billboard is definitely designed to cause emotional distress and possibly defamation. Thus, he is in violation of Tort Law. Intentional infliction of emotional distress is VERY hard to prove. Also, I'm not sure all states recognize it.
|
|
|
Post by chad sexington on Jun 14, 2011 8:27:32 GMT -5
And Chad, I totally beat you to it-- first page, baby. *pimp walk* Huh, so you did. Well, looks like we're even now ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jun 14, 2011 9:44:30 GMT -5
I wouldn't be anywhere nearly as interested in you if you were. ;D Good is Dumb too.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jun 14, 2011 10:35:07 GMT -5
I looked up Tort Law, and despite the the person in question not being bound to medical confidentiality, his actions can be seen as a violation of Tort law. When she told him that she had a miscarriage / abortion, medical confidentiality did indeed go out the window. However, his usage of that information on the billboard is definitely designed to cause emotional distress and possibly defamation. Thus, he is in violation of Tort Law. Of course, if she had a miscarriage, it is definitely Libel and he can get his ass sued off for that one. Wasn't quite that way. In his own words "She was pregnant, then she wasn't. I didn't know what happened but assumed the worst" After stalking her for a year+
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Jun 14, 2011 12:03:51 GMT -5
And Chad, I totally beat you to it-- first page, baby. *pimp walk* Huh, so you did. Well, looks like we're even now ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) ;D Heh heh. Yes, but really, that shirt of his on the billboard must've been stolen from the same Goodwill as CWC's shirts.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 14, 2011 12:06:15 GMT -5
You're not seeing a right to privacy in the third and fourth Amendments? The ones that make sure people can't just break into your home and search it or force unwanted people to stay in your home? Goddammit, LHM... ![:(](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/sad.png) The GOVERNMENT can't just break into your home and search your stuff. Nothing about private citizens. Fuck sake back atcha.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 14, 2011 12:09:12 GMT -5
[Third, let's say she did have an abortion. You still can't broadcast that type of private medical information that is generally regarded to be between a patient and their doctor. Yes... IF... and ONLY if... the information remains between the patient and the doctor. If the patient choses to tell someone else about their medical condition, treatment, or anything else, that is not priviledged communication. Take, for example, our mental health thread in the lounge. Some of that stuff is intensley private. However, the people saying it have chosen to communicate it to people outside their patient/doctor group. So its now free to discuss. What part of this is difficult for you?
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jun 14, 2011 12:16:50 GMT -5
[Third, let's say she did have an abortion. You still can't broadcast that type of private medical information that is generally regarded to be between a patient and their doctor. Yes... IF... and ONLY if... the information remains between the patient and the doctor. If the patient choses to tell someone else about their medical condition, treatment, or anything else, that is not priviledged communication. Take, for example, our mental health thread in the lounge. Some of that stuff is intensley private. However, the people saying it have chosen to communicate it to people outside their patient/doctor group. So its now free to discuss. What part of this is difficult for you? Yes but we are still mostly anonymous and if someone decided to find our pictures then post it on a billboard it would still be the same argument about privacy. I would hope someone on this forum wouldn't then make it public knowledge outside of our community about our issues.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 14, 2011 12:39:13 GMT -5
And if that is his perception of events? Who has the right to stop him saying precisely that? (from all I've read, frankly, I think he said what was calculated to cause the most distress possible out of petty revenge. But that is my assumption) Now, you said "He is publicly announcing private information". It wasn't "private information". She told him. At that point, it ceased being private. She trusted him to keep that information confidential maybe, but there was no legal reason compelling him to do so. And this is where you stop getting my point. There is a legal reason compelling him to do so - the information is personal and, if revealed, could cause embarrassment. Something that is spelled out in the tort of false light. Sooo... where and who is deciding what is and isn't publicly sharable information? How is "she had an abortion!" different to, say, "he posted a picture of his penis on the internet!"
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 14, 2011 12:41:02 GMT -5
Yes... IF... and ONLY if... the information remains between the patient and the doctor. If the patient choses to tell someone else about their medical condition, treatment, or anything else, that is not priviledged communication. Take, for example, our mental health thread in the lounge. Some of that stuff is intensley private. However, the people saying it have chosen to communicate it to people outside their patient/doctor group. So its now free to discuss. What part of this is difficult for you? Yes but we are still mostly anonymous and if someone decided to find our pictures then post it on a billboard it would still be the same argument about privacy. I would hope someone on this forum wouldn't then make it public knowledge outside of our community about our issues. You can HOPE that all you like. Those of us who have posted personal information in that thread have done so because we believe that the people reading it can be trusted with that information. However, if someone WERE to take your information from there (or mine, of course) and disseminate it in a manner we may find embarrasing, I don't see as how we would have any recourse.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 14, 2011 12:44:23 GMT -5
It's still not broadcast in a very public manner. You choose to discuss personal matters within a small group of people, it's an unspoken understanding amongst those people that these matters are personal and are meant to go no further. There's a difference between choosing to disclose personal information within a group of any size, and someone else putting it up on a billboard--literally--for the world to see. If you can't see how that's an invasion of privacy, then I feel sorry for you. I have agreed, repeatedly, that it is an invasion of privacy. However... I am interested in what you see as the difference between the size of groups. A hypothetical I have been thinking about all day... Say my partner gets pregnant by me, and I am overjoyed and tell all my family and friends. Some weeks later, for whatever reason, she decides to have an abortion. A couple of weeks after THAT, my friends and family start asking me how the pregnancy is going. In your mind, am I allowed to answer them? If so, how many of them am I allowed to tell? Am I only allowed to discuss the matter with family? Family and close friends? Work coleauges? How about a support group? Where do you draw the line?
|
|