Canadian Billionaire Sues Twitter For Nasty Things Twitter Users Said About Him
from the threatening-free-speech-from-abroad dept
A wealthy Canadian businessman dragged into the ridiculous "pizzagate" conspiracy theory -- thanks to his ties to the Clinton Foundation -- is suing Twitter for harming his reputation. The lawsuit filed by Frank Giustra doesn't target the users posting these allegedly defamatory statements, but rather Twitter itself… as though Twitter were the publisher of the tweets, rather than just the platform carrying them.
Mr. Giustra’s civil claim argues that tweets that began around February, 2015, “vilified the plaintiff for political purposes in relation to the 2016 United States election,” attempting to discredit Mr. Giustra over his charitable work supporting the Clinton Foundation.
The five-page claim includes an appendix with the text of dozens of “false, defamatory, abusive and threatening tweets,” many of which, the claim reads, “Twitter has neglected or refused to remove.” Many tweets associate Mr. Giustra with the widely discredited “pizzagate” conspiracy theory that connected then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to a fictitious child-sex ring.
This sounds like the basis for some Canadian version of negligence, but a closer look at the claims shows Giustra is actually claiming Twitter itself is defaming and attacking him.
“The targeted attack on the plaintiff was part of an orchestrated campaign to discredit the plaintiff in part because of his charitable and philanthropic work in support of the Clinton Foundation,” the claim states. “Twitter began publishing a number of defamatory and malicious statements regarding the plaintiff.”
[...]
Twitter also published threatening posts, the court documents state, including one that specified Giustra should be killed with “2 bullets to the back of his head.”
From this, it's clear Giustra is trying to hold Twitter directly responsible for users' tweets. This is being done despite Twitter taking action to remove some of the tweets Giustra reported to Twitter. This legal attack gets everything backwards, but presumably it won't matter because it's been filed in Canada, rather than in the United States.
Thanks to the Equustek decision -- one that said Canadian court injunctions against American tech companies should be enforced worldwide -- social media companies are much more inviting targets for aggrieved Canadians. Giustra can claim Twitter published these statements because Canadian courts are more than willing to erase the line between third parties and the platforms hosting user-generated content. If a Canadian ruling applies everywhere, Section 230 immunity is simply ignored.
Giustra and his legal representation have admitted Twitter isn't the right target for this lawsuit -- just the most convenient one.
Taking action against the dozens of individual users, Mr. [Frank] Kozak said, would require “endless litigation,” and not address future defamatory tweets. As such, he said, Mr. Giustra decided to take action against Twitter itself.
Will the court side with a plaintiff taking shortcuts to justice? Who the fuck knows? According to the recently-signed but not-yet-ratified NAFTA replacement, the USMCA, Canada is required to provide Section 230-like safe harbors to internet sites, but is permitted to do so via "application of existing legal doctrines as applied through judicial decisions" rather than the creation of new laws — but whether that will sway the court, or if a finding of liability here will simply signal that Canada does need new laws to comply with the agreement, remains to be seen.
And it will put Twitter in the impossible position of policing content when it doesn't even know what exactly it's looking for. Giustra also wants a permanent injunction blocking any tweets containing potential defamation of him or his work. How Twitter is supposed to accomplish this is anyone's guess, but it won't be Giustra or the court burdened with the logistical details.
Giustra's lawyer claims this lawsuit isn't intended to "censor thoughts, ideas, or expressions." But it's hard to see how targeting Twitter for things users posted will result in anything else.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: canada, defamation, frank giustra, intermediary liability, section 230, usmca
Companies: clinton foundation, twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Twitter also published threatening posts, the court documents state, including one that specified Giustra should be killed with “2 bullets to the back of his head."
"Saying mean things..." A little more than that.
Of course, the pro-230 crowd would rather he not sue Twitter, and instead sue everyone who repeats it "in their own words," as many inevitably would, once they searched his name (and already didn't like him). This would make lawyers who defend defamation cases very wealthy of course since it would produce a parade of defendants for them to bankrupt with legal fees.
Section 230 makes searchable defamation a ticking time bomb for anyone who finds it and then repeats it in their own voice. By suing Twitter, he's actually protecting the people who are too stupid to realize they shouldn't believe what they read online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think we all know the answer
How bro where’s at that evidence you were supposed to provide yesterday? Or are you gonna run away like a bitch again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I think we all know the answer
You're a little obsessed with this site, it would seem. I have very clearly explained the fatal flaw in Section 230 and how it sets up innocent people to be sued.
Obviously you have something big at stake to react with such verbal violence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I think we all know the answer
You sound triggered bro. Better sit this one out before you threaten to start raping people again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think we all know the answer
Of course you aren't the triggered one....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think we all know the answer
“Re: Re: Re: Re:
Watch your step, motherfucker.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think we all know the answer
That's triggered? No, that's a caution to people who like to pick on someone.
Your cyberstalking of me in the comments is the mark of triggering, especially since you keep quoting the same shit for so long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think we all know the answer
Protip for John.
Maybe the idea is to not post your Aspie rape fantasies where they can be quoted for reference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cite a case where your “explanation” was used to successfully sue someone, and we might give a damn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
WE? Voices in your head?
It's self-evident to those who don't wish to not understand it, or maybe your comprehension skills are lacking.
There are lawyers who run this scam a lot while pretending to be defending "free speech." Matter of time before one of their underlings flips on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
“Normally I wouldn't bother posting this, but since some would misconstrue my silence, I'm just posting that I'm not going to be posting after this, at least not here anyway. At some point I'll drop all the information I've accumulated and all the dots I've connected, but it won't be done here.
I'm sure the anonymous cowards will have fun continuing to give me a free corner office in their brain, or maybe someone will light the figurative match and start a figurative fire that will forever alter the internet landscape. Masnick is up to his ears in many not-so-nice things that are better expressed through the mainstream media, where "snark" doesn't cut it as a reply. The 4chan kiddies who post here don't do very well in that environment.
Cya. I won't be reading replies so don't act as if I did. I came here to accumulate evidence regarding a group of people who were responsible for repeated threats against my life, and who harmed several innocent people in the process. That evidence has now been accumulated. Some people seem to think it's funny to do that. I do not agree with them. So long.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Except after I left, I was accused six separate times of making posts I did not make. The only way to refute those claims was to return here. I had not foreseen that scenario. The only reason I came back was that, and once back, the original post no longer applied.
What on earth might be at stake that people are so concerned about silencing me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And this matters to an anonymous poster…why, exactly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Any time you see this you can stop reading. It's almost always an admission of the inability to explain or support a position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or that the scenario is self-evident.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you consistently fail at bringing one up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/11/another-court-says-its-ok-to-link-to-defamatory-conten t-slozer-v-slattery.htm
"Holzhafer, by providing a link to the challenged posting, without reiterating the content of that posting did not initiate a republication. Her motivations and her designation of the link with a “like” as alleged by Appellants, is not equivalent to a reiteration of the defamatory content as to constitute republication….[We] conclude that Appellee Holzhafer’s posting a link to the allegedly defamatory website with a “like” designation on her Facebook page, is not a republication of the content of the website sufficient to support a separate cause of action for defamation against her."
Note that the court specified "without reiterating the content of that posting," and noting that it was linked to.
This makes clear that NOT linking to a post and instead "reiterating" it would strip someone of 230 immunity.
There's your citation. Is Eric Goldman's blog a credible source? He's with the EFF.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So a newspaper that reports on a murder that happened now means that murder is legal?
...Are people not allowed to point out where other courts got things wrong in your world?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I think we all know the answer
"You're a little obsessed with this site, it would seem"
Hey, if you have that standard of IMAX projection you'd probably be providing far more worth to humanity by showing Avengers: Endgame on it and helping them break more screening records than you are posting here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think we all know the answer
Your obsession with me is still going strong, I see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think we all know the answer
You could always avoid the obsession by leaving. How has that thought not occurred yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I think we all know the answer
The "we" being a group of anonymous people who claim not to know each other, and therefore couldn't consider the source, or....
A group of people who DO know each other, and are acting and thinking in concert?
If the former, you're ignorant, and if the latter, you're lying. Which is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I think we all know the answer
You don't need to all know each other to recognize the same duck that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks about Section 230 incessantly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Still waiting on your imaginary evidence for this conspiracy theory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well the nerve in you that was struck sure seems to support it.
It's not a conspiracy either, just the natural result of Section 230 due to human nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh good! As such as a natural result it be easy to locate one example case. Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"the natural result "
In your head, or in the real world? You're yet to provide evidence of the latter, and nobody else gives a crap about the former.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The scenario is self-evident, for the reasons already stated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice of you to admit you have no evidence and can therefore be ignored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Twitter has neglected or refused to remove."
Distributor liability for defamation kicks in once the intermediary is put on notice. Twitter should have removed the postings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can you cite a case where this has been established?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Here's a search for the term. Section 230 was needed to eliminate distributor liability. The problem with Section 230 is that people find defamation online, repeat it in their own voice, and can be sued, basically because they didn't realize that the search engine was immune and they weren't. Huge flaw in the law.
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=81HLXPXRDqWIggeF6qXQBQ&q=distributor+liabili ty+libel&btnK=Google+Search&oq=distributor+liability+libel&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160l2.890.1 0337..10692...4.0..2.1087.8527.13j5j0j2j2j3j3j1......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..35i39j0j0i131j0i10j0i22i 30j0i22i10i30.4qE3b0BSlRw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So when everyone calls you an idiot and defames you, what you are really asking for is the right to be forgotten.
But you are verifiably a liar, fraud and scammer so you really don't have much standing to sue anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But you are verifiably a liar, fraud and scammer so you really don't have much standing to sue anyone.
This is the "can't slander an alias" loophole. Of course "Gary" doesn't believe this anyway. His tone shows just how nasty most people are though, a good lesson to remember when dealing with strangers offline.
As people here have pointed out, there is no RTBF in the US, so the only thing a defamed person can do is sue people who repeat the defamation in their own voice, which many inevitably will. When they do get sued, they get mad because they thought they could believe what was online, but they don't understand the nuances of Section 230.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Small (impotent) penis rule
How long did you name it after you promised to leave forever? 40 minutes? A whole hour? Do tell Jhon boi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Small (impotent) penis rule
I never PROMISED anything. God you're obsessed with me.
As I said, when I was accused six separate times of making posts after I had left that I had not made, the only way to refute that claim was to return. You're the one who screamed "Beetlejuice!"
You'll have to KILL me to get rid of me and you're too cowardly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And you are the one who answered, Betelguise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So odd that "Stephen T. Stone" has such a small internet footprint beyond this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So many lies, so little time
And just yesterday you know who the real STS was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But does he know the real Slim Shady?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So many lies, so little time
I know who he is. Anyone with half a brain could figure it out, though that rules out many who post here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So many lies, so little time
So how has he not been SWAT teamed yet, given that your hatred for him burns with the intensity of a thousand suns?
Inquiring minds want to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Small (impotent) penis rule
Poor Jhon. All you have are tired impotent lies. I don’t give a half piece of diarrhetic rat shit about you. I just like to make fun of old, self important, fuckwits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Small (impotent) penis rule
You've got a problem with old people? I've got two words for you then:
JUST WAIT....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small (impotent) penis rule
Nope, Some folks just never make it to old, they like to live on the edge and enter (the wrong) Uber cars while texting.. we know how that ended.
Wisdom comes with age, not great wisdom but wisdom none the less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small (impotent) penis rule
No.
Just old authoritarian fuckwits
Why do you ask bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small (impotent) penis rule
Old age and expirence will overcome youth and skill, everytime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small (impotent) penis rule
You haven't been paying attention to US politics recently, have you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is the "can't slander an alias" loophole. Of course "Gary" doesn't believe this anyway. His tone shows just how nasty most people are though, a good lesson to remember when dealing with strangers offline.
"You" don't exist. John Smith however is alias tied to fraud, abuse, lies, and slander. But You are an AC - one of many. Was I referencing You, or a different AC?
The AC that claims to be a millionaire history major is a liar, fraud and scanner. Which one are you?
We'll never know - any AC can step up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You" don't exist. John Smith however is alias tied to fraud, abuse, lies, and slander.
Proof by assertion is not valid.
I'm tied to nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No... but thanks for tying yourself to the alias John Smith.
You're really shit at this game called "anonymity", you know that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
John Smith however is alias tied to fraud, abuse, lies, and slander.
You sure it's an alias?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Common "John Doe" pseudonym, the fact that you claimed to use it for the purpose of being unidentifiable... you know, most liars have good memories to keep track of all the shit they spew.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also the fact that you literally mock another poster for "stalking an alias".
Nobody is going to hire you to be a soccer player, John, because the amount of own-goaling you perform is tragic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"The problem with Section 230 is that people find defamation online, repeat it in their own voice, and can be sued, basically because they didn't realize that the search engine was immune and they weren't."
Why is that a problem?
Also, immune is not the most correct word to use in this case as the search engine was not the one who posted whatever it is you are complaining about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, the search engine spread it, which is separate from publication. That's how distributor liability works.
Because of 230, however, those who search people by name stumble upon defamation, repeat it, and get sued.
This isn't difficult for anyone with even a moderate IQ to understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please cite a single case where this has ever happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The case wouldn't have to "cite" it since it's only the repetition that they sue over. That repetition is an original publication.
There are cases where people have linked to defamatory content and lost 230 protections due to comments attached to the link.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dig up stupid
Translation: I’m lying out my ass like usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cite two of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"There are cases"
Are there? Well, I guess we'll never know since you always refuse to back up your own claims. What a shame, as the evidence could bring people over to your side if it ways what you claim it does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
*https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/11/another-court-says-its-ok-to-link-to-defamatory-conte nt-slozer-v-slattery.htm
"Holzhafer, by providing a link to the challenged posting, without reiterating the content of that posting did not initiate a republication. Her motivations and her designation of the link with a “like” as alleged by Appellants, is not equivalent to a reiteration of the defamatory content as to constitute republication….[We] conclude that Appellee Holzhafer’s posting a link to the allegedly defamatory website with a “like” designation on her Facebook page, is not a republication of the content of the website sufficient to support a separate cause of action for defamation against her."*
Note the decision said "without reiterating the content of that posting." Had the defendant NOT linked to the posting, and instead reiterated it, she would have been liable.
When the original posting is on an anti-Semitic website, linking to the posting means linking to anti-Semitic content, which can cost people their jobs, as it did somewhere else at least once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is what you said earlier in this particular thread:
The case you cited does not fit the description; neither the person involved nor Facebook lost CDA 230 protections. Cite a case that fits your original definition or begone, fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is one of the reasons why I don't accept "Google it" demands from these people. When you get them to do their own research, what they come back with often doesn't say what they claim it does. It's far better to have a source that can be discussed on its own merits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“This isn't difficult for anyone with even a moderate IQ to understand.”
And yet you STILL have no idea how it actually works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right, he's admitting he doesn't even have a moderate IQ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"No, the search engine spread it, which is separate from publication. That's how distributor liability works."
"Because of 230, however, those who search people by name stumble upon defamation, repeat it, and get sued."
"This isn't difficult for anyone with even a moderate IQ to understand."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to use Section 230 to get rich:
Start internet arguments under your own name
Wait to be defamed (won't be long)
Continue internet arguments
Wait for people to find defamation in search engines and repeat it in their own voice.
Sue the people dumb enough to fall for 4) because they wanted to believe "dirt" about you.
This flips the script on the people who were trying to ruin someone's life by spreading lies to third parties who then "make the words their own." Sometimes these people deliberately target those they know will sue so that the defense lawyers who paid to have them defamed can swoop in and make a fortune "defending free speech."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bring it on motherfucker
Do you think if you repeat that lie enough that it will magically become true bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bring it on motherfucker
Sounds like you're talking to the mirror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bring it on motherfucker
Said the guy who outlined a triple agent get rich scheme via defamation lawsuit. Was Rube Goldberg your grandpappy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why is it that you are the only one who conjures up the wild scams that you believe are productive money makers?
In fact, when I think about it, all you ever do is complain about how section 230 allows all these different kinds of scams.... defamation, revenge porn, email lists, e-books, etc...
It basically sounds to me like you just keep trying to come up with a new scam to hoodwink people into giving you money you don't deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Either that, or you are just butt-hurt because, using the Internet, it has become very easy to see through your scam ideas and you don't want that kind of information published online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BINGO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Once again, they are taking advantage of the fact that an alias can't sue for defamation. They wouldn't dare post this and name anyone as they know what would happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You really do put the coward in anonymous coward jhon boi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Masnick's the only coward. Such a pity his daughters have such flawed DNA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Take your stalker-bait somewhere else.”
You really are the God Emperor of childish projection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Masnick's daughters must be so proud of Daddy welcoming bullies on his site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know Masnick has daughters? Better watch yourself, Herrick; stalker restraining orders still exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please cite a case where anything like this has ever happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No need, since I showed how it happens.
Take your stalker-bait somewhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, you did not — because being able to cite a court case where it happened would show both that it happens at all and that it happens exactly as you say it does. If you cannot cite a court case that aligns with your fantasy of how you think Section 230/defamation law works, you are spouting nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The internet is full of people who do exactly what I noted, quoting defamation in their own words. That is actionable. Any LAWYERS here want to say otherwise??
You sound like you have a LOT invested in this...can't imagine why LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Impotent threats are still threats
“I don't do police investigations.
As for the rest of the stuff, looks like it might be time to get that going. Getting REALLY sick of Masnick and his crew.
Every name that posts here is discoverable. Anyone who thinks they can harass me anonymously is making a very large bet on that.”
Still waiting bro...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Impotent threats are still threats
How are you being harassed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Impotent threats are still threats
They aren't, they're quoting the troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Impotent threats are still threats
Oh, it gets difficult to follow sometimes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Impotent threats are still threats
No worries, it doesn't help when they're quoting them and not putting it into italics to make it clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Impotent threats are still threats
Italics is against my religion.
Also I’m lazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Impotent threats are still threats
The Slack Awakens
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Impotent threats are still threa
Noice!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Impotent threats are still threats
If it’s not obvious it’s a quote from jhon when he threw his last hissy fit.
Because myself and others called him out on his obvious lies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Impotent threats are still threats
I'm being defamed as an alias to the point where posting as myself would inevitably lead to further defamation.
The defamation is being used to silence me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Impotent threats are still threats
If, under a new alias, you were to never deliberately lie about anything/anyone, then nobody could ever possibly tell that it was you, as there would thus be zero resemblance to you as Jhon Smith.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cite a single court case that proves your assertion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: put up or shut up old man
Of course you got nothing bro. Just, tired, old, impotent, threats, and lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"No need, since I showed how it happens."
No, you showed how your twisted scammy imagination believes it might happen.
We're asking you for how it actually happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is not how defamation law works and you can cite no case where this fact pattern has been shown, because it doesn't exist and would not work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wrong....someone who speaks the lies on their own is the original publisher who may have agreed with the defamation, but they published it in their own words.
Cite a case where someone got immunity for independently speaking defamation without just linking to it then. It's self-evident that they'd be liable.
Praying your daughters didn't inherit too many of your genes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Barrett v. Rosenthal seems to fit your bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Batzel v. Smith also covers it.
or Jones v. Dirty World.
Of course, I think what the troll is arguing is something that's twisted just slightly differently from what we're talking about. He's claiming (without any evidence) that because some defamatory content might be left online due to CDA 230, that will magically make someone else repeat the defamatory content without copying it or linking back to the original -- and then that new person might get sued for defamation.
What he leaves out, of course, is that the new person (and again, he presents no examples of this ever actually happening), could then point to the original content and you'd never get past the "actual malice" test, assuming the plaintiff is a public person.
But the idea that any lawyer supports CDA 230 in order to kick up more business for filing questionable defamation cases that will fail is... well... nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Billionaire who?
I'm Canadian. Who is this guy? I guess the rich have some really thin skin and think they are more important than they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“Mr. Giustra’s aim is not in any way to censor thoughts or ideas or legitimate expression – but it does seek to prevent publication of statements which are unlawful for a variety of reasons,” Mr. Kozak said in an interview.
Wouldn't that mean a court would have to determine the legality of every statement? If having "joe average" moderators review every tweet made would be ridiculously expensive, imagine how much it would cost if they had to be judges. I'm willing bet Kozak is in the pocket of Big Judiciary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A billionaire so hurt by this & he only goes after the platform not the people who said it, because it would be hard to hold the posters accountable.
We need to really mock the idea that suing whoever has the deepest pockets, hell perhaps a law to be added to the Federal Anti-Slapp law we need that when you sue someone for the actions of others you get that tossed & pay their court costs.
If I sued the billionaire directly because someone said something mean to me on property he owned, I'd get laughed out of court. But somehow we add 'on the internet' and common sense goes out with the baby in the bathwater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except distributor liability is well-established everywhere but in the US.
If someone is INJURED on his property, they could sue. He was injured on Twitter's property. Twitter could have just removed the postings but they were stubborn. Pride goeth before the fall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if I grant that he was “injured” on Twitter’s “property”, the person(s) who “injured” him are still directly liable for his “injury”. He should not get to sue Twitter because it is the easier (and wealthier) target to find.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, he should sue Twitter for enabling further defamation. That's what "distributor liability" means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm sure the guy whose house was robbed sued the city government for providing the road used by the burglar to get to his house, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
“Pride goeth before the fall.”
And that’s why you’re the king of projection Jhon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You stalk an alias...can't get more unproductive than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You stalk an alias"
No, he and the rest of us come to Techdirt and have conversations with or without you. It is you who is stalking us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What it is with piles of money turning people into toddlers...?
Giustra's lawyer claims this lawsuit isn't intended to "censor thoughts, ideas, or expressions."
In which case I suspect that his lawyer is either lying through his teeth, or has a seriously atrocious memory, such that he can't even remember what he's demanding in his own gorram lawsuit.
Giustra also wants a permanent injunction blocking any tweets containing potential defamation of him or his work.
If he wants anything that even might be defamatory blocked, permanently, he is absolutely intending to 'censor thought, ideas or expressions'.
Taking action against the dozens of individual users, Mr. [Frank] Kozak said, would require “endless litigation,” and not address future defamatory tweets. As such, he said, Mr. Giustra decided to take action against Twitter itself.
The fact that he flat out admits that he's going after Twitter simply because it's easier than going after the actual people he claims defamed him should, assuming the judge(s) involved have not recently suffered a severe head injury, get this case tossed quick and the lawyers told off for both being, and representing, such an idiot.
If the statements made about him are really such a problem then he can use his extensive wealth to go after those actually responsible; expecting another platform to act as his unpaid 'reputation protection' goons, to the detriment of anyone who might want to say anything about him shows a serious case of childish entitlement, someone who simply cannot stand the idea that people might be allowed to say not nice things about him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What it is with piles of money turning people into toddlers.
Twitter is the one enabling most of the harm. This is obvious to anyone with an IQ over 70.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What it is with piles of money turning people into toddl
The major difference between social media, and social spaces likes pubs and cafes, if that the people getting criticized can see the criticism on social media; but not that carried out in social spaces, where the most intent criticism is often by the people they interact with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...How does sueing twitter address future defamitory tweets? Defamation is rarely facially apparent, and even if it were is Giustra seeking a remedy that twitter manually review every tweet in existence to ensure it does not make a potentially defamitory refrence to Mr Giustra?
His lawyer is talking about proactive filters of any potentially defamitory tweet. That will certainly censor significant legal speech. May as well declare the internet illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Defamation is rarely facially apparent, and even if it were is Giustra seeking a remedy that twitter manually review every tweet in existence to ensure it does not make a potentially defamitory refrence to Mr Giustra?
Pretty much. He's trying to force Twitter to act as unpaid reputation protection goons, squashing anything that even might be defamatory towards him. Honestly, the ego and sense of entitlement is almost impressive, if for all the wrong reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, he's holding Twitter accountable as a distributor, which he can do in Canada or any country but the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wayne Crookes lost to P2Pnet.net, by the way. In Canada.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Like the MPAA, RIAA and the internet?
they want everyone else to pay to protect their IP, but not the person(s) who finacially benefit directly.
(I get paid for this but you have to pay to protect the fact that I get paid for this)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because if Twitter doesn't remove it, others will repeat it.
Masnick has a big dog in this fight and he's losing, hence the tantrum article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Until a court rules that someone can be successfully sued for defamation by merely repeating defamatory content, your assertion is best answered by two words: So what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It’s why they call you crybaby jhon
“Masnick has a big dog in this fight and he's losing, hence the tantrum article.”
He said as he continued to throw a tantrum because he couldn’t get anyone to believe to the stupid obvious lies he kept repeating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It’s why they call you crybaby jhon
Aww I struck a nerve again...how cute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It’s why they call you crybaby jhon
“Re: Re: you’ve got me there.
Keep talking, motherfucker.”
Since you got nothing but sad insults, impotent threats and tired lies. I think I’m just going to start quoting you bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It’s why they call you crybaby jhon
While there certainly is some humor in throwing their own words in their face, it's bad enough when they post that crap, they don't need someone else re-posting it for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If someone finds something in Google, then repeats it on their own, by saying "This person ___," without attribution, without linking, etc., they are the original publisher of that statement and can easily be sued as such.
People do this all the time. Those who are asking for specific cases are baiting for personal info so they can engage in an ad-hominem attack. Section 230 protects those who host content, not those who REPEAT LIES on their own. If it did protect that, then anyone who is lied about, even once, could be defamed in perpetuity, and libel law does not work that way.
Sometimes, the original publisher cannot be sued, either because they are anonymous, in another country, judgment-proof (or it's too expensive to sue multiple people who gang up on someone), etc. In that case, the defamation sits there in search engines, and whenever someone finds it and repeats the lies on their own, they can be sued for defamation as an original publisher.
The billionaire's lawsuit shows why he needed to sue Twitter. Twitter may not have been the original publisher, but they are the ones causing the most harm. Had they removed the postings when asked, they wouldn't be facing a lawsuit right now.
People who weaponize Google by lying about someone are attempting to use innocent people as pawns. Those pawns search, find the defamation, and repeat it (especially if they already dislike the Plaintiff). In doing this, they risk liability and don't realize this until it's too late because they weren't well-versed in internet libel law in the first place.
I trust the intelligent "silent majority" on this site (the ones who don't post but read) to understand this. The swarm against me for posting this shows that I have truly struck a collective nerve. If section 230 is eliminated, many people will have a lot to lose, and that is why some are lashing out on here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: poor crybaby jhon
“I trust the intelligent "silent majority" on this site (the ones who don't post but read) ”
Nah bro they are too busy laughing at you to type properly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: liability
If I am looking for the answer 2+2 and I search for it online and find that the answer is 5 and I state "2+2=5" and someone else says no it's 4 am I liable for a wrong answer?
If I look up "Joe shit, the ragman" and it says Joe is dead, and I say to my friends online (no, i don't really have friends) "hey Joe shit the ragman is dead" Does that mean that I libled him because he was still alive?
I was not trying to spread false information, the information given me (in good faith) was wrong.
this is why 230 is important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: liability
If I twit that a well documented news item is fake news am I liable for any repercussions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please cite a single court case that supports this assertion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At this point, I'd be happy if he'd cite any case that supports anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please cite a single court case that supports this assertion.
ANY case where someone made a standalone statement that was ruled defamatory would qualify. There are people who make such statements based on what they find online. It's pretty simple:
They get into an internet argument
They go looking for "dirt" on the other party so they can win the argument.
They find defamatory content on the internet.
It's too bad Masnick isn't taken seriously enough by a mainstream journalist to have them point out the same thing, because I'm pretty sure that journalist wouldn't get the same replies.
Now, if someone has been defamed, and was unable to defend themselves or find the publisher, the defamation winds up stuck on the internet. Whoever finds it after that and repeats is (without linking or attribution) is going to be liable as the publisher.
Simple scenario:
Someone calls Masnick a ___, and it winds up in Google. He couldn't sue for whatever reason.
Someone else then finds the posting that calls Masnick a ____ via Google.
It's bad enough that the original intent of 230 was not to protect users from linking to defamatory content, but to protect an ISP like Prodigy from having to police its message boards. The ridiculous expansion of 230 has caused people to weaponize search engines and link to what they find (in which case they can possibly be immune, though endorsing the defamation even with a link can result in a lawsuit).
Let a LAWYER disagree with this and go on record saying what the nonattorneys have said. Anyone can just ignore the clear logic and say the other person is wrong. It's also self-evident how easy it would be for an attorney to game 230 from either side: either set up the defendants to be sued and defend them, or represent the plaintiff who sets them up and win lawsuits.
Another scenario is if someone finds the defamation online and repeats it offline. There is no Section 230 protection for ANYTHING said offline. Once again, that is self-evident.
Yes, there are many cases where people and businesses have wound up sued because they repeated defamatory content they found about someone they did not like, or because they fired a female revenge-porn victim, etc. Naming the people involved would make them targets and there is no need to do that.
In other countries, like Canada, 230 doesn't even exist, so Twitter may very well be screwed here. It'd be great if they lost. They finally picked on someone with enough money to fight back. It's about time.
It's obvious the peanut gallery here REALLY wants Section 230 to survive, and is acting as if quite a lot is at stake. I'll leave it to the objective reader to guess why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then cite one or begone, you half-assed half-wit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So if someone says "This person is a rapist" without anything else in the posting, how is that someone else's content? That they may have found something somewhere on the internet has nothing to do with a standalone statement.
This is self-evident and doesn't even need a citation. If someone pretends not to understand this there's no point in reasoning with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So if someone says "This person is a rapist" without anything else in the posting, how is that someone else's content?
It's not. In which case you sue the guy who said that and not the platform he used. This is a slamdunk case of defamation.
The lengths you're going to in order to avoid suing that guy, and instead pursue the platform he used, suggests that you're in it for the money, not the reputation restoration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
ANY case where someone made a standalone statement that was ruled defamatory would qualify.
You mean like United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So... no citations, then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Another one of your failed scam ideas????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Amazing logic:
Of course, when it was a guy who didn't mind piracy, and people attacked his work, an explicit exception was made that noted the subjective assessment of one's work has nothing to do with copyright.
Also, of course, if this person used someone's real name while calling them a "scammer" they would be sued in a heartbeat. Inevitably, they'd go Googling, find the most disparaging lies they could find online, repeat them, and be sued again.
Some people have lost jobs or sponsors because they linked to defamatory content that happened to exist on a white-supremacist website or an anti-Semitic website. One young adult just lost a six-figure job because they repeated what they found in Google, and that became THEIR internet history. "Your employee has linked to a website that says Jews run the world and are evil. Does your business support this belief?" If you think this is not happening, you are wrong. Anyone with a history of linking to an anti-Semitic site might not lose their job NOW, but people change employers, set up businesses, and like people say, the internet never forgets. The one who lost the six-figure job made the linking mistake several years ago.
Now, because these people want to trash those they don't like, and they can't link to the defamation (which would convey Section 230 immunity), they have to repeat it without linking, at which point their immunity is stripped.
What do you think happens when these folks realize they were set up?
The disparagement (which would be defamatory if directed at someone other than an alias) is just more evidence of just how bush-league Masnick is. Real journalists are objective and logical. The people on this site generally are not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not really. Calling someone a scammer can be (and often is) an expression of opinion; opinions may be based on false information and insulting towards the target of that opinion, but rare is the day that a court finds one defamatory.
[citation needed]
…this is the dumbest goddamn logic. Repeating a defamatory statement, in and of itself, does not constitute a wholly separate act of defamation. If this were true, Wikipedia could not discuss the details of successful defamation lawsuits without losing its own 230 immunity.
People call me “asshole”, “pirate”, and “liberal” all the time; I have yet to sue anyone for it because any such lawsuit would get tossed out in a flat second.
“Real” journalists have biases that, try as they might, cannot be fully set aside in the name of “objectivity” or “neutrality”. (Nice “no true Scotsman” fallacy, by the by.) And “real” journalism will always have some bias in it because someone has to choose what to publish, what to distill out of the mass of available data, and what facts to check.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
*if this person used someone's real name while calling them a "scammer" they would be sued in a heartbeat
Not really. Calling someone a scammer can be (and often is) an expression of opinion; opinions may be based on false information and insulting towards the target of that opinion, but rare is the day that a court finds one defamatory.*
They'd still be sued, and it wouldn't be a SLAPP action. Scamming people is a crime, so it could be libelous per se.
One young adult just lost a six-figure job because they repeated what they found in Google, and that became THEIR internet history.
[citation needed]
Not if I don't care who believes me or not.
*because these people want to trash those they don't like, and they can't link to the defamation (which would convey Section 230 immunity), they have to repeat it without linking, at which point their immunity is stripped
…this is the dumbest goddamn logic. Repeating a defamatory statement, in and of itself, does not constitute a wholly separate act of defamation. If this were true, Wikipedia could not discuss the details of successful defamation lawsuits without losing its own 230 immunity.*
That's the fair-report privilege. Finding something in Google and declaring it to be the truth is most certainly an original statement, and even linking to one is republication/distribution, which is actionable in most countries.
disparagement … would be defamatory if directed at someone other than an alias
People call me “asshole”, “pirate”, and “liberal” all the time; I have yet to sue anyone for it because any such lawsuit would get tossed out in a flat second.
"Scammer" can definitely be libelous. The insults you cite are not.
Real journalists are objective
“Real” journalists have biases that, try as they might, cannot be fully set aside in the name of “objectivity” or “neutrality”. (Nice “no true Scotsman” fallacy, by the by.) And “real” journalism will always have some bias in it because someone has to choose what to publish, what to distill out of the mass of available data, and what facts to check.
Then they are not objective (real) journalists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then there are no “real” journalists. All journalists are human; they are as fallible as you or I, and they all have biases. No one — not a single person alive — can truly set aside all their biases and remain truly “objective” about anything. And besides, “view from nowhere” journalism is a false neutrality; acting as if Flat Earthers have the same credibility as actual scientists does nothing but misinform and mislead the public. If one person says it is raining and another says it is not, the job of a journalist is not to repeat both statements and let the audience decide which is true — it is to look out the fucking window and report which one is true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You just said all that garbage less than 20 minutes ago. Is the Alzheimer’s hitting that bad today bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"if this person used someone's real name while calling them a "scammer" they would be sued in a heartbeat'
Tell us your real name, and we'll try it.
You probably won't do this because you know that we can find hard evidence of your scams once we know which one to look for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
*"if this person used someone's real name while calling them a "scammer" they would be sued in a heartbeat'
Tell us your real name, and we'll try it.
You probably won't do this because you know that we can find hard evidence of your scams once we know which one to look for.*
US? This is a GROUP acting in concert, trying to extort my anonymity and dropping any legal action while admitting total disregard for facts in claiming nonexistent scams?
One piece of paper gets a lot of names from here, at which point one can see why they act as a group.
Threat to ruin someone's reputation is extortion under 18 USC 375. Throw in financial benefit to anyone and the Hobbs Act goes along with it. Do it relating to litigation and it's Sarbanes-Oxley.
No section 230 immunity for criminal conduct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You literally just claimed that you don't care if anyone believes you.
Hint: what you see is a response when people don't believe you.
Your reaction, on the other hand, is not of someone who doesn't care if he isn't believed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Since I am the one that called you a scammer, based on all the posts that you have made here, I am willing to unmask myself through a neutral third party and and you must do the same so that you can file a lawsuit against me for calling you a scammer, scammer. And there is one condition attached, if I prevail in the courts, you will be required to pay for my legal bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
PaulT is a lady with tens of thousands of phony comments and a phony profile. Do you really think PaulT will suddenly abandon her defenses and lay herself bare to actual repercussions? Seems unlikely.
If your want to sue PaulT, check out Wendy Cockcroft, which is a real name of a lesbian separatist leader of the Pirate Party in the UK. PaulT is Wendy, and Wendy has a long and storied record on the Internet - just google her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd love you to prove any of the allegations against me. It's a rather bizarre thing to be making up, especially given that you couldn't possibly have any evidence for the specific claims you're making - and not just because it's not real.
But, whichever fantasy you have to believe in so that you don't go out and harm people in real life is fine by me. It's a crying shame that the mental health services of your country have failed you so, but I'm happy you found a safe place to play with your demons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Either you're not a qualified, licensed psychologist, or if you are, you're violating ethics rules.
Imputations of mental illness should constitute fighting words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This coming from the guy whose go-to insult is "Aspie".
If you enforced your own rules, Jhon boi, you'd be six feet under. Under the Earth's core!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Check this out:
https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/wendy-cockcroft-web-design-wendy-cockcroft-interservecom/i nternet/wendy-cockcroft-web-design-wendy-cockcroft-interservecom-wendy-cockcroft-manchester-u-128016 0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A negative review which was responded to and the original poster was found to be lying? No idea what 230-damning point this was supposed to prove...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why would I sue over being called a scammer when I'm an alias?
There are other things that can "trigger" a filing. The brave souls here welcome this type of conflict, and now they're about to get their wish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't think you're invincible just because you pulled the wool over on one court, Janice. Remember how well that turned out for Shiva?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except I'm not Janice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, that much is clear. Because Janice Duffy, unlike you, actually knows to move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I trust the intelligent "silent majority" on this site (the ones who don't post but read) to understand this"
They do understand it. They just don't post because the regular get in to take piss out of you before they can.
The last refuge of the liar and con artist - when hard evidence and the people in front of him are disagreeing, pretend that the people and evidence he imagines in his head that do agree with him are the real majority.
"If section 230 is eliminated, many people will have a lot to lose"
Yes, they will. It's just a shame that you're too wrapped up in your fantasy world to understand who those people are - and it's not the ones you seem to think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They do understand it. They just don't post because the regular get in to take piss out of you before they can.
That's called BULLYING, or "starting shit." All that proves is that you, them, and especially Masnick are verbally violent pricks who deserve no mercy.
Don't try to make peace if you miscalculated. Seems you want a war. Very well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You've been starting this "war" for over a year and all you have to show for it are kindergarten sandbox insults.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
twitter sucks
twitter should rather be called bolsheviker as it is a propaganda mind cotrol tool for the (not very bright) masses who censor free speech and variety of opinions.
so let's hope this billionaire will win and make jack the dork dorkey spit a lot of money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: twitter sucks
ok
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Giustra also wants a permanent injunction blocking any tweets containing potential defamation of him or his work. How Twitter is supposed to accomplish this is anyone's guess, but it won't be Giustra or the court burdened with the logistical details.
"Potentially libelous" is easy to find: if the statement is false, would it be defamatory? Very simple standard.
Section 230 is going to be taken down by the SCOTUS anyway. I've heard from multiple sources that they have been waiting for the internet to be sufficiently built out before they throw Big Tech under the bus. It really is just a matter of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“Taylor Swift is a black transgender person.” This statement is false, but it is not defamatory because it is false. If anything, the fact that the statement is laughably, undeniably false to the point of absurdity prevents it from being defamatory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jhons not very bright
If you just restate the lie one more time surely someone will believe you this time bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Masnick has never been on the receiving end of a proper takedown. That is about to change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do something or be quiet, you impotent fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Funny for you to say that, since you seem to move every conversation is a sexual direction, or an anal direction, or both. Project much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Quite the projection artist himself
How many times I gots to tell u Impotent Jhon? Stop trying to insult people. You’re just embarrassing yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Quite the projection artist himself
You're using fighting words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Quite the projection artist himself
You wouldn't know a fighting word if it ran you over in traffic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Quite the projection artist himself
Once again, my obsessed cyberstalker is responding to someone who is not me as if they were me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Quite the projection artist himself
Your ability to change your IP address is duly noted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do not blame me for your obsession with anal sex and fecal matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So far ahead of you on that, "Stephen."
Masnick's the weak link in a rather large internet cabal. He's quite the threat to some very powerful criminals. It has been determined he will flip at some point. Pretty much a matter of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
^
Now that is defamation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually not, but now I can sue for declaratory relief, which opens up discovery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By all means, file a lawsuit against Mike and Techdirt…so Mike can publish a story about your lawsuit on Techdirt that features your legal name, which is pretty much a requirement if you expect to file (much less win) a defamation lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You REALLY do not understand libel law if you think that is actionable defamation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because you've demonstrated such a grade-A understanding of the subject matter so far...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Seriously, I could go into court tomorrow and file a complaint for declaratory relief that the above statement is NOT defamatory. I could then conduct discovery to support my claim, since a clear controversy has been created.
Do I REALLY need to do this? I don't take kindly to threats, and one was just made against me. Allowing the post to stand unchallenged is to allow the threat, which definitely gives me standing to clear the matter up judicially.
I'm not fucking around, Masnick. Try me if you think I am.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Awww did you get hurt by those mean widdle people? Any legal case you have will probably be welcome, it’s the whiny passive aggressive stuff that gets annoying. Which you probably know since you never back any of your whining up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Someone accused me of defamation (basically "whining" to use your term), which creates a controversy which entitles me to file a complaint for declaratory relief. Masnick doesn't have to post the threat here, since it's his blog and he's allowing it. In that case, his silence would be a tacit endorsement of the threat.
Google does this all the time.
Like I said: the post is NOT actionable defamation, for reasons which should be clear to an eighth-grader.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then go ahead and file the claim if you're so capable, you numpty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Excuse me, are you an attorney? Did you know the Unauthorized Practice of Law statute makes it a misdemeanor, or that ANY lawyer can file a UPL suit to protect the profession?
One piece of paper gets your name. You ready? The GANG on this site speaks only one language.
I don't care who you THINK you are fucking with but you're about to find out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've been dying to find out for over a year now. Who were we fucking with again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does that include the defamation lawsuit filed by Shitty Ayyamadumbass? Or does that not count because it failed miserably?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow, that was sad to see fail. Did the appeal fail too? I thought Charles Harder was more formidable than what seems to have actually happened. Oh well. I hear that Mike is about to hear from someone new - that’s good news. Can I donate to the cause? Or would that appear improper?
Why not set up a “good fund me” page to pay for the “proper takedown”. That could be good. Lots of people would donate. Make it a Paypal thing - that would be perfect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: so you could go fuck yourself
Hey hamilton do you finally make that shiva mask you wanted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No help is required to deal with these cockroaches who think endangering people with their internet conduct doesn't have consequences.
There's a reason most only run their mouths the way you do when hiding behind a computer.
Thinking someone can't afford or retain a lawyer is also a huge mistake. Twitter obviously fucked with the wrong person, as have many others.
Don't start conflicts you can't finish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bring it on motherfucker
Remember last time when you got all impotent promised to leave forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bring it on motherfucker
Who do you think you are responding to?
Weird.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bring it on motherfucker
No idea, he won't leave his name behind!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bring it on motherfucker
I never promised anything, and when I was accused of being other posters, the only way to refute that was to return.
You are using fighting words against me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bring it on motherfucker
An Anonymous Coward was accused of being an Anonymous Coward by an Anonymous Coward so the only solution for the Anonymous Coward was to return to talk to the Anonymous Coward about being called Anonymous Coward?
You seriously can't make this shit up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bring it on motherfucker
Ready for a subpoena to unmask you? You better be. Then run your mouth if you're brave enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bring it on motherfucker
I've been waiting for a subpoena for months from you.... where is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"these cockroaches"
Is this defamation?
Why not? You claimed being called a scammer was defamation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
wrong post huh ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He knows a lot more than he lets on.
Some people picked on the wrong target.
There are hardcore internet criminals around these parts. They think they're untouchable legally. They're not. Notice how they never post that shit under their own name. One of them started a fight a while back that he doesn't seem to want to continue. Hurt a bunch of people he assumed would just roll over. They won't.
Same thing with the Billionaire. Some 4Chan idiots thought it was funny to do that. Even Elon Musk is being sued for calling someone a pedophile. Ask yourself what you would do if someone called you a name like that and tried to sound credible while doing it. Then ask yourself if you'd show any mercy to those who stood by them or hid behind Section 230 while joining them.
This has nothing to do with Shiva.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fransexual
Are you wearing the Fran mask now jhonboi? It so hard to keep up with who fucking who with you scammers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fransexual
Those are "fighting words."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fransexual
Overall C minus, but I suppose you get a B+ for effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fransexual
You just gave me standing to subpoena your identity.
Of course I know you're ready, and that's a good thing. I know you'll say I should "bring it on" blah blah blah. Glad to accommodate you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fransexual
Yeah, watching an Anonymous Coward subpoena an Anonymous Coward is going to seriously make the courts take attention...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Notice how they never post that shit under their own name"
Yes, we notice that you always refuse to even offer a fictional handle to lie about and attack other people here, you always depend on anonymity to do that.
"Then ask yourself if you'd show any mercy to those who stood by them or hid behind Section 230 while joining them."
The people being sued are not the people who committed the action. The people "hiding" behind section 230 are the innocent. You are demanding that you be able to attack innocent people because it's easier than going after the guilty. What a scummy piece of trash you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And how weird is your logic? Very weird. “You refuse to even offer a fictional handle”. Really? You are telling someone that their anonymity makes them guilty while you lie even about your gender. Weird. Secondarily, the idea that you are talking to one person is just projection. Because the Techdirt voices (Mike and his gay friend) hide behind multiple names, they assume others do, too. They don’t. You are not talking to one person. There are a lot of people that laugh and ridicule Techdirt, because Techdirt is a disgusting public sewer where the majority of posters deal in and smear shit and and little else.
I must admit I am enjoying Techdirt in this new era of the USA - where the Russian Collusion hoax is being fully exposed, the perpetrators already know they will go to jail, and the proponents are unmasked as traitors to their own country. Including Techdirt, and those idiots who post here under false names, pretending to represent a group that exists only in their imagination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sigh... did your doctor forget to prescribe you a refill again? Those hallucinations must be quite scary, stay strong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those are fighting words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is that your new mantra? Better than "section 230 must die", I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“You are not talking to one person.”
The voices in your head don’t count bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You are telling someone that their anonymity makes them guilty"
That's funny - you call out someone for posting anon and then get panties in a twist cause someone called out your hypocrisy.
What does ones sexual orientation have to do with any of this discussion? Aren't you being a bit juvenile?
"new era of the USA"
"where the Russian Collusion hoax"
"the perpetrators already know they will go to jail"
"unmasked as traitors"
"idiots who post here under false names"
Is this a POE? Did I respond to satire?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
*"Notice how they never post that shit under their own name"
Yes, we notice that you always refuse to even offer a fictional handle to lie about and attack other people here, you always depend on anonymity to do that.*
Who says I'm lying? Baiting me into making myself a target is not going to work.
*"Then ask yourself if you'd show any mercy to those who stood by them or hid behind Section 230 while joining them."
The people being sued are not the people who committed the action.*
Twitter committed the action of spreading the defamation by refusing to delete it. This is called "distributor liability."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, posting on a site you hate the guts of is what makes you a whopping big target.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You just gave me cause to subpoena your identity.
Get ready.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You've had cause for subpoena for the past year.
Maybe the material you've had to work with for the past year isn't the Pulitzer, lawsuit-winning material you prayed it was. Sucks to be you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"There are hardcore internet criminals around these parts."
"They think they're untouchable legally. They're not. "
"Notice how they never post that shit under their own name."
"Hurt a bunch of people"
"Ask yourself what you would do if someone called you a name"
"Then ask yourself if you'd show any mercy to those who stood by them or hid behind Section 230 while joining them"
What are you going on about this time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Everyone thought Hillary Clinton was the heart and soul of the Democratic party, to be coronated in 2016, but then Bernie Sanders showed up with an entirely different trajectory and existence that had absolutely nothing to do with her.
Don't equate me with Shiva. I don't know if he "invented e-mail" or not, and I'm sure he did something that could be construed as furthering the technology, but on a jury I might award him a dollar in nominal damages even if I accepted his premise. Food Lion sued ABC for fraud when ABC had reporters apply for jobs there so they could investigate their meat department, and they won $2.00. President Trump sued the NFL on behalf of the USFL for antitrust and won a dollar, which was then trebled to $3.00.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ayyadurai’s work in creating the program he called “EMAIL” did not inspire anyone who was working on what would become email at the time of his work’s creation, nor did it influence the creation and development of the three “backbone” protocols that govern modern email. His work was created and existed in isolation, much like other in-house messaging systems of its day; it was most likely replaced with email as we know it today when the technology became viable and widespread. He did not “create email” in that he was the sole inventor/developer of email as we know it today, nor did his work do anything to further the technology to where it is today. Shiva Ayyadurai had no effect on the development of modern email; that anyone can believe him when all available evidence outs his claims as falsehoods is…foolish, to say the least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just minor reminder -
As of yet, it's not conclusive that the Butthurt Billionaire has been defamed.
As always, that determination can only come after adjudication by the court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Given what was said about him, I'll say he was defamed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Unfortunately for you, you're not a judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something nasty?
Can we stop downplaying what he's suing over? This isn't a Devin Nunes situation where he's offended people call him a poopyhead, he's upset because he's being linked to an international pedophile ring that only exists in the syphilis riddled brains of internet conspiracy theorists. The allegations are bad enough, but he's getting death threats from the kind of people who have proven to be stupid and dangerous enough to act on it, having shot up pizza parlours based on this lunacy.
Is suing Twitter the best way to handle it? Of course not, but don't pretend he has no cause to be angry and afraid about thus situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something nasty?
A law making any accusation of criminal conduct an unsworn statement to law enforcement would put a stop to the "__ is a pedophile" crap because the speaker could then be charged with perjury, while Section 230 would not be impacted.
Section 230 is unsustainable because it harms individuals. It's a matter of time before the "wrong" individual is harmed. Almost happened with revenge porn, and will happen as internet defamation goes more mainstream. Just like the police used to say "it's just the internet, turn off your computer" until people started posting about the police.
People DO act on internet lies and when they do, that's when police get involved and people start getting locked up, including the ones who thought it was funny to try to ruin someone's name by lying about them. A billionaire doesn't even need the court system. God only knows what he could do if he really wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Something nasty?
Calling someone a pedo is basically a direct threat on their life. Once a threat like that is made, it's like pointing a gun at someone. You can't take it back, and the person you pointed it at is going to be PISSED.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Something impotent?
So do you have something to confess Jhon boi?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Something impotent?
Those are fighting words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Something impotent?
You might want to consider wiping off your nose at some point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Something underage?
How many kids did you fuck jhonboi?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Try not to sink to their level, they're not worth it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which level do you mean with respect to “not to sink”? The ones talking about a mask, or a confession, or having sex with children? I believe those are regular Techdirt posters that are NEVER censored. The lowest of the low disgusting filth is NEVER censored here, but well written and inspired (and inspiring) opinions of great authors and poets and dignitaries are REGULARLY censored - how terrible is that? The really low stuff is OK, but great writing from great authors is hidden.
Sink to what again? Techdirt is already well established way below the sewer line.
I know several great authors and poets and dignitaries that agree (with me).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hey hamilton hows that election campaign going bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Name three.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Me, myself and I.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I can play that game too....
I know several olympic hopefuls, two US Senators and one wookie who all agree (with me) you are a scammer who lies!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He's using fighting words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Good, you learned how to use other pronouns...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, we've already got confirmation that John personally enjoys stomping on "little boy dicks".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Something nasty?
"Calling someone a pedo is basically a direct threat on their life. "
So Alex Jones threatened Hillary?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Something nasty?
It's incitement as a threat, not a direct threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Something nasty?
So no, then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Something nasty?
"People DO act on internet lies and when they do, that's when police get involved and people start getting locked up,"
Really? Why is Alex Jones not in jail?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Something nasty?
Those who acted on pizzagate wound up arrested.
Of course, a smart child-sex ring would put out pizzagate as disinformation to discredit those who were getting too close to the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Something nasty?
Don't worry. You're not that smart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Section 230 is a bunch of words on paper that we call a “law”. It is neither capable of harming people nor able to become a living, sentient being and commit that harm. Other people cause that harm; humanity, then, is the “unsustainable” proposition here.
I understand how people can feel hurt by mean things said on the Internet. That goes double for people who have to face coördinated campaigns of harassment and uncoördinated pile-ons that, yes, can include death threats. But I do not blame a platform for those campaigns/pile-ons because I would also have to blame other platforms for allowing the coördinated campaigns to be coördinated on said platforms. If I were to blame Twitter for allowing TERFs to carry out coördinated reportbombing campaigns against trans people (and their allies), I would also have to blame Discord or Telegram or whatever platform(s) the TERFs used to coördinate the campaign in the first place. That goes down a dark, dangerous road where platforms would lack any immunity for what its users do without the foreknowledge and direct aid of anyone who owns/operates the platform.
230 exists to prevent such an outcome — to ensure that liability for legally punishable speech lies with the people most directly responsible for it. The only way a platform can be held responsible is if someone who owns/operates it directly helps with the creation/publication of said speech; after all, 230 does not protect a platform from the consequences of what is essentially its own speech. If that makes suing someone directly responsible for defamation a harder task than suing the easiest and wealthiest target (i.e., the platform for that speech), I can live with that consequence.
Social interaction networks such as Twitter and Facebook are a hell of a thing. I believe the world was not, currently is not, and may never be prepared for the consequences and effects of SINs that offer “instant” communication that virtually anyone can see. But blaming the platform for the problems caused by its users (including defamatory statements and death threats) means missing a key bit of logic: People who are assholes with the platform will still be assholes without it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“People who are assholes with the platform will still be assholes without it.”
Yes, oh Chief Asshole, I’ll bet you’re. LOT of fun in person.
Are you actually Mike? Or black? Or gay? Or any of the hundreds of things you have claimed to be?
Are you a bot? Or a group of people? Maybe an ACLU lawyer now and then?
In person, that would be clear, and you could only reach those within the sound of your voice. On the Internet, you can reach nearly everyone on the planet.
IMHO, your use of the latter should leave you open to be held to account when you defame someone. Fuck 230.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't get invited to a lot of parties, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No (something for which Mike is surely grateful), no (and never claimed to be), no (bisexual), and you will need to be far more specific.
No, fellow human; no, we are not; nope, because that would mean I would have a decent job.
I am liable for defaming someone regardless of how and where I do it. Section 230 provides immunity from that liability to the platform I used. Try to keep up, champ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So... what is behind your obsession with peoples' race, gender and sexual orientation in conversations where such things are irrelevant? What are you repressing?
"you open to be held to account when you defame someone"
The key point being YOU. People should be held to account for their own actions where there is something that is damaging. The problem is - you are trying to demand that innocent third parties are held to account instead of those doing the defaming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The problem is - you are trying to demand that innocent third parties are held to account instead of those doing the defaming.
Distributor liability says that the third parties are not innocent. They are spreading the defamation and, in the case of search engines, causing the lion's share of the damage. A notice-and-takedown scheme would prevent this but they allow themselves to be weaponized.
Of course, since defamation sits on the internet, anyone who finds it and then spreads it in their own words winds up sued for it. Someone who has been badly defamed can just go around introducing themselves to new people, let nature take its course, and sue any of these new PUBLISHERS for defamation once they repeat what they find in Google. It's not the target's fault that the people he or she meets choose to believe and repeat internet lies. In that case the publisher (of the repetition of the lie) is being sued, so you shouldn't have a problem with that.
As we know, average people are fully versed in Section 230 so they would know that the search engine is immune for displaying a lie they find online, but they are not immune if they repeat it, in their own words. A standalone posting that repeats an internet lie is a wholly new, separate publication. "Somebody somewhere called him a rapist" isn't much of a defense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Someone who has been badly defamed can just go around introducing themselves to new people, let nature take its course, and sue any of these new PUBLISHERS for defamation once they repeat what they find in Google
Apparently someone's speaking from experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Section 230 is a bunch of words on paper that we call a “law”. It is neither capable of harming people nor able to become a living, sentient being and commit that harm. Other people cause that harm; humanity, then, is the “unsustainable” proposition here.
Legalizing murder would be "just a law that doesn't harm anyone." Great logic you have there.
Outside of the US, most every country recognizes distributor liability, which you pretend not to understand (even the US had it before 230 and still does offline).
However, if someone is defamed and can't sue the search engine, all they have to do is sue anyone who repeats, in their own words, what they find in the search engine. The defamer wanted to use these people as pawns anyway, and is the one who set them up. The defamed just continued on with his or her life without hiding.
Simple example at a party:
"What's your name?"
"John Smith."
The person Googles "John Smith" and finds defamation.
"HEY EVERYONE! This JOHN SMITH is a _____!"
The person who does this is now the original speaker, and will be sued by John Smith.
Like I've said, anyone who has been defamed can weaponize Section 230 the way those who defamed them weaponized Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Cite successful cases in other countries where the big sites have lost such a case, because if you are right there should be thousands of them for you to cite.. I will not hold my breath.
Also note, that as an anonymous poster, with a recognizable style, you have worked very hard to gain the reputation you have on this site, and it seems likely you have done the same elsewhere on the Internet, and ruined your own reputation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Cite successful cases in other countries where the big sites have lost such a case, because if you are right there should be thousands of them for you to cite.. I will not hold my breath.
You mean like THIS?
https://slate.com/technology/2012/11/milorad-trkulja-australian-man-wins-lawsuit-against-googl e-over-defamatory-search-results.html
Apology accepted.
Also note, that as an anonymous poster, with a recognizable style, you have worked very hard to gain the reputation you have on this site, and it seems likely you have done the same elsewhere on the Internet, and ruined your own reputation
My reputation is fine to those who matter. Also, if I weren't anonymous, and you said the same thing about me, you'd be endorsing any defamation which would exist and would be liable yourself. In fact, you prove my scenario quite nicely, since people believe what they read online if it's about someone with whom they already disagree.
It's time to get the courts and the mainstream media involved and bring to the light everything done in the dark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Definitely. Wheels are already in motion.
ALL records on this site and in a lot of other places are now discoverable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cool, can't wait to find out who you are and who you think pissed in your cornflakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
More like I was accused of defamation, which "creates a controversy" and I have the right to get declaratory relief from a court of law that says the posting is not actionable, which it almost certainly is not.
In the process of proving that the post is not actionable, I am entitled to discovery. Also SLAPP could easily apply if I'm being threatened like that to the extent it's a possible motive of the person who accused me of defamation.
Some of us do have the means to file suit if the need arises. I've been ganged up on on this site for quite a while now. Time to unmask the gang. I did not create this controversy; someone hell-bent on winning an internet argument, did. They could have chosen to let my post stand without comment but instead gave an unsolicited, likely unqualified legal opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All the records on this site show... anonymous cowards yelling at each other.
Maybe in your universe that's worth something?
You being entitled to discovery or benefiting from defamation laws would require a name to benefit from pursuing the case, which you've staunchly refused to give. Then again, on the Internet nobody knows you're a dog.
Seriously, you've been trying "unmask" the "gang" for what, a year? Two? Enough of the coy flirtation act already!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Therein lies the grandest of ironies: To get anywhere with his case (which is one step shy of “nowhere”), he would need to give up his anonymity, at which point all the things he claims will happen to him if he gives away his identity could happen (but I doubt they will). His choice, then, is between making impotent threats under a mask of anonymity or attempting to sue people under his real name for having poor opinions of him. And judging by how hard he has worked to hide his identity up to now, he will not give up his anonymity that easily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, someone ignored the link to the Australian case where Google was held liable for its search results.
Think the mainstream media will take a site seriously that does this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Think the mainstream media will take a site seriously that does this?
Thanks for reminding us again that a fringe website that still has no idea who you are occupies so much office space in your head.
(Okay, I lied. It's pretty obvious who you are, Prenda fanboy.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something nasty?
"Is suing Twitter the best way to handle it? Of course not, but don't pretend he has no cause to be angry and afraid about thus situation.'
I don't think anyone's mocking him over the reason for his actions, only the actions themselves. If someone gets robbed at gunpoint, and their reaction is to sue the manufacturer of their getaway car, mocking them doesn't mean people don't take armed robbery seriously.
He has every right to be upset, especially in light of the fact that some people have taken physical action over such a laughably obvious hoax. Everyone else has the right to say that his reaction is the wrong one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... but the light is better out here.
Is suing Twitter the best way to handle it? Of course not, but don't pretend he has no cause to be angry and afraid about thus situation.
And if he was going after the people making allegations/threats against him he'd have a whole lot more sympathy, but when he flat out admits that he's going after Twitter because it's easier, with a pretty obvious goal of forcing them to squash any speech he doesn't like in perpetuity(despite the bald-faced lie to the contrary), any sympathy kinda gets thrown out the window.
If people are saying bad things that might result in loons taking dangerous actions then go after them, don't go after the tool they happen to use simply because it's easier and you want to force them to act as unpaid censors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something nasty?
The end never justifies the means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They want everyone else to pay to protect their IP, but not the person(s) who finacially benefit directly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insulting that billionaire or "explaining" Section 230 to him doesn't seem to be working very well, does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Neither did Herrick trying to sue Grindr but that's never stopped you, has it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Reality never stops you...
https://gizmodo.com/google-found-guilty-of-libel-over-search-results-5963536
https://blog.eri cgoldman.org/archives/2015/11/another-court-says-its-ok-to-link-to-defamatory-content-slozer-v-slatt ery.htm
(content immune if not "reiterated" by linker).
Let Eric Goldman himself weigh in on this if he's got the nerve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And let's see the amount of reputation Miklord Trumpface managed to restore his reputation by:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh and you CAN make the other side pay your attorney fees in a libel case. It's called Rule 68. Offer them a dollar, and if they lose, they're on the hook for your legal fees for not accepting the offer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here's something else for you to chew on, Jhon boy:
Thomas Goolnik.
Thomas Goolnik, Thomas Goolnik.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]