Message archive from Lisa Marie Scott's Official Yahoo Group at LisaMarie

Search    From    Subject    Date    Email

Home      Random

Previous      Next

ID Number: 733
From: arlo_speer <>
Subject: Re: Censorship
Date: Sunday, April 14 2002 - 00:33:03

jrichins i agree with everything that you said but just wish to add
one thing. I especially agree with your statement about people's
personal information.

Would i like to know more about Lisa? Sure. Would I publish private
information about her? No. I think that that probably sums up most
of her decent fans

anyone like lisa who makes her living by packaging herself and
selling her image, especially when that image is one that has sexual
overtones has to expect that people are going to want to know more
about her personal life. I am sure that lisa realizes this and that
she takes this into account when she puts out information about
herself. Why else would she chose to use a stage name? I am also
sure that she is aware of what a double edged sword putting yourself
in the public view in any way can be. In today's society you can't
expect people to accept the good that you put out without wondering
and trying to find out what is behind the image. Just look at the
news. Even the mainstream news is more and more tabloid all the time.

if you look at defamation, slander and libel laws you will see that
there are different standards enforced for public figures than there
are for private individuals. This is for a number of reasons
including the fact that people who put themselves in the public view
invite public scrutiny and everything that goes with it. this is the
reason for the love-hate realtionship that many celebrities have with
the media

i'm not saying that people have the right to pry into Lisa's life
because they don't but I am saying that any rumours about her are
probably of great interest to her fans, many of whom, i am sure,
harbor various fantasies about her.

A rumour, printed and labelled as such is, in both my opinion and
that of the Supreme Court, fair comment as long as it is clear that
we are dealing with unsubstantiated allegations and it is not spread
with malicious intent.

From everything that I have heard and seen Lisa is a terrific person
and I hope that she is able to get everything that she wants in her
life but i think that trying to deny or censor people's perceptions
and questions about her is a battle that, in the end, can serve only
to erode her popularity and starts us on the slippery slope that the
first ammendment attempted to avoid.

--- In lisamarie@y..., jrichins2000 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Thank you Arlo for voicing your concerns. I may not be able to
> resolve them totally, but here is my response:
> >
> > A couple days ago there were two posts removed, one talking about
> > rumor of a friend of a poster dating lisa and I responded with my
> > theory.
> >
> > Yesterday there were certain rumors posted about Lisa at the
> >mansion that were pulled.
> Yes... I was the one who removed them. I did not take this action
> capriciously. In addition, I did briefly confer with other
> moderators, including Lisa, before taking the action that I did.
> Your post was removed as well, not because it crossed any lines of
> appropriateness, but unfortunately, because it included the
> text of the earlier message.
> As to the posts that were removed - they each contained information
> relayed second-hand, and which was obtained under dubious
> credentials. You have described them as rumours, but they really
> amounted to libelous gossip. In various posts - I don't remember
> which message numbers - some guidelines have been laid out for what
> constitutes an "appropriate" message for this club. Within these
> guidelines, all posts are welcome... whether they are from posters
> who respect Lisa or not, whether they have malicious intent or
> The guidelines are basically as follows:
> + No copyrighted material
> ==>> This horse has been beaten dead, I think, and everyone
> understands it.
> + No messages that are off-topic
> ==>> Once again, everyone understands this. If you're not here to
> talk with other fans about Lisa, then you're in the wrong place.
> + No messages that possibly invade the privacy of any member,
> including and especially, Lisa.
> ==>> If anyone managed to publish my real name, or Raymond's
> card number, or Lisa's home address... well, you can see my point.
> There is a difference between information about Lisa that is in
> the "public sphere" and which is private. This club can only be
> concerned with information that is public. Information only enters
> the public sphere by being published, confirmed, or shared by Lisa
> herself. Slic_ and I have been fan/friends with Lisa long enough
> (and Lisa also knows herself pretty well, I think) that we know
> intuitively what info has been in the public sphere for quite a
> while. As moderators, the responsibility to make judgements over
> what messages contain public knowledge falls to us. It is not a
> responsibility that we take lightly.
> Let me repeat once again... This club is only concerned with Lisa's
> public persona. The moderators will NOT allow this private club to
> become a forum for invading Lisa's private life. Her private life
> her own, and is entirely separate from her public persona.
> Information regarding her dating habits or what goes on in the
> mansion, is NOT public knowledge, even if it were true. Prying
> have tried to peek into "The Grotto" for decades... doesn't this
> inherently imply that what occurs on Mansion grounds is not
> automatically subject to be published. Even the tabloid papparazzi
> have a hard time peeking into the Grotto.
> >Remember that no matter what we
> > may feel about her she does make her living by taking her clothes
> >off
> > and tittilating men and therefore we have to expect at least some
> > sexual undertones to many posts.
> Sexual undertones are OK. However, the tone of this sentence seems
> to imply that if a person removes their clothing for a photo, they
> thereby surrender their rights to privacy. If I'm misreading you,
> please forgive. But simply because Lisa has served as the subject
> a rather esoteric art form, that does not give her fans license to
> speculate on her private life. Basically, Lisa is a model, not a
> whore.
> I appreciate your comments. I appreciate the fact that the posters
> here generally do admire and respect Lisa Marie Scott very much. I
> hope my comments have been helpful.

Previous      Next

Home      Random

For the message list CLICK HERE

For missing messages CLICK HERE

Contact me with any problems, suggest a correction, or a change.
Please include the 'ID number'/search terms/what is wrong/any other information that you can think of and I will try to correct it.
Click Here to contact the webmaster