倍可親

樓主: 大蝸牛
列印 上一主題 下一主題

高智商的留學生:30-美金讓cnn破產(強烈建議推廣實施!)

[複製鏈接]

8

主題

322

帖子

91

積分

貝殼新手上路

初過語言關(三級)

Rank: 2

積分
91
81
pekinese 發表於 2008-4-30 04:38 | 只看該作者
抵制, CNN 廣告商,產品...  廣告商撤廣告...CNN收入
-
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

378

主題

3145

帖子

1586

積分

三星貝殼精英

Rank: 4

積分
1586
82
jeffersonforest 發表於 2008-4-30 04:57 | 只看該作者
這個是不可能的
最起碼,CNN會讓你承擔律師費.
這種做法不對!
簡單推理
如果大家都這樣去對付任何一個你不喜歡的公司,豈不是那家公司就垮了,而事實上卻沒有一家被這樣搞垮.

[ 本帖最後由 jeffersonforest 於 2008-4-29 15:58 編輯 ]
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

1

主題

17

帖子

4

積分

註冊會員

Rank: 1

積分
4
83
THHGG 發表於 2008-4-30 05:33 | 只看該作者
原帖由 jeffersonforest 於 2008-4-30 04:57 發表
這個是不可能的
最起碼,CNN會讓你承擔律師費.
這種做法不對!
簡單推理
如果大家都這樣去對付任何一個你不喜歡的公司,豈不是那家公司就垮了,而事實上卻沒有一家被這樣搞垮.

同意。如果這麼容易,藏獨、台獨還有輪子們不是也可以搞垮中資媒體嗎?整垮美國大媒體,好多有錢的穆斯林幾十年前就想動手了。還輪得到這個「高智商」嗎?大家別上當。我看,這個「高智商」最好先公開擔保賠償每個上當的中國人。否則他就是出餿主意坑中國人。

[ 本帖最後由 THHGG 於 2008-4-30 05:36 編輯 ]
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

0

主題

15

帖子

3

積分

註冊會員

Rank: 1

積分
3
84
xrui 發表於 2008-4-30 05:35 | 只看該作者
1萬人告CNN,500/人,它才須賠5百萬,能破產?
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

0

主題

15

帖子

3

積分

註冊會員

Rank: 1

積分
3
85
xrui 發表於 2008-4-30 05:42 | 只看該作者
忘了說了,它要是不請律師,就按500/人賠付.
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

0

主題

16

帖子

3

積分

註冊會員

Rank: 1

積分
3
86
ny唐儒 發表於 2008-4-30 06:02 | 只看該作者

當年畝產萬斤就是這高智商學生想出來的吧?

不如號召全體華人為美國各地的小額錢債法庭捐款30吧.
告的對象都沒弄清楚.是告發言的個人?還是那個節目?還是CNN?還是time warner?還是不如告美國新聞制度?要不告美國政府?
一個節目,打上"嘉賓發言僅代表個人立場,不代表本台和本節目意見"的字幕,法庭看來是收你30再告訴你去找個人..找到個人告個人,請再交30,然後法庭告訴你,如果你告言論毀傷,請提供造成索賠傷害的證明..要是想告種族歧視案,是重罪,小額錢債法庭無權受理,歡迎到地方法院或州院再申請和交錢..還有,就算你贏了,法庭是不管強制執行的,有推薦的collector一批,你挑吧,請先交錢,此費用可由對方承擔,但你先墊付..然後collector再告訴你,他們的服務是按催收電話次數或按服務時間收費的,與能否收得到應收款無關..然後,你就繼續牙痒痒的痛罵美國吧..
最思鄉的辦法,就是直把他鄉作故鄉
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

5

主題

42

帖子

13

積分

註冊會員

Rank: 1

積分
13
87
Aeroplan 發表於 2008-4-30 06:39 | 只看該作者

加拿大的情況如下 僅供參考

What is defamation?
Defamation is false communication about a person that tends to hurts the person's reputation. The communication must be made to other people, not just to the person it's about. It can be spoken or written, or it can be a gesture.

The law protects your reputation against defamation. If someone defames you, you can sue the person for money to compensate you for your damaged reputation. You have to sue in Supreme Court, not Provincial Court - refer to English language script 432, called 「Our Court System and Solving Disputes.」 You don』t have to prove that the people who heard or read the defamation actually believed it. Even if they knew it was false, it can still be defamation. Courts realize that lies can take on a life of their own.  

The law doesn't protect you from a personal insult or a remark that injures only your pride; it protects reputation, not feelings. So if someone calls you a lazy slob, you might be hurt, but you probably don't have a good reason to sue. If he goes on to say you cheat in your business dealings, you probably do have a good reason to sue, as long as he says it to someone else, not just to you. If he says it only to you, you can't sue because he has not hurt your reputation.

Defamation can be a crime under the Criminal Code, but only rarely. This script is about law suits in civil defamation. If someone has defamed you, you may also be able to sue for a violation of your privacy under the provincial Privacy Act. Further, section 7 of the BC Human Rights Code prohibits another type of defamation, namely, a discriminatory publication. For more information on that, contact the BC Human Rights Tribunal at 604.775.2000 in Vancouver and 1.888.440.8844 elsewhere in BC. Or see its website at www.bchrt.bc.ca. Also, refer to English language script 236.

What is libel?
Libel is the type of defamation with a permanent record, like a newspaper, a letter, an e-mail, a picture, or a radio or TV broadcast. If you can prove that someone libeled you, and that person does not have a good defence (see the section on defences below), then a court will presume that you suffered damages and award you money to compensate for your damaged reputation. But going to Supreme Court is expensive and even if you win, you may not get as much as it costs you to sue. In deciding on assumed damages, the Court will consider your position in the community. For example, if you are a professional, damages may be higher.

What is slander?
Slander is the type of defamation with no permanent record. Normally it's a spoken statement. It can also be a hand gesture or something similar. The law treats slander differently than libel: with slander, you have to prove you suffered damages, in the form of financial loss, to get compensation. But with libel, the law presumes you suffered damages. For example, say that Bill told John you were a cheat, and then John refused to do business with you because of that. You sue Bill and prove that you lost business with John because of what Bill said. Bill would have to compensate you for the loss of John's business, but not for the general damage to your reputation. It can be very difficult to prove this sort of financial loss. That's why most slander cases never go to court.

But in the following four examples, a slander lawsuit may succeed without you proving financial loss. Even though there's no permanent record of the slander, the law will presume damages, as if there were libel, if someone:

accuses you of a crime (unless they made the accusation to the police)
accuses you of having a contagious disease
makes negative remarks about you in your trade or business
accuses you of adultery
What about the right to free speech?
The law protects a person's reputation but this protection can restrict other rights, such as the right to free speech. The law tries to balance these competing interests. Sometimes, even though someone made a defamatory statement that hurt a person's reputation, the law considers other interests more important. The law allows the following defences for a person who makes a defamatory statement.

What are the defences to a defamation lawsuit?
If someone sues for defamation, the most common defences are:

truth (known in law as "justification")
absolute privilege
qualified privilege
fair comment
1. Truth or justification
A statement may hurt your reputation, but if it is true, anyone who says it has a valid defence if you sue them for defamation.

2. Absolute privilege
There are two main examples of this defence: statements made as evidence at a trial, and statements made in Parliament. This defence also allows the fair and accurate reporting of those statements in the media, such as newspaper reports of a trial. People must be able to speak freely in our justice and political systems without worrying about being sued.

3. Qualified privilege
Say a former employee of yours gave your name to an employer as a reference and that employer calls you for a reference. You say, "Well, frankly, I found that that employee caused morale problems." As long as you act in good faith and without malice, the defense of qualified privilege protects you if the former employee sues you for defamation. You gave your honest opinion and the caller had a legitimate interest in hearing it.

4. Fair comment
We all are free to comment – even harshly – about issues of public interest, as long as our comments are honest, based on fact, and not malicious. For example, a newspaper columnist may write that a Member of Parliament (an MP) says he supports equality and equal rights, but he opposes same-sex marriages. The columnist writes that the MP is hypocritical. If the MP sues the columnist for defamation, the columnist has the defence of fair comment.

Media articles that accurately report what was said at public meetings are also privileged, unless the meeting was not of public concern and the report was not for public benefit.

What effect does an apology have?
A newspaper or a TV or radio station that publishes or broadcasts a libel can limit the amount of the damages they may have to pay by publishing or broadcasting an apology right away.

Summary
The law of defamation protects your reputation against false statements. If a person makes a false statement to someone and it hurts your reputation, you can sue the person who made the false statement for damages. But because of other competing rights in our society, such as free speech and fair comment, you will not always win.
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

1

主題

346

帖子

124

積分

貝殼網友一級

Rank: 3Rank: 3

積分
124
88
回到祖國 發表於 2008-4-30 06:59 | 只看該作者
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

55

主題

4021

帖子

3480

積分

七星貝殼精英

Rank: 4

積分
3480
89
sam333 發表於 2008-4-30 07:36 | 只看該作者
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

23

主題

209

帖子

57

積分

貝殼新手上路

Rank: 2

積分
57
90
newearthling 發表於 2008-4-30 07:40 | 只看該作者
小額賠償訴訟, 英文"SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNALS". 是特別為不能OR不想負擔律師和其它昂貴的法律訴訟費用的普通老百姓而設立. 無論誰贏, 除了原告提交訴訟請求時交給法庭的費用外, 輸方都不必賠償贏方其它的為訴訟而產生的費用.

還有疑問,  查詢當地州政府的免費法律諮詢機構.


你們告CNN, 確不可能搞垮它. 但後果可見. 關鍵在於當地法庭是否受理.
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

2

主題

200

帖子

43

積分

貝殼新手上路

Rank: 2

積分
43
91
casper219 發表於 2008-4-30 08:29 | 只看該作者
這個簡單,請法律專業人士,高人先行起訴,自然會有人推廣。
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

1093

主題

4185

帖子

6753

積分

四級貝殼核心

Rank: 5Rank: 5

積分
6753
92
goodoctor 發表於 2008-4-30 09:19 | 只看該作者
前提是CNN會傻到請律師。有第一修正案保護,法庭根本都不會給你立案機會,還奢談什麼出庭?

附:

美國新聞自由的法律根源是美國憲法第一修正案:

"國會不得制定關於下列事項的法律:確立國教或禁止信教自由;剝奪言論自由或出版自由;或剝奪人民和平集會和向政府請願伸冤的權利。"

Amendment I of The Constitution of the United States of America

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


如果樓主的方法有效,有錢的阿拉伯人,加州南部的墨西哥人早把美國所有的媒體告破產了!

CNN道歉里說的很明白卡弗蒂指的是政府。按照西方媒體的標準,任何媒體和新聞人都有批評政府的權力,至於批評的是否有證據,是否正確,那是另外一回事。在高智商的留學生想出訴訟的點子之前, CNN早已經做好了被告的準備。

[ 本帖最後由 goodoctor 於 2008-4-29 17:28 編輯 ]
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

113

主題

3746

帖子

861

積分

貝殼網友七級

Rank: 3Rank: 3

積分
861
93
fsspider 發表於 2008-4-30 09:41 | 只看該作者
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

4

主題

194

帖子

43

積分

貝殼新手上路

Rank: 2

積分
43
94
eric和老五 發表於 2008-4-30 10:11 | 只看該作者
好!!!我在智利怎麼告???等會信!!!!謝謝!!!
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

5

主題

73

帖子

18

積分

註冊會員

Rank: 1

積分
18
95
d3282h 發表於 2008-4-30 11:04 | 只看該作者
you people just talk. no actions.
my friend's uncle actually works for CNN's leagal team, he said CNN never receive any notice of chinese law suit against them.
you people are only day dreaming...
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

8

主題

322

帖子

91

積分

貝殼新手上路

初過語言關(三級)

Rank: 2

積分
91
96
pekinese 發表於 2008-4-30 12:07 | 只看該作者
效果 取決於 法院執行力度, 判贏$500, CNN不付; 法院不監督執行...then what ?

在中國, 由西藏國旅(行社)出面, 告CNN, 最好, 連帶告一個外資飯店集團(在中國,提供CNN頻道在房間),責任(共犯)/liability;
理由: 告CNN 不實報道西藏, 造成旅行社損失...
在法庭辯論中,有關"不實報道"一項,CNN肯定輸, 用尼波兒警察畫面,報道成中國警察鎮壓...
判贏后, 如CNN不付, 法院監督執行, 扣留&拍賣CNN在中國 器材

抵制, CNN 廣告商,產品... 廣告商撤廣告...CNN沒收入!!!
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

3

主題

121

帖子

63

積分

貝殼新手上路

Rank: 2

積分
63
97
Manofchinese 發表於 2008-4-30 12:14 | 只看該作者
此招很妙,而且的確行的通.
在美國,公司最怕的就是打官司,而且是接連不斷的官司.公司沒有這麼多人力物力來應付.美國律師的費用如果按小時付費的話,每小時都要在100美以上,如果是長期雇傭的話,年薪都在10萬以上.而且打此官司不存在誣告問題,只是要求賠償損失,最多就是不與賠償.他無法反訴, 因為我們沒有說CNN任何壞話,如果把起訴CNN做為反訴理由是站不住腳的. 而CNN侮辱華人的證據是確鑿的.唯一難以定論的是損失的大小.如果有人因此受到同事的嬉笑或氣的失眠,血壓升高,病假,精力無法集中而導致車禍都可以成為要求賠償的理由.只要你能把時間對上就可以成為證據.而且你請假去CNN示威的開支也是由CNN引起的,這也可以要求賠償.在這期間你由於精神恍惚而導致的一切損失也可以要求CNN賠償.
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

3

主題

121

帖子

63

積分

貝殼新手上路

Rank: 2

積分
63
98
Manofchinese 發表於 2008-4-30 12:36 | 只看該作者
順便說一句,美國法院是很歡迎有人打官司的,這是他們增加收入的機會.
受到傷害而要求賠償是天經地義的事.在餐館用餐時摔一跤都有權向餐館索賠,更不用說被公開侮辱了.
美國法律的確保障言論自由,但並不保障新聞機構辱罵別人的權利(總統除外).
世界各地,凡是有CNN辦事處的地方都可以起訴,至於各人所受到的損失就各不相同了.有些人臉皮厚,不怕罵,那就沒有損失,有些人臉皮薄,就會受到很大的損失.如果有些人脾氣急而因此舊病複發,住院,開刀,那損失就很大了.精神損失是很難估計的,如果某人因為CNN的侮辱而從此不敢看電視,不敢出門,不敢見同學,同事,這種損失就要以萬來記了.
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

26

主題

330

帖子

554

積分

貝殼網友四級

Rank: 3Rank: 3

積分
554
99
lanchang 發表於 2008-4-30 12:57 | 只看該作者
這還不是利用美國的法制?你能這樣狀告《人民日報》嗎?不用律師,馬上就會有人送你去該去的地方。
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

3

主題

121

帖子

63

積分

貝殼新手上路

Rank: 2

積分
63
100
Manofchinese 發表於 2008-4-30 14:05 | 只看該作者
如果<<人民日報>>說西藏人都是暴徒,廢物,不用任何人告,主編就要下台了.即使在文革時期,<<人民日報>>也沒有敢公開說某個國家的人全都是暴徒.
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

您需要登錄后才可以回帖 登錄 | 註冊

本版積分規則

關於本站 | 隱私權政策 | 免責條款 | 版權聲明 | 聯絡我們

Copyright © 2001-2013 海外華人中文門戶:倍可親 (http://big5.backchina.com) All Rights Reserved.

程序系統基於 Discuz! X3.1 商業版 優化 Discuz! © 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

本站時間採用京港台時間 GMT+8, 2025-11-19 23:57

快速回復 返回頂部 返回列表