SourceVapes smear campaign against VapeCritic

[biohacker]

So they file a complaint on YouTube against Stove and then pull their article?

Somebody made same really REALLY stupid decisions that's for certain. Hope everyone gets what they deserve.

 

[Dynavaper]

Hope everyone gets what they deserve.

 

[Southbound Pachyderm]

That was definitely some shady buiness. I thought Bud handled it well though.

 

[biohacker]

I thought Bud handled it well though.

Well? Shit had me in stitches the entire time! A lot of effort went into it!

 

[Tranquility]

Well, I don't find your position on this to have merit for a number of reasons. Best of luck.

Cheers

While it might not be the good feeling merit we get from doing well, from a legal perspective, there is a big difference between someone who wants to be left alone and one who, even under disguise, puts himself in the public eye. False things conveyed can be defamation. If the name exposed is correct, that could not be defamation. It could be another privacy-type tort known as public disclosure of private information--except for that making money from fame thing.

I've not seen a case where the person is a public figure yet their name is considered something private that cannot be disclosed by others.

That's not to say the name disclosure is right or that the original claims are correct.

 

[duff]

Ah youth!
Boners and fireworks.

 

[looney2nz]

circumcision via roman candle... brain bleach please!

 

[EconMan]

It can still be read (forever) via Google's caching service.
[link removed]

I for one will NEVER buy anything from them now... that was tacky.

 

[Señor Negro]

It can still be read (forever) via Google's caching service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I for one will NEVER buy anything from them now... that was tacky.

Not the best idea to show the link in a public thread don't you think ?