April 8, 2014 § 1 Comment
It’s been awhile and Miss Crazy had really settled down but the insanity is beginning yet again to rear its ugly head, this time in the form of stealing images. Shame, Crazy – Shame.
On October 2nd, she posted an image of “herself” at a “local ethnic festival in Winnipeg”
Shortly after, it was taken down. Most likely due to the fact that someone discovered the image’s true source.
But this wasn’t enough…
on April 4th the image theft struck again.
The following can be found very easily simply by dragging the posted image into Google’s image search…
and on and on.
With all this lunacy, what still confounds us the most is the fact that so many people really believe these images are of Crazy. Ever heard of bone structure? It seems pretty racist that she herself thinks that all Asians look alike.
May 3, 2012 § 18 Comments
May 1, 2012 § 9 Comments
March 6, 2012 § 10 Comments
This blog has received a few comments throughout its history complaining about defamation of character, libel and slander. We thought it was high time to set a few things straight, with information directly from The Canadian Bar Association (You can check it out yourself)
Defamation: Defamation is communication about a person that tends to hurt the person’s reputation. The communication must be made to other people, not just to the person it’s about. It can be spoken, which is called slander, or it can be written, which is called libel.
Libel: Libel is the type of defamation with a permanent record, like a newspaper, a letter, a website posting, an email, a picture, or a radio or TV broadcast. If you can prove that someone libeled you, and that person does not have a good defence, then a court will presume that you suffered damages and award you money to pay for your damaged reputation.
Slander: Slander is the type of defamation with no permanent record. Normally it’s a spoken statement. It can also be a hand gesture or something similar. The law treats slander differently than libel: with slander, you have to prove you suffered damages, in the form of financial loss, to get compensation.
So, at this point you may be saying “Well, this blog is most definitely defamation and libel”, but wait –
What are the defences to a defamation lawsuit?
-Responsible communications on matters of public interest
This is the part that we want you to pay close attention to.
Truth: A statement may hurt your reputation, but if it is true, anyone who says it has a valid defence if you sue them for defamation.
Yes, to all you people who are disgruntled by the blog – there are no lies here. You can hunt through the blog, and all you will find is screen shots of things Miss.Nakamoto or her cohorts have done. As we’ve said many times, they are the ones that keep this blog alive. “But you write your personal opinions along with these truthful photos” you may say. Well, we’ll be getting to that shortly.
Absolute privilege: *does not apply to this case*
Qualified privilege: *does not apply to this case; though it does apply to those who have worked with Joan in the past and have commented on her behaviour VIA other venues*
Responsible communication on matters of public interest: In a December 2009 case, the Supreme Court of Canada established this new defence to a libel claim. The court said that journalists should be able to report statements and allegations – even if they are not true – if there’s a public interest in distributing the information to a wide audience. This defence, which looks at the whole context of a situation, can apply if:
-The news was urgent, serious, and of public importance, and
-The journalist used reliable sources, and tried to get and report the other side of the story.
The court defined “journalist” widely to include bloggers and anyone else “publishing material of public interest in any medium”
As crazy as you are Joan, you will be happy to hear that yes, you are in fact public interest. Check out the hit counter on this blog and you’ll see that. Some content on this blog is definitely more important than other content but the readers want updates about you and expect these on a regular basis.
Fair comment: We all are free to comment – even harshly – about issues of public interest, as long as our comments are honest statements of opinion, based on fact, and not malicious.
Since our comments are all based on things Joan herself has done, and aren’t, for example, saying “Hey, everyone go out and hurt her in some way”, we are in fact completely justified in speaking harshly of Joan. If you don’t like it, you are also free to that opinion. We will never block comments from people arguing what is written on this blog.
Summary: The law of defamation protects your reputation against false statements. If a person makes a false statement to someone and it hurts your reputation, you can sue the person who made the false statement for damages. But because of other competing rights in our society, such as free speech and fair comment, you will not always win.
That concludes our lesson for a day.
March 3, 2012 § 11 Comments
Joan has switched over to Timeline on her page! It would seem she got something unexpected however, in the form of an old tagged post re-appearing – one that never showed on her page before. It is now very prominent. If you can get past her garish banner, check it out on the wall below! It’s nice to see, that all opinions good and bad are welcomed on her page – at least, until she sees the bad ones and deletes them.
We also thought it was worth pointing out how she is now trying to get the point across that she knows how to be “flexible” in her modeling.
Below: Joan shows the world how varied she can be. Really! She’s varied! She swears!
February 17, 2012 § 8 Comments
Things are heating up on the WFP – we thought for sure that the first post by Joan Nakamoto had to be a joke account making fun of how she calls everything a feature, but apparently that was the real Joan being just as ridiculous as always.
She’s proceeding to defend herself in typical Joan fashion, ie. failing, and we are most certainly finding it blog-worthy!
It’s just too bad we couldn’t check out those deleted comments before the fact… anyone catch them while they were there?