The saga continues. With deliberate intent. A gaggle of fools continue their attempts to discredit a reputable business and their owner. But, "they" are using a make believe world to keep themselves safe?
I am so naive sometimes. And, when I find out what passed over my head, I cannot believe I could be so gullible. Why didn't I think of this before? The silly part is that only a very few people knew the inside story, knew it was a joke, was laughable and unbelievable from the beginning, and not even about the real topic that continues to plague an innocent family
Did she deliberately have untruths printed, thinking no one could disprove the information because the person blurting out the information wasn't even a real person? But, a real person comes forth with the truth, telling the real story about something that has absolutely nothing to do with the blog topic and blows everything out of the water.
One of the things I learned from a brilliant professor, who taught my creative writing class, at U of T, was how to tell the truth when writing a work of fiction. That you have to believe and make the rest of the world believe in what you are telling them. But, if it wasn't believed to begin with, it would not fly. That is why I finally caught on.
You see, too many things didn't make sense to me. Not only didn't they make sense, there was such a risk of slander liability that I was astounded that the people involved continued to publish such untruths.
Now, here is where I am at a loss. Is it an untruth if you are using fictitious names to discredit someone? Let us say, hypothetically, that someone, using the name of an historical figure, respond to a blog and continues to state blatant lies. It becomes a work of fiction but is attached to a real life blog intended to harm real people. Is the person using a fictitious name libel for the blatant untruths spoken on a published website?
Why didn't the (hypothetical) historical person fear the law; because to slander someone and/or their business, is an illegal offense, chargeable in a court of law with serious consequences. But, if the person responding is using a make believe name, who will get charged? Who is stating the untruth.
For example, let's say I typed in the name Charles V B, in the google search engine, knowing this person was reportedly a war hero in the 1890's. Now, to continue the hypothesis, let's say that Charles V B is following a blog that is published for all to read. Knowingly using a fictitious name (because the real CVB died in the late 1800's and no new births were recorded with that name - hypothetically speaking), he adds insult to injury by telling more unbelievable and ridiculous statements. Is the pretender libel for his slanderous dribble? Or, because he is not using his own name, can he deny ever saying that, thinking no one could prove otherwise. Diabolical!
A make believe tale, intentionally written as a lie to seriously harm an honest family? Does that make it fiction? Or truth, developed by people so devious as to create a novel within the supposedly true story, published for all to read, with one intent.
Revenge!
Because they did not like the outcomes in their own lives. They didn't follow normal procedures for the situation they were in, never had facts validated, in fact, swept everything under the carpet before real research could begin.
The game of blame became a story, one I may even write about. Add a murderer and we have a mystery fiction worthy of the Best Sellers list.
Disclaimer:
I should be careful. I am thinking on paper about writing a book of fiction. Will this be turned into another reason someone takes the blame for nothing to do with them?
No comments:
Post a Comment