Reply
Trusted Contributor
Posts: 1,920
Registered: ‎03-12-2010

If Mia found an address,  anyone could  find the same address.  Good for her.  The dentist is scum.  Trophy hunting is WRONG.  Woody was not charged.  There are 2 sides to every story.  James Woods IS suing someone who posted derogatory remarks so "watch what you post".

Trusted Contributor
Posts: 1,437
Registered: ‎03-10-2010

She may be both, a caring person AND a bit unstable.  But she did nothing wrong in this case.  It's all a matter of public record.  She did a GOOD thing.

~Dogs are my favorite people and my favorite people are dogs.~
Respected Contributor
Posts: 3,358
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

 

Evidently the reports that it ever was a 

home address were wrong and nobody 

claimimg it has a screen shot of anything 

except the business address.

 

Either way like I said before in my earlier

post

the lynch

mob mentality is wrong imho.

 


••• Please adopt don't shop ••• Save a life adopt a pet •••
Valued Contributor
Posts: 767
Registered: ‎07-12-2010

I know their home address.

 

I won't post it here but I know it.

 

One can find out anything about anyone in today's world. I think Mia's problem was simply in violating Twitter's Terms of Service.

 

I mean, one can argue which address she posted or if its "nice" to post any such address (as it seems to encourage people to go to its front door...as to "do something").

 

But really anyone could get their hands on the same information - even more than she posted or knew, quite frankly.

Respected Contributor
Posts: 2,667
Registered: ‎03-10-2010

@surfk wrote:

I know their home address.

 

I won't post it here but I know it.

 

One can find out anything about anyone in today's world. I think Mia's problem was simply in violating Twitter's Terms of Service.

 

I mean, one can argue which address she posted or if its "nice" to post any such address (as it seems to encourage people to go to its front door...as to "do something").

 

But really anyone could get their hands on the same information - even more than she posted or knew, quite frankly.


actually, she didn't even do that

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2015/07/30/mia-farrow-faces-twitter-backlash--lion-dentist...

 

"A Twitter spokesman said the company does not comment on individual accounts for privacy and security reasons. He directed The Associated Press to official Twitter rules and policies that allow wiggle room on disciplinary action when information was previously posted or displayed elsewhere on the Internet prior to being put on Twitter."

If you can't fix what's broken, you'll go insane ~ Max
Look, I don’t like the taste of broccoli, but it doesn’t get tastier if you call it “Broccoli!”!
You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling. ~ Eames
Respected Contributor
Posts: 2,517
Registered: ‎09-18-2014

@SydneyH wrote:

This unstable woman should be charged with obstruction, what she did was wrong........


____________________________________________________________________

Obstruction of what?

Obstuction of justice is a legal term and a chargeable offense, but it doesn't seem to apply here. Posting a business address that is easily available to everyone who has a computer is not obstructing justice.   

 

His business address was identified before she even posted her Tweet.

~Enough is enough~
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 6,454
Registered: ‎01-13-2013

  Actually to win a libel or defamation case one has to prove malicious intent....I just read info about James Woods...he may as well drop his suit even though the statement made about him was made as fact, IDK how he would be able to prove malicious intent. He should probably just move on.

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 6,454
Registered: ‎01-13-2013

@ritasNo1Fan wrote:

If Mia found an address,  anyone could  find the same address.  Good for her.  The dentist is scum.  Trophy hunting is WRONG.  Woody was not charged.  There are 2 sides to every story.  James Woods IS suing someone who posted derogatory remarks so "watch what you post".


There is also the pesky matter of Dylan Farrow's open letter, published in the NYT.......

Honored Contributor
Posts: 37,847
Registered: ‎06-11-2011

YorkieonmyPillow's post: Actually to win a libel or defamation case one has to prove malicious intent....I just read info about James Woods...he may as well drop his suit even though the statement made about him was made as fact, IDK how he would be able to prove malicious intent. He should probably just move on.

 

 

 

The elements of the crime of defamation varies from state to state, so I don't think making a blanket statement about it is accurate.  Not to mention that, by court decision, there are two standards used for defamation, with a different one (harder to prove) for famous people than for others.

Valued Contributor
Posts: 767
Registered: ‎07-12-2010

@biancardi wrote:

@surfk wrote:

I know their home address.

 

I won't post it here but I know it.

 

One can find out anything about anyone in today's world. I think Mia's problem was simply in violating Twitter's Terms of Service.

 

I mean, one can argue which address she posted or if its "nice" to post any such address (as it seems to encourage people to go to its front door...as to "do something").

 

But really anyone could get their hands on the same information - even more than she posted or knew, quite frankly.


actually, she didn't even do that

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2015/07/30/mia-farrow-faces-twitter-backlash--lion-dentist...

 

"A Twitter spokesman said the company does not comment on individual accounts for privacy and security reasons. He directed The Associated Press to official Twitter rules and policies that allow wiggle room on disciplinary action when information was previously posted or displayed elsewhere on the Internet prior to being put on Twitter."


All the better for Mia. I mean, these pieces of information (including whatever she posted) are available on the net and  elsewhere to anyone LOOKING. Its not as though Mia knew the info before Interpol did or anything. lol

 

I think that Mia Farrow is a very compassionate, sensitive - perhaps overly sensitive (debatably,) social activist sort of a person. I think she feels we are indeed the guardians of "the beasts and the children" (as the story and the song go).

 

And a guardian who just sit there on their fat a$) is not acting responsibly.

 

Palmer knows he is one of the most notorious figures in the world today. Surely he knows that patients, friends, neighbors and associates all know where he lives. Its not a big leap to know such info will circulate fast.

 

I don't think its necessarily attractive to post a HOME address since what is the point? I mean, people who would show up would all be arrested quicker than he will be for his deadly deed.

 

But to repost his dental business address? That's common info and public info. And quite frankly its he who put it out there in all his vanity advertisements long before he murdered hunted Cecil.