| 24th May 2004 - 02:19:32 PM |
| 7543 : |
| Dustins band should do a cover of zoot suit riot - except change the lyrics to poopshoot riot and feature live acts of ass play on stage - i would totally see a salty the pocketknife show if that sort of shit went on - cuz you know the double d fucks like a cowboy |
| 24th May 2004 - 06:58:34 PM |
| 7544 : fan |
| Will C, what kind of jokes did screech tell? Did he talk shit about the Saved By The Bell cast? |
| 24th May 2004 - 07:11:19 PM |
| 7545 : |
| check out this picture of slater and one of his babes. is the the woman who broke up his marriage? http://www.epiczine.com/issue/200309/WhosWho/P7YJNWFG.jpg |
| 24th May 2004 - 11:41:00 PM |
| 7546 : Jimmy \"The Geek\" Williams |
| My name is Jimmy Williams, I live in Truckee, Ca., and I'm a thieving, narc-ass, pathetic, little lying piece of dog-shit that would snort anything that was placed in front of his face and then fuck your old lady afterwards. Please, do the civilized world a favor, and kick my stupid ass and rid the world of the complete and total fraud that is me... But, until that time comes, can I borrow 5.00 and then fuck your girlfriend behind your back??... C'mon' 'bro, I live for that kinda shit - me 'an my buddy Gary Cisney, we're the best swordfighting team that K.B.'s ever seen, between Dawn, Annamarrie, and Kathleen Schween!!!! |
| 24th May 2004 - 11:54:02 PM |
| 7547 : Kathleen Scott Fan |
| You really gotta love someone like Kathleen Scott, who lives in Truckee, Ca., The Sunset Motel, Room #2... She's a fat, bloated, coked-out, piece of monkey shit who turns tricks from her hotel room to pay for her drug habit... Other than that, she rocks!!!! |
| 25th May 2004 - 12:01:36 AM |
| 7548 : the voice of reason |
| Gee, I wouldn't get so mad, they sound like a couple of total losers to me - you're better off without 'em in your life... |
| 25th May 2004 - 04:13:42 AM |
| 7549 : Patrick |
| Hey Dustin, Saved by the bell - the college years are started in the Netherlands yesterday (May 24th 2004). Itīs a great movie! :-) Greetz, Patrick |
| 25th May 2004 - 05:22:03 AM |
| 7550 : Paris Hilton\'s butthole |
| BRAAPPPPPP!!!!!!! |
| 25th May 2004 - 06:20:49 AM |
| 7551 : Dick |
| You are gay!!!! |
| 25th May 2004 - 11:07:08 AM |
| 7552 : |
| Screech - please toss my salad! |
| 25th May 2004 - 01:35:43 PM |
| 7553 : Lenny |
| Kurt asked me to say "hi" to all his queer friends here, and that he'll reveal all about his absence in due course. |
| 25th May 2004 - 02:01:57 PM |
| 7554 : LUSTIN FOR DUSTIN |
| Dear Dustin Saved By The Bell: College Years just started in the Netherlands and I'M A MOTHERFUCKING RETARD WHO THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY YOUR SITE! PLEASE HAVE GAY SEX WITH ME IMMEDIATELY!!! ARRRRRRGH!!!!!! |
| 25th May 2004 - 04:47:29 PM |
| 7555 : Bruce |
| Is Ken Melman - White House Political Director Gay??? |
| 25th May 2004 - 04:54:32 PM |
| 7556 : |
| Why did the Log Cabin Republicans not get to have a table at the North Carolina Convention but Ken Melman is White House Political Director ???? |
| 25th May 2004 - 07:37:03 PM |
| 7557 : Kurt Steinberg |
| Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated. - Kurt Steinberg |
| 25th May 2004 - 07:50:44 PM |
| 7558 : |
| Diamond, have you ever heard of the U.S. Supreme Court case Hustler Magazine, Inc. et al. v. Jerry Falwell? The U.S. Supreme Court held: In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice," i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true. The State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. Here, respondent is clearly a "public figure" for First Amendment purposes, and the lower courts' finding that the ad parody was not reasonably believable must be accepted. "Outrageousness" [47] in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression, and cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages for conduct such as that involved here. Pp. 50-57 http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/hustler.html |
| 25th May 2004 - 07:56:51 PM |
| 7559 : |
| Parody and Satire Parody or satire is difficult to deal with, but if applied to a public figure is clearly protected by the First Amendment because the exaggeration or distortions of the truth are not intended to be taken as fact. The case of Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Fallwell is an example. In that case, Hustler Magazine printed a fake advertisement that parodied a Campari Liquer advertising campaign. In the Hustler publication, the advertisement contained a make-believe interview with Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority and a television evangelist, in which he talked about his "first time" to experience sexual intercourse. The vulgar "recounting" of Falwell's "first sexual encounter" was set in an outhouse with him having sex with his mother. Falwell, a teetotaler, was also portrayed as being drunk. Falwell was outraged by this caricature, so outraged, in fact, that he sued. His lawsuit for libel, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress went to trial. At the close of the evidence, the district court said that even if everything Falwell claimed were true there were no legal grounds upon which he could claim relief. The balance of the case was submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict for Falwell for intentional infliction of emotional distress, although the jury disallowed the libel claim. On appeal, the Supreme Court heard the case on the First Amendment question of whether a state has authority to protect its citizens from the intentional infliction of emotional distress and whether a public figure may recover damages for his or her distress. Specifically, the Chief Justice said the issue was whether a state may protect its citizens from patently offensive speech, and he said the First Amendment provided a safe haven for even that mode of speech. The Chief Justice reasoned that even though Falwell was not a public figure who held elective office, he was a public figure who had influence on public affairs and, as such, only had limited capacity to be distressed. The Chief Justice wrote that: "robust political debate encouraged by the First Amendment is bound to produce speech that is critical of those that 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 area of concern to society at large.'" The Chief Justice ruled that even so outrageous a rogue, or impish rascal, depending on your point of view, as Larry Flynt is entitled to exercise his First Amendment freedoms in a manner best determined by Flynt, rather than being restricted by any state action. |
| 25th May 2004 - 08:14:51 PM |
| 7560 : |
| Diamond, everyone knows this is a parody website. Nobody here has (a) invaded your privacy; (b) defamed you; or (c) intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon you. There's no doubt that you are a public figure. In your own brief filed with the ICANN arbitrator you certainly argue that you are. People are entitled to post social commentary here - it's an unmoderated, public forum. Based on the Hustler case, it's clear that nobody here has committed intentional infliction of emotional distress. Also, nobody here has defamed you - this website has not harmed your reputation at all because everyone knows it is a parody! |
| 25th May 2004 - 08:26:43 PM |
| 7561 : |
| Diamond, why do you think people make fun of you and post queer fantasies here? It's because of your career choices. The Screech character was an incredibly annoying dork. It was bad enough that you played that character during the original series. However, you chose to come back and play the character for another 6 or 7 years as Belding's assistant. What's amazing is that after playing Screech for over 10 years, now you can't understand why you've been typecast as a dork forever! Also, from what I understand you tell people during your "comedy" shows that Zack and Slater were homos. Have you committed slander by saying that during your show? |
| 25th May 2004 - 09:01:37 PM |
| 7562 : Bruce |
| Is Ken Melman - White House Political Director Gay??? |