Forums / Discussion / General

175,084 total conversations in 5,761 threads

+ New Thread

Tenn. Family Sues Over Online Images of Son With Downs

Last posted May 02, 2013 at 01:49AM EDT. Added Apr 29, 2013 at 03:38PM EDT
5 posts from 5 users

I can understand most of these claims but the third one regarding the Flickr case is just redundant because it is not a public offense nor was he profiting off of the image. In the end game of this scenario, the meme will gain more notoriety, popularity, and more image macros as a result; doing the complete opposite of what the family intended. I do think that they have a good case for 2 of the charges but their action of dragging this into public was a terrible decision with unwanted consequences. It is best just to let a meme fade to obscurity then to fight it in public.

Last edited Apr 29, 2013 at 04:12PM EDT

Why would they go after the sign generating company? It’s not their fault. They make the website, and everybody else makes the sign. I visited the website and it’s just like so how could they be at fault?

@Jerry Lewis

It’s another case of shooting the messenger. The company presented the imagery so they were basically seen with “the smoking gun” in their hand

Although if all macro-creating websites were blacklisted every time somebody used an offensive meme, that might still work. Because those websites will start to filter out the special jokes until the kids finally get bored of making them.

Can you imagine how much it would suck to have somebody post an embarrassing picture of you on the internet, and then find out it’s world famous? I would imagine feeling extremely hurt.


This thread is closed to new posts.

Old threads normally auto-close after 30 days of inactivity.

Why don't you start a new thread instead?

Hi! You must login or signup first!