In response to:

Self-Proclaimed Union Thug Vinny Castaldo Wants to Beat Me Up

PhdisReality Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 12:01 PM
Oh and that article almost certainly constitutes criminal harassment. Way to go John!
Colonialgirl Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 3:39 PM
More garbage and dancing around spewing nonsense.
IF you have a PhD, they should recall it for your display of stupidity.
Colonialgirl Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 3:38 PM
God!!! Are you REALLY all that stupid? How do you manage to wipe your butt after a potty break?
Your "Assumption" only makes you into the first THREE letters of Assume, because you certainly have not a single clue about the law, truth and John Ransom.
Now back into your lair in the cellar.
Colonialgirl Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 3:35 PM
More display of Idiocy from a liberal brain dead troll drunk on liberal koolade.

Will the STUPIDITY of this troll neer end it's BRAINLESS spew of "none facts" and NON-truths?
Colonialgirl Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 3:34 PM
More display of Idiocy from a liberal brain dead troll drunk on liberal koolade.
Colonialgirl Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 3:33 PM
Sheer idiocy ignores the CRIMINAL HARASSMENT by the UNION THUG and then the troll wants to point a finger at John R.; Typical liberal stupidity, did your Mother drop you on your head?
soliton2 Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 1:31 PM
You construe "debate civilly" as "RSVP to a fight"? Maybe you are the moron, Phd.
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 1:25 PM
Sorry Phd but you are still wrong. If you go back to your original assertion, you claimed that Ransom was probably guilty of "criminal harassment". In the case of a civil matter (pretty much anyone can sue anyone for anything) the question might be in doubt (though chances are the judge would throw it out anyway). You have described the bar as it stands for a civil matter. In the case of a CRIMINAL charge, the bar is set MUCH higher and the burden of proof falls to the prosecution to demonstrate not merely what his intent may be supposed to be but what it was and that it was malicious. And there's no chance of making that case.

Do try to keep up.
PhdisReality Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 1:24 PM
Funny thing is, there are definitely a lot of ways to avoid or sidestep these laws, for example, if he alters the article to encourage people to contact the organization rather than "Vinny" he's probably clear. If he were to encourage people to call about an explicit topic, he's probably in the clear. The encouraging "Vinny" to RSVP (to a fight) part, is definitely disorderly conduct, so that needs to go.

Stuff like this is obviously very common on the internet, what's uncommon, is to see it posted by the host sites, who are usually hip to issues like this, I would expect to see the article pulled or changed relatively quickly if TH aren't morons, (but of course, they are, so who knows)

soliton2 Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 1:18 PM
The phone number is a 1-800---- . Can't be much of a problem.

Your Phd is what? Feminism studies?
PhdisReality Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 1:10 PM
Sorry Fletch, your on the right path, but still wrong. He DOESN'T have to explicitly call for harassing calls. Intent under these types of statues are usually written into the law, using the context of the rest of the article, we can probably agree that random union guy is likely to get harassing calls, and that's pretty much where the bar is set. Ransom would have to argue that he didn't realize the article would cause harassing calls, and from the context of the rest of the article and the snarky tone, encouraging others to call, that would be difficult.

FletchforFreedom Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 12:45 PM
Actually, unless Ransom explicitly advocates engaging in threatening or harrassing calls, it is perfectly legal. You may wish tio assume intent but the court literally cannot. Again, so long as it can be demonstrated that the number is expressly published by the organization to get interested parties to call (as is obviously the case) no such illegality can be demonstrated.

Again, you haven't a clue what you're talking about and your name calling aimed at Ranson clearly amounts to nothing more than projection.
Larry in Texas Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 12:44 PM
PhdisDelusional - you're a big crybaby. Litigation! Litigation!
Anyone who threatens Ransom, or anyone else for that matter, like this Castaldo character did deserves what he gets. Did I mention you're a big crybaby? Oh yeah, I did.
SageAdvice68 Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 12:43 PM
Damn Fletch, how are you ever going to recover that boot you just broke off so far up PR's @ssshole?
PhdisReality Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 12:39 PM
" it is prefectly legal to publish the phone number AND encourage people to call. "

Not if the intent of the publishing is to persuade others to make annoying or harassing calls, that generally not legal, it varies state to state.

As far as the home vs business number, he's probably clear of most privacy laws, but not harassment or similar charges.
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 12:25 PM
Actually, as is typical of liberals, you haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. As the number is not that of a private residence but of an organization that publishes its number expressly to receive calls from interested parties, it is prefectly legal to publish the phone number AND encourage people to call.

Nice try.
PhdisReality Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 12:17 PM
It's legal to post a phone number, it's not legal to do it in order to get others to make harassing or annoying calls, which is pretty much exactly what he did. Stuff like this is generally operates under state laws, but assuming Mr Ransom is indeed in Colo., (as I am) he's opened himself to potential charges as well as civil action.

The most likely charge under Co. law would be disorderly conduct, criminal mischief, or harassment.
AZYaateeh Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 12:07 PM
You're plainly not a lawyer.

Dude threatens him. He tells people about it. How the hell does that constitute "criminal harassment", crackbaby?

Perhaps it was the radio segment that I did this week asking for comments and feedback about unions. I asked on the air for people who were union members to call our listener line at 202-681-1732 or email us at

I was looking for comments about the good and bad that goes along with being represented by unions.

Still looking for comments, and now want them even if you don't have a union.  

Personally I think unions are outdated relics of an age that belong more to Stalin than to Dickens.

Or maybe it was the Facebook picture I posted...