Interesting take, considering the comic is almost verbatim (and in one frame, exactly verbatim) of your words from the linked comments. Do you now deny saying any of those things, which are on the blockchain forever?
Instead of just crying, "harassment", please show all us where exactly it is in this COMIC that you feel that I'm "harassing" you. I'd be really interested how your own words are harassing you, when your own words were directed at others.
For anyone who missed the link at the top of this comic (which was always there)
The words coming out of this cartoon characters mouth above are quotes from @fyrstikken directed towards myself, @stellabelle and "minnows" (others) on Steemit. This comic was simply pointing out this absurd behavior from @fyrstikken and is in NO WAY harrassment, unless of course you consider his own comments towards myself and others harassment and if you do, then yes this is harassment from @fyrstikken towards me and others being pointed out in this comic. Funny how no one was upset with his slander from the below post. The whales gave him $1,648 for slandering stellabelle.
He's just trying to stifle anyone saying anything bad about him. Have had him and his accounts flag every post I have done so far about a similar freak out with @heiditravels I have put up.
Well, I didn't say anything bad about him at all. I just quoted his own words. But I get flagged for it, he gets $1,600 for making up stories about others (I think that's called "slander") and then saying the things in this comic above in the comments section of that post. Odd.
Unfortunately I had to resort to an alt account created to address it. Worries about repercussions being apparently very valid. And I am aware you didn't, poor word choice my end.
So I can just make stuff up about another person, create fictional events and name them as perpetrating those events and profit off of it because they may be considered a public figure? That just doesn't sound right.
The case i cited is pretty well known (it appeared in "the people vs. larry flynt"). In it, the Magazine hustler published a fictional satiric interview with television preacher Jerry Falwell. In this made up interview, Falwell described, in detail, having drunken sex with his own mother in an outhouse.
The court concluded (in part) that:
This case presents us with a novel question involving First Amendment limitations upon a State's authority to protect its citizens from the intentional infliction of emotional distress. We must decide whether a public figure may recover damages for emotional harm caused by the publication of an ad parody offensive to him, and doubtless gross and repugnant in the eyes of most. Respondent would have us find that a State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury, even when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. This we decline to do.
At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern.
you write:
I could back this false narrative up with chat logs which show they use known operative techniques of disruption and deflection when caught in lies using multiple sockpuppet accounts to push unwanted critique out of other users sight while backing their own claims with false support, all while never responding to their accusers questions, but instead attempting to discredit those questioning them in the public's eye ... and I could profit from such an obviously bullshit story?
Yes, you defintiely could. And its good that you could.. to further quote hustler v falwell (which addresses this very issue)
the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. . . . The sort of robust political debate encouraged by the First Amendment is bound to produce speech that is critical of those who hold public office or those public figures who are intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large.
The basic idea here is that it i have to worry that a certain characterization of someone elses ideas, or the motives underlying them, will hurt their feelings, it will lead to a chilling effect and self censorship. Especially if the person in question in one that shapes public policy.
its actually called libel (slander is spoken). That said, neither post would probably qualify as libel. see 485 U.S. 46
Thanks, corrected.
That said, neither post would probably qualify as libel. see 485 U.S. 46
So I can just make stuff up about another person, create fictional events and name them as perpetrating those events and profit off of it because they may be considered a public figure? That just doesn't sound right.
But, if that's the case, I could hypothetically claim that certain individuals here on Steemit are purposefully creating havoc with lies to disrupt the Community while setting themselves up as some sort of leader, recruiting people to honeypot websites to gain their IP information and asking them to talk on a recorded show to possibly incriminate these individuals and/or to entice them into discussing or committing an illegal act unknowingly, while using the operatives ties from their former employer who is known to hire government agents to spread disinformation and propaganda.
I could back this false narrative up with chat logs which show they use known operative techniques of disruption and deflection when caught in lies using multiple sockpuppet accounts to push unwanted critique out of other users sight while backing their own claims with false support, all while never responding to their accusers questions, but instead attempting to discredit those questioning them in the public's eye ... and I could profit from such an obviously bullshit story?
"I work too damn hard on my posts to have them visually ruined by some asshole-nobody that has a bad hair-day"
In retaliation for this dude downvoting one single post of fyrst's, fyrst and a bunch of his possi went through and downvoted every single thing this dude had ever posted (all of which was innocuous animal related stuff).
Fyrst and kyle have a bunch of choice quotes in ezara's threads which they left as they were downvoting
That behavior isn't appropriate even if she had stood him up and they had set a date and everything. Doing this on a public channel seems even more absurd... I can understand if people have bad days and take it out the way he did, but at least they realize their mistake and apologize.
To accuse @heiditravels of being fake is even more ridiculous. I have followed her on instagram where she used to post even before Steemit and also on her Snapchat she verifies her travels.
Interesting take, considering the comic is almost verbatim (and in one frame, exactly verbatim) of your words from the linked comments. Do you now deny saying any of those things, which are on the blockchain forever?
Instead of just crying, "harassment", please show all us where exactly it is in this COMIC that you feel that I'm "harassing" you. I'd be really interested how your own words are harassing you, when your own words were directed at others.
For anyone who missed the link at the top of this comic (which was always there)
The words coming out of this cartoon characters mouth above are quotes from @fyrstikken directed towards myself, @stellabelle and "minnows" (others) on Steemit. This comic was simply pointing out this absurd behavior from @fyrstikken and is in NO WAY harrassment, unless of course you consider his own comments towards myself and others harassment and if you do, then yes this is harassment from @fyrstikken towards me and others being pointed out in this comic. Funny how no one was upset with his slander from the below post. The whales gave him $1,648 for slandering stellabelle.
https://steemit.com/synereo/@fyrstikken/why-on-earth-would-i-chose-synereo-over-steemit-synereo-does-not-even-exist
He's just trying to stifle anyone saying anything bad about him. Have had him and his accounts flag every post I have done so far about a similar freak out with @heiditravels I have put up.
Well, I didn't say anything bad about him at all. I just quoted his own words. But I get flagged for it, he gets $1,600 for making up stories about others (I think that's called "slander") and then saying the things in this comic above in the comments section of that post. Odd.
Unfortunately I had to resort to an alt account created to address it. Worries about repercussions being apparently very valid. And I am aware you didn't, poor word choice my end.
@tuck-fheman
The case i cited is pretty well known (it appeared in "the people vs. larry flynt"). In it, the Magazine hustler published a fictional satiric interview with television preacher Jerry Falwell. In this made up interview, Falwell described, in detail, having drunken sex with his own mother in an outhouse.
The court concluded (in part) that:
you write:
Yes, you defintiely could. And its good that you could.. to further quote hustler v falwell (which addresses this very issue)
The basic idea here is that it i have to worry that a certain characterization of someone elses ideas, or the motives underlying them, will hurt their feelings, it will lead to a chilling effect and self censorship. Especially if the person in question in one that shapes public policy.
its actually called libel (slander is spoken). That said, neither post would probably qualify as libel. see 485 U.S. 46
In the limited scope of the steemiverse, all of you would prob. qualify as public figures.
@sigmajin
Thanks, corrected.
So I can just make stuff up about another person, create fictional events and name them as perpetrating those events and profit off of it because they may be considered a public figure? That just doesn't sound right.
But, if that's the case, I could hypothetically claim that certain individuals here on Steemit are purposefully creating havoc with lies to disrupt the Community while setting themselves up as some sort of leader, recruiting people to honeypot websites to gain their IP information and asking them to talk on a recorded show to possibly incriminate these individuals and/or to entice them into discussing or committing an illegal act unknowingly, while using the operatives ties from their former employer who is known to hire government agents to spread disinformation and propaganda.
I could back this false narrative up with chat logs which show they use known operative techniques of disruption and deflection when caught in lies using multiple sockpuppet accounts to push unwanted critique out of other users sight while backing their own claims with false support, all while never responding to their accusers questions, but instead attempting to discredit those questioning them in the public's eye ... and I could profit from such an obviously bullshit story?
Wow, America the beautiful! ;)
OMG he is sooooo offended!
https://steemit.com/life/@knozaki2015/why-we-should-stop-getting-offended-featuring-logic-as-author
Interesting stance on harrasment
On its own, I don't see that. It's just satire, why should the depicted people be immune from satire?
If it's part of a larger pattern of harassment, then I can understand that PoV.
Really?
Thanks for posting these. He needs to be held accountable, especially after making more false accusations. Libel was not enough for him apparently.
Edit : corrected slander to libel.
tuck -- look up @ezrathecat and this post about his downvote of one of fyrstikken's posts
https://steemit.com/steemitabuse/@fyrstikken/throw-away-accounts-is-a-problem-i-suggest-that-in-order-to-be-allowed-to-flag-a-post-the-account-flagging-needs-to-have-a
"I work too damn hard on my posts to have them visually ruined by some asshole-nobody that has a bad hair-day"
In retaliation for this dude downvoting one single post of fyrst's, fyrst and a bunch of his possi went through and downvoted every single thing this dude had ever posted (all of which was innocuous animal related stuff).
Fyrst and kyle have a bunch of choice quotes in ezara's threads which they left as they were downvoting
https://steemit.com/news/@ezrathecat/bilderberg-do-you-know-the-truth
then im sure we'll all scratch our h ead and wonder why we're having problems with adoption.
after all, how dare these asshole-nobodies not be interested in being treated like shit on our glorious platform
I expect an open apology at least.
That behavior isn't appropriate even if she had stood him up and they had set a date and everything. Doing this on a public channel seems even more absurd... I can understand if people have bad days and take it out the way he did, but at least they realize their mistake and apologize.
To accuse @heiditravels of being fake is even more ridiculous. I have followed her on instagram where she used to post even before Steemit and also on her Snapchat she verifies her travels.
Flagging for false accusation. Using your own words in a comic character is not harassment.
Maybe make an NSFW version next of his steem.chat words.