Tony Robbins Crosses The Atlantic For Some Libel Tourism In Ireland; Files SLAPP Suit Against Buzzfeed
from the slappity-slapp-slapp dept
Tony Robbins is American. Buzzfeed is an American news organization. Last week, Buzzfeed published its sixth story in an investigative series about Robbins, that included a story of Robbins allegedly sexually assaulting a high schooler at a summer camp in California. Which, last I checked [looks around quickly], is also in America. So, you might wonder why it is that Robbins has sued Buzzfeed in Ireland. Robbin's lawyer, Paul Tweed has tried to defend the decision to sue in Ireland, but I'm having trouble seeing how any of this is convincing:
"My client is entitled to have his name cleared. In my opinion the Irish courts are just as capable of making that determination as the English courts or the American courts," said Mr Tweed.
He said Ireland would be the appropriate forum for both sets of proceedings as Twitter’s European headquarters is in Dublin.
"It is totally appropriate that we try to keep everything under one roof," he said.
Wait, what? He's suing Buzzfeed, not Twitter, though apparently he's threatening to sue Twitter too. For what?
Mr Robbins is not only aggrieved with Buzzfeed’s coverage, but the manner in which it has spread on social media platforms.
Mr Tweed said his firm had put Twitter "on notice" of a potential lawsuit.
That's not how any of this works.
Of course, the real reason to sue in Ireland is because either lawsuit would be laughed out of court in the US. The bar to prove defamation against a public figure like Robbins would make it nearly impossible for Robbins to win a defamation lawsuit here, unless he could somehow prove that Buzzfeed made up the reporting, which seems highly unlikely. And, of course, Section 230 of the CDA would protect Twitter. Even in Europe, it seems unlikely that Twitter could be held liable for how other people tweeted, just because Mr. Robbins is "aggrieved" about how this story spread.
Robbins himself put up a laughably bad defense of this legal strategy in a Medium post that actually starts with exactly why his lawsuit should be thrown out with Robbins being told to pay the defendants' legal fees:
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter said, “Without a free press, there can be no free society.”
Freedom of the press is central to the democratic experiment and our last, best line of defense against those in power who threaten the rule of law.
Yeah, that's why we don't let rich assholes sue the media every time they publish an unflattering story. But, I guess, with Ireland not having a 1st Amendment and all, you figure why not jump on a bit of libel tourism to show them who's boss?
Robbins' Medium post does highlight some of those quoted in earlier stories who later repudiated their quotes or said they felt pressured by Buzzfeed's reporters. But that, alone, does not make the original reporting defamatory. And, the fact that Robbins is suing in Ireland, rather than the US certainly suggests that his lawyers here know that he'd lose big time if he tried it here (which also means that any attempt to try to collect money in the US should he somehow win these lawsuits under Irish law, would be easily blocked by the SPEECH Act, which bars attempts by libel tourists to go oversees to get a judgment and then enforce it against US parties).
Buzzfeed, for its part, stands by its reporting.
We learned today that Tony Robbins has started legal proceedings against BuzzFeed in Ireland following a series of reports on allegations of inappropriate sexual advances, verbal abuse and, most recently, an alleged sexual assault of a teen. This reporting is based on hundreds of interviews, audio recordings, and documentary evidence, and we stand by it unequivocally.
Mr Robbin has chosen to sue us abroad rather than address the detailed account of the woman who said he attacked her; the two women who say they saw it happen; and the accounts of dozens of others. The fact that he doesn't even seek to address these claims, choosing instead to abuse the Irish court system and attack BuzzFeed, speaks for itself.
To be fair, Robbins does pretend to try to address the latest claims of assault in his Medium post... but his "response" is basically "that was a long time ago" and nothing else:
Today, BuzzFeed published another article riddled with falsehoods, concerning an alleged incident from 1985, 34 years ago when I was 25 years old. (I turn 60 in just a few months).
He does not note a single "falsehood" in the story. Instead, the rest of his post is basically a smear campaign against Buzzfeed, filled with out of context statements and innuendo (exactly the kind of thing he claims Buzzfeed is doing to him). He complains about their journalistic technique of asking a source to confirm a story, saying that the source called Robbins instead because he "felt [the reporter] had an agenda." That may be interesting, but is not defamatory. It also goes on a weird tangent about "current research on the topic of memories" to suggest that "memories can be influenced and distorted." Look: when you don't actually respond to accusations of sexually assaulting a teen, other than to say it was a long time ago, and then start babbling on about how memories can be distorted, that doesn't make it sound like you're denying anything. It makes it sound like you're scrambling for excuses.
It seems that Tony Robbins is the latest in a long line of very wealthy men who get so upset about journalists reporting stories they'd prefer not to see who tries to SLAPP them in response. Robbins is adding the overseas element here, perhaps recognizing how badly such a lawsuit would fare in the US. But, as Buzzfeed itself notes, this kind of cowardly attack speaks for itself.
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: defamation, free speech, ireland, libel tourism, paul tweed, reporting, tony robbins
Companies: buzzfeed
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Fuck Buzzfeed, its one of the worst of the new media that started the clickbait trend. Let them burn side by side with the steaming pile of crap leftover from gawker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
OK, Tony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Start down the road of wanting to destroy news outlets you don’t like and you’ll always find more outlets to destroy. Walk the road long enough and you’ll stop coming up with reasons to destroy them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Keep going, I'm discovering a new fetish. Who burns after CNN? Inquiring minds want to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two things.
Your fetish is not my responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Aww... it's so easy to bait you lately, and your responses are so tired. Are you afflicted with Seasonal Affective Disorder? You should change your profile to SAD T. Stone for the holiday season!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is with the 4chan-level trolling today? Seriously, did /pol/ link here or some shit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"What is with the 4chan-level trolling today? Seriously, did /pol/ link here or some shit?"
I'm guessing it's all just good old Baghdad bob. Every time Bobmail/Jhon/blue got a good hiding for his latest nonsense back at TF suddenly the next few threads were briefly yet intensely swarmed by random trolls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Pots and kettles come to mind - or are you so intellectually challenged (probably) that I have to explain this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
OK.
Then, when someone tries this crap against an outlet you do support, there's already precedent against them - and you've gleefully demanded it's available to be used against them. Bravo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“It is in your moments of decision that your destiny is shaped.” — Tony Robbins
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tony Robbins is a greedy, power-hungry asshole who refuses to address credible accusations of sexual misconduct against him but has all the time in the world to travel abroad and sue a news outlet for reporting those accusations.
Tony, if you’re reading this and you’re pissed off about it: Sue me in Ireland, you free speech-hating shitbag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What are we collectively if such people gain power? If millions of women are abused, how are millions of abusive men getting laid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I believe it's called “rape”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most abusers don't rape women, and many women stay for a long time with them. As women say, it's millions of women who are abused, so millions of abusive men are getting laid by these women. Seems like a moral hazard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not really sure what you are trying to say .. perhaps I am misreading between the lines?
Are you one of those who think it is impossible to rape your wife?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I take it you’ve never heard of marital rape or coercion. A woman can be abused by “consenting” to sex even though that consent comes at metaphorical (or possibly literal) gunpoint. “Sleep with me or lose your job” is coerced non-consensual sex — i.e., rape — and you might want to reëxamine your relationship with anyone who tells you otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I take it you’ve never heard of marital rape or coercion. A woman can be abused by “consenting” to sex even though that consent comes at metaphorical (or possibly literal) gunpoint. “Sleep with me or lose your job” is coerced non-consensual sex — i.e., rape — and you might want to reëxamine your relationship with anyone who tells you otherwise.
Funny how it's never prosecuted as rape even when alleged. I suppose women who sleep with the boss to get a job can be tried for prostitution too. By your definition, women can (and do) rape men. Still, most men aren't bosses and most men aren't even abusers, but most women seem to be drawn to them (or there wouldn't be so many abused women).
Women who have looks tend to know they weren't really the best qualified in the first place (law offices are the worst and are often loaded with current/former sex workers or just golddiggers trying to marry a lawyer). Just ask the unattractive women who aren't hired what was going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, not really. I’m not sure what the charge for that would be, but I don’t think it wouldn’t be prostitution.
Yes. Women can, and have, raped men by coercing them into what would clearly be considered non-consensual sex if the genders were reversed. That men don’t report it as often as women due to societal stigmas (e.g., the difficulty in proving to a jury that an erection is not consent) says nothing about whether it happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"most women seem to be drawn to them (or there wouldn't be so many abused women)."
"Women who have looks tend to know they weren't really the best qualified in the first place"
It takes a special kind of asshole to hold these thoughts.
I suggest you seek professional help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Jhon seems a very appropriate name for you bro. It’s literally the only way you can get laid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
wow a SIMP on a website run by another SIMP who's stuck with an aging wife.
Because the site allows comments about men, women, and dating, it would appear the love lives of those who run it would be fair game and in the public interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bless your heart, but 4chan-level insults are not gonna get the job done for you, child.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And the commenters too bro. How many prostitutes do you hire a year Chris?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I thought we were all on the same page that Jhon was out_of_the_blue, Herrick, or Bobmail.
When did he turn into Chris?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you abuse your spouse as a coercive tactic to get her/him to have sex with you, I classify that as rape. Any sex that's not consensual on equal footing IS rape in one form or another, even though some rapist hide behind the excuse "that is not what the law says".
And if anyone feel the need to post the excuse "but why don't the abused spouse leave the relationship" they're an idiot for resorting to victim blaming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, YOUR view is what matters, not the actual law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps you might share your knowledge of said law ... lol, sure you will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you are one of those that don't think coerced sex is rape then...
Hello Anonymous Rapist! Or perhaps you are just another internet slug of a coward that support rapists, which seems to be the truth if I look at what you posted earlier. I have no doubt that someday someone will give you a quick kick in the groin if it hasn't already happened which seems likely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
“Most abusers don't rape women“
Speaking from experience I see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Melissa Benoist never claimed she was raped. Many abused women stayed willingly because they "loved" the abuser, yet somehow they verbally abuse some nonviolent man who points out their stupidity, and show the mouth that got them hit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cool, cool, justifying non-defensive physical violence against women.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What, if anything, does this have to do with the article about this Robbins dude?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Circular reasoning and victim blaming galore.
It seems you are an asshole who thinks it's okay to hit someone if they talk back at you. Gee, why am I not surprised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if he hadn't done wrong, anywhere, he wouldn't have to defend himself everywhere! with a bit of luck, Irish courts will fuck him off and he'll have to go back to the States and get no luck there!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He should not be able to sue buzzfeed ,he does not live in ireland,
buzzfeed is not located in ireland,
its not like facebook which has a large office in ireland.
why should buzzfeed be subject to irish law.
he using ireland as a venue because theres no section 320 law there .
or very few laws re free speech .
Theres irish laws against harassment on the web or copyright infringement .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I was in Dublin in July and stayed in the hotel next to Twitter's Dublin office. It's not a very large building, and Twitter don't even occupy the entire building. I don't know how many people are employed there but it won't be a very large number.
Hopefully the court sees this for what it is, venue shopping, and tells Robbins to sue in the US where it makes jurisdictional sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robbin's layer, Paul Tweed
Such professionalism...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And, of course, Section 230 of the CDA would protect Twitter.
Only in America, and not for very long, after 60 Minutes educated the public on its flaws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good thing that 60 Minutes isn’t the Supreme Court or Congress and that public opinion would shift after virtually every social interaction network lays out how the elimination of 47 U.S.C. § 230 would also eliminate virtually every social interaction network. Otherwise we’d be in a pretty shitty country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sure 60 Minutes (who brought down Nixon btw) might note that countries that don't have Section 230, like England, Australia, or India, somehow manage to still have social media networks. Isn't that amazing?
Besides, most outlets that write stories about how 230 would kill comment sections already abolished theirs.
BTW the difference between a platform and a publisher is that the platform is what is called "dumb pipes."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I thought that CNN was the devil and full of fake news, what has changed and why did I not get the memo?
Certainly the Conservative News Network would be highly biased, so why reference a hated source just because you like the news they are presently reporting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
60 Minutes isn't CNN.
I was noting that 60 Minutes would influence those "idiotic masses" many here whine about, to dislike 230.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And every interactive web service reliant on 230 to even exist could influence more people than 60 Minutes simply by putting a “we can’t exist without Section 230” message on its site where everyone can see it. DeviantArt, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, 4chan, Mastodon instances, Wikipedia, Reddit, and virtually every other site like those could put a “we need 230 to exist” message as an overlay on the site upon its next load to a specific user, and I guarantee that would catch more attention than a 60 Minutes segment.
Or did you forget all about how well that worked for the SOPA/PIPA protests?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or did you forget all about how well that worked for the SOPA/PIPA protests?
FOSTA was passed and Article 13/17 did pretty well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you think the passage of a bill that destroys or severely weakens 230 would happen when virtually every platform for third party speech would both come out against it and ask their users to do the same…well, in the words of Wade Barrett, I’m afraid I’ve got some bad news!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
John Smith is in the business of sucking politicians off until he gets the copyright-flavored ass dildos he wants.
Small wonder he doesn't like women or hookers; they're competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Article 13/17 did pretty well."
Until it actually starts getting implemented and the EU member states discover just WHY it's such a shit idea. Can't. Frankly. Wait.
It'll be the data retention directive all over again.
And FOSTA was indeed passed and is currently in the process of demonstrating just why passing it was such a very bad idea. Everyone who voted or spoke in favor of it now has egg on their face while trafficking victims line up describing how FOSTA makes situations like they experienced WORSE.
Truly, Baghdad Bob, your act hasn't gone uphill since the old days at torrentfreak. A little random trolling, spouting some abuse, and denying reality really DOES make your day when everything else fails, doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It may have something to do with their being very few court cases trying to hold them responsible for user posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There have been plenty of cases. More like notice-and-takedown works just fine.
60 Minutes is a little more credible than this website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you ignore all the ways that system can be (and has been) abused vis-á-vis copyright, sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“60 Minutes is a little more credible than this website.”
And yet you’re here and not there bro...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Perhaps you aren't aware how much content is disappeared outside the US-jurisdiction. That is mostly due to the fact companies outside the USA seldom have ANY other choice than to take down content because they don't have the protection of 1A and 230 so there are no real discussion taking place around it outside the USA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There is a good snark to hunt, disappeared content with no outcry on social media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps you aren't aware how much content is disappeared outside the US-jurisdiction. That is mostly due to the fact companies outside the USA seldom have ANY other choice than to take down content because they don't have the protection of 1A and 230 so there are no real discussion taking place around it outside the USA.
Content in the US disappears because whistleblowers get retaliated against online and defamed (like Rose McGowan).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/rose-mcgowan-racketeering-harvey-weinstein-david-boies-lisa-bloom- 1203380925/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So your citation that a lot of content is removed in the USA without anyone noticing it, is Harvey Weinsteins efforts trying to publicly discredit Rose McGowan.
Perhaps you missed the point that nothing of what Rose McGowan said has somehow vanished into thin air. For some reason the actions against her actually made her statements more visible instead.
Try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your evidence of public content being "disappeared" is publicly available content?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I believe their point is to demonstrate that whistleblowers are retaliated against, which they believe would have a chilling effect on others. If so, they aren’t wrong, but I’m not sure how that refutes anything you guys have said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even if true, that doesn’t really have any relevance to the topic at hand about §230, 1A, and content disappearing outside of the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those countries also lack laws that do what 230 does — i.e., laws thatprotect users from being sued for repeating someone else’s speech — and the UK has literally sent the police to the homes of people who sent “impolite” tweets. Not really the example you think it is, huh, champ?
Irrelevant to the discussion.
Nah, fam, platforms aren’t meant to be “dumb pipes”. You’re thinking of Internet access providers (which most people would call ISPs). The IAP’s purpose is to provide a “dumb pipe” to the Internet — i.e., a connection that doesn’t (and shouldn’t) care whether the next site you visit is Google, Twitter, Techdirt, The Pirate Bay, Amazon, or Pornhub.
Platforms are not “dumb pipes”; while they may provide a place for people to speak their mind, they are under no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to host all speech. 230 makes clear that the moderation of a privately-owned platform, whether it’s private or open to the public, is protected by law. If 230 didn’t do that, no platform could moderate any legally protected speech, including spam and White supremacist propaganda. 230 was written specifically so platforms could moderate speech. One of the men who drafted it said so on the Congressional record, and he also cited the idea that a “family-friendly” platform needed the legal right to moderate speech so it could remain “family friendly”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nah, fam, platforms aren’t meant to be “dumb pipes”. You’re thinking of Internet access providers (which most people would call ISPs).
ISPs have TOS but can still be "dumb pipes" in that they are NEUTRAL. That's what is meant by conservatives who link the two. The idea is that if you want immunity from distributor liability, you don't take sides regarding content. Universally imposing restrictions on SPAM or certain speech in a consistent manner still makes the site a "dumb pipe" for other content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They can claim to be so. But unless they literally allow all legally protected speech — spam, racist propaganda, what have you — they are not “neutral” towards all speech.
No, the idea is that immunity from distributor liability requires not moderating content. That means every bit of speech that is legal must be allowed without moderation of any kind, because — as the Prodigy ruling made clear — without 230’s protections, moderation of some content would make a company legally liable for all the content it didn’t moderate.
No, it doesn’t. Under the Prodigy ruling, a service that moderates spam would be held legally liable for all the speech it doesn’t moderate. 230 exists to make sure platforms and services have the legal right of moderation. Services that call themselves “family friendly” actively require the right of moderation to remain “family friendly”. Losing that right means the “family friendly” service must either let through all content without moderation or shut down, and all to avoid a lawsuit over content it didn’t moderate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He wants pipes to be neutral, allow his smack talk against women who spurn his advances, and everyone to preemptively punish anyone he thinks might be mean to him.
The geniuses of copyright, ladies and gentlemen...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do remember the college lawsuit that never seems to get coverage here...why is that?
$44 million over calling someone "racist" wasn't opinion there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Does that "college lawsuit" story have anything to do with this dude and his silly temper tantrum?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Has to do with story selection, another way a media organization can show bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But what does that have to with this story?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Story selection has to do with why EVERY story is chosen or not for coverage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So .. nothing then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did you cover it on your super cool blog bro?
No well STFU then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Mike a lawyer?
He sure draws legal conclusions in his articles.
Does Mike have financial ties to lawyers who might get in trouble if they said certain things themselves?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you have a point?
Are you fox news just asking questions?
Have you stopped beating your wife lately?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My point was quite clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ah...but you didn't address the beating of your wife question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Clear as mud, perhaps if you were to state exactly what your point/issue is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That Mike runs this site as a backchannel for a small group of lawyers who want to say things without attribution due to the professional consequences it might bring?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prove it or shut the fuck up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL. What?!?
That's a new one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually this person (I assume it's the same person) has suggested that before. And when asked for any evidence promptly clammed up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sure you have good reason to believe this, perhaps you would share same?
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You may need to quadruple the amount of tin foil you are using for your hat. Wow!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not sure if he needs to cut back on his meds or quadruple the dose too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah yeah. And when we call you out on our obvious bullshit you’re gonna fly into a drunken rage and threat death and destruction. I think we’ve all since his dance a few times before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"That Mike runs this site as a backchannel for a small group of lawyers who want to say things without attribution due to the professional consequences it might bring?"
Would that happen to be all those lawyers who say the exact same thing Mike does, in public?
I'm not sure what's sadder. That every time you fail to magically paint Mike Masnick into a villain role with shit rhetoric and a conspiracy theory you have to double down on the insanity of the next conspiracy theory...
...or that as deep in la-la land as you appear to be the most interesting hypothesis you could think of posing is that MM somehow runs a subversive anonymity service for a bunch of lawyers desperately afraid for people to find out they're not in favor of draconian copyright and fascist legislation.
It's really remarkable, Bobmail. You got the moniker of Baghdad Bob because of the truly unbelievable yet slightly entertaining way you'd hold long twisted dark fairy-tale rants you couldn't find in dystopian bad sci-fi.
And now this.
I want my money back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, you get what you pay for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Well, you get what you pay for."
In all fairness I'd have to say that's never been true. But true enough, I doubt anyone even halfway sane would pay Baghdad Bob actual money for his writing.
Doesn't mean no one does, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Poor old impotent fuckwit
Yeah. You got nothin but sour grapes bro. That point was clear years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And why does one have to be a lawyer to cover such topics? Are you a lawyer to ask if Mike is a lawyer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And why does one have to be a lawyer to cover such topics?
Kind of like one need not be a neurosurgeon to write about the medical implications of a surgery, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What type of expert are you and how does that "authorize" you to post your opinions here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"What type of expert are you and how does that "authorize" you to post your opinions here?"
In the past he's claimed expertise in Law, IT, business, and engineering. He's also a great entrepreneur, writer and producer.
So old bobmail/Blue knows everything.
Reality doesn't agree with his self-assessment but that surely only proves you can't please everybody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Uhm, you don't have to be a neurosurgeon to write about medical implications - you can for example be a scientist doing research in the medical field. There are actually a lot of people who can write about it because you only need to be a doctor to practice medicine, just as you need to be a lawyer to practice law.
If you can't understand the difference, you are beyond saving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Truth is not a defense against a libel lawsuit in some places.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Must be why that free speech hating, accused abuser, whiny, thin skinned, twat Tony Robbins filed suit in Ireland then.
Looks like the Nunes Effect has now been exported.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Certainly, but if you prefer it that way perhaps you should move there then (which I predict wouldn't end well for you).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well you're so NEUTRAL when it comes to me that your words are...
Don't have to move there to sue there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which is the entire goddamn problem with libel tourism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then you you old impotent fuckwit. I’ve got subpoena blue balls the size of grapefruits from all the times you threatened to sue me bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Truth is not a defense against a libel lawsuit in some places."
Where ... hell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Japan, IIRC.
You can say something bad, and based on facts about someone, and still lose a defamation suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do they call it defamation?
It is possible that someone could be a well liked celebrity of sorts simply because they were good at coverups and just one leak of their true selves would destroy their lives, I guess so but unlikely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
After everything that's happened in the US lately, you find it hard to believe that celebrities can have their reputations tanked when the truth about their character comes out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I mean that their lives suck to begin and when the truth comes out it is not solely responsible for their demise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, I don’t know that you worded it properly. It’s more like, “I guess so, but I doubt that that’s the sole cause of that their life was so perfect beforehand.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, that is indeed much better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gah! Something got screwed up in transmission.
“I guess so, but I doubt that that’s the sole cause of that or that their life was so perfect beforehand.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And you’re probably not a registered sex offender in some places.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Accused" means nothing.
People can lie. Why didn't the accuser go to the police or speak up sooner?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's truly sad that after everything that's happened over the last few years, people like you still need to ask that question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's truly sad that after everything that's happened over the last few years, people like you still need to ask that question.
It's a very legitimate question of due process. What #metoo has been is barely above a witch hunt. Numerous women have been proven to have lied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Numerous women have been proven to have lied.'
...and many more actual victims who had to live with years or decades with what had happened, unable to speak because they knew they'd be dismissed and destroyed if they said anything, finally got their stories heard.
I agree due process is an issue, and some women are bad enough to try and profit. But, you don't get to fix the issues that allowed this to happen for decades by telling people their stories don't count because they took too long to dare to say them. Didn't work with pedo priests, and it's not going to work with raping bosses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree due process is an issue, and some women are bad enough to try and profit. But, you don't get to fix the issues that allowed this to happen for decades by telling people their stories don't count because they took too long to dare to say them.
The SYSTEM rewards liars. Women are the ones who allowed this to happen with their silence. Many who came forward in the 1990s were believed, particularly on Wall Street. Many women use sexuality as a meal ticket and #metoo is messing with their money. Not every woman is a lesbian feminist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well aren’t you just the cutest little Schrödinger's misogynist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Always seeing only the good in people is admirable but it is also myopic. If you don't believe there are women out there who do indeed use their sexuality for profit then you probably also don't believe there are people out there who game the welfare system. Believing that the whole world is honest paints a pretty picture of life on Earth but it is largely inaccurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m sure there are women who use their sexuality for profit. (I visit Pornhub, for God’s sake.) But to imply through the word “many” that even a bare minimum majority of women do it is bullshit.
And yes, I’m sure there are people who game welfare systems, too. But they’re likely not very good at it. Why? Because anyone who is good at fraud can make a lot more money in business and politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did they ever find Reagan's welfare queen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, they’re called the 1%. Or does it not count as welfare when rich people make money doing absolutely nothing and pay no taxes on that accumulated wealth?
(No, but for real, a woman named Linda Taylor was the inspiration for that ridiculously classist, racist, and sexist trope.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"does it not count as welfare when rich people make money doing absolutely nothing and pay no taxes on that accumulated wealth"
Good point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure, but they're not abusing the welfare system to get something they shouldn't have gotten; They're abusing the tax system to avoid paying something they should have paid. All the more heinous, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only people who have a stick up their ass about meetoo always seem to be serial rapists and sexual harassers. And given your propensity for making rape threats I think it’s clear that your terrified your past will come back to haunt you. Ain’t that right Chris?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Women are the ones who allowed this to happen with their silence."
You really hate rape victims, don't you.
What's your opinion on the Terry Crews story, or Kevin Spacey's victims? What about Victor Salva's kids?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That’s you. That’s you right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because in the real world, people actually need to process events before coming to grips with them and what to do about it. For some, this can be a lengthy process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And that doesn’t even get into the notion that some people stay quiet to keep their lives from falling apart — e.g., an actress staying silent about abuse from a powerful film industry executive so she doesn’t lose roles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And that doesn’t even get into the notion that some people stay quiet to keep their lives from falling apart — e.g., an actress staying silent about abuse from a powerful film industry executive so she doesn’t lose roles.
Yet she (or he) could work with indies who'd be happy to have a name. Instead, s/he is so power-hungry that s/he tries to tame the badboy rather than work with the ethical alternative. That means she's just mad she lost, not mad at the game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow. You really do hate women, don’t you? Tell us the story of how a woman fucked you over and how it caused you to hate all women. Was it your mom? I bet it was your mom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"That means she's just mad she lost, not mad at the game"
When you consider sexual abuse, even rape, at the hands of the people in charge to be just part of the game, you should really ask yourself what caused you to become such immoral scum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Yet she (or he) could work with indies who'd be happy to have a name."
Oh, and just to add, this is how far outside of reality you are - these victims usually aren't "names" at the time, they;'re usually abused when they are unknown and thus have zero power. You think it's hard as an unknown actress at the best of times, just wait until you've been blackballed by everyone with a say in what roles you get!
Oh, and you know who the biggest player in the indie market used to be? Harvey Weinstein. So, even your idiotic suggestion wouldn't even be an alternative. He might not have been able to stop your indie projects getting made, but he sure as hell could have stopped them from being distributed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"people actually need to process events before coming to grips with them"
It's often not about coming to grips with things. A woman telling people that 80s Cosby or 90s Weinstein wouldn't have had a hope of any result other than having their career spectacularly destroyed with no consequences for either man. That's why they kept doing it for so long - if someone did speak up, it posed little real danger until lots of other women realised they weren't alone in being victims. Which took time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's often not about coming to grips with things. A woman telling people that 80s Cosby or 90s Weinstein wouldn't have had a hope of any result other than having their career spectacularly destroyed with no consequences for either man.
That's a copout, and if your scenario materialized, it would reveal that not just the abusers were the problem, but those who retaliate against whistleblowers. Wall Street had its "boom boom room" scandals in the 1990s, and the world's largest law firm had a senior partner pay $6.9 million in another case (think it was reduced). What's changed is that our daughters didn't listen to their "house moms" saying "this is how the world works."
Someone who says "I didn't speak up for what's right because it would have cost me money" isn't exactly a moral compass. By speaking up, and letting the consequences play out, the truth comes out more quickly. Women were quiet out of selfishness not out of courage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does this apply to the victims of child abuse in the Catholic Church, who also stayed silent for years (often well into adulthood, and sometimes even into old age) out of fear that they wouldn’t be believed or would suffer consequences that would throw their lives into disarray?
If not, explain why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"if your scenario materialized"
If I were you I'd stop being such an asshole and read up on the times where it did actually happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They weren’t silent out of courage, no. However, I disagree with just about everything else you said.
First off, the silence wasn’t courage, but the later speaking out often is.
For another thing, for a number of those victims, they initially blame themselves, believe it’s a personal issue that shouldn’t be made public, believe the right thing to do is to “fix” the abuser, or are in shock. The first three aren’t demonstrative of a weak moral compass; you may believe it’s wrongly calibrated, but there are moral arguments in favor of them, and it’s certainly not indicative that the moral compass isn’t strong. The last one isn’t something any moral compass can fix; it’s roughly equivalent to giving the navigator with the compass a concussion or disrupting the compass, whether with a strong magnetic field or with a strong shock (which can disrupt the magnetism in the compass if it doesn’t just break the compass entirely).
And it’s not just, “It will cost me money,” either. It could also cost them their jobs entirely, their friends, their family, or their reputation. (Look up “victim-blaming”.) On top of that, they may fear physical or verbal retaliation from the abuser. I suppose that may be selfishness to you, and it certainly isn’t courageous, but I don’t think a moral compass is enough to get past that.
And yes, those who retaliate against whistleblowers are part of the problem. I fail to see how that refutes or diminishes their point, though. Either way, it’s perfectly understandable that victims would remain silent, regardless of their moral compasses, and removing §230 or 1A won’t fix that.
And if the “moral” thing to do would have no consequences for the abuser(s), then is there really any point to it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"First off, the silence wasn’t courage, but the later speaking out often is."
...and when they finally do, idiots like this loudly demonstrate why they would have been afraid to speak out in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"That's a copout, and if your scenario materialized..."
There are about a thousand well-documented court cases of just this exact scenario playing out, so that scenario is not only well established, it's also pretty damn clear in the picture it paints.
I wish I could hope you're just confused, but after seeing the exact same arguments carried half a dozen years ago on Torrentfreak by "Bobmail" I'm pretty sure what really has you on the opposite fence of every moral standard in the world must be the way you keep thinking the victim is always, invariably, the one to blame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Because in the real world, people actually need to process events before coming to grips with them and what to do about it. For some, this can be a lengthy process.
People with a strong ethical compass know what to do immediately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even people with strong ethical compasses can sometimes be put into a decision in which their ethics mean less than the consequences of following them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You realize that “coming to grips” with something includes “accepting that it actually happened”, right? Also, people with a “strong ethical compass” may have an even stronger sense of self-preservation.
Then there’s the fact that a “strong” ethical compass is not necessarily an accurate one, and that a traumatic event can knock the compass out of whack (much like can happen to a real compass). For one thing, they may blame themselves for what happened. It’s unfortunately common.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are driving a car, suddenly a pregnant woman holding hands with a child appears in front of you. There is no way you can stop in time and you can only swerve so much that you will miss one of them.
What do you do?
You are at a mall with a good friend and his daughter. Suddenly a man nearby pulls a gun and starts shooting people at random. You are too far away from the gun-man to do anything, suddenly he points the gun in the direction of your friend and child.
What do you do?
At work, a co-worker confesses to you that she discovered that the company embezzled most of the money in the company and the CFO has threatened to kill her and her family if she tell anyone and you know that the CFO has a shady past and will most likely follow through on the threat. Do you blow the whistle anyway and most likely get her killed or do you keep quiet until the company files for bankruptcy while all the employees loose their jobs.
What do you do?
You discover that your daughter is a drug-addict. If she is found out she will be kicked out from the university and lose her scholarship. Do you try to help her and hide her habit so she can stay at the university or do you force her to go to rehab which the university will find out which will make her hate you for the rest of your life?
What do you do?
People who talk about "strong ethical compass" and how easy it is to make choices never have had to make life-altering choices, because doing the right thing in some instances is one of the hardest decisions you will ever make and it's never easy and those decisions will follow you for the rest of your life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only dumbasses think being good is easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dumbasses, or the lucky and/or wealthy who have been so sheltered that they've never found themselves in a position where the 'good' choice will actually cost them something real and significant, and as a result they simply cannot imagine why anyone else would ever struggle in a choice like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Dumbasses, or the lucky and/or wealthy who have been so sheltered that they've never found themselves in a position where the 'good' choice will actually cost them something..."
And then there's the sociopaths who doesn't see the benefit of doing "the right thing", but know it adds credibility to categorically state that anyone who doesn't is weak and therefore deserves anything they end up getting.
In the unlikely event that Baghdad Bob actually is in the position to do the right thing, and chooses to actually do so (which will only happen if he can be observed to do it) it'll be very easy for him because no matter who else it hurts he won't give two shits. That's become pretty clear by now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
umm..
Robbin's layer, Paul Tweed
something wrong with this..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libel Tourism
I thought there was a US law that prevented libel tourism, or did it not pass?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Libel Tourism
The judgment can be enforced abroad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For what reason should an American citizen be able to enter a foreign country with much less stringent defamation laws, successfully sue an American company for defamation, and have the judgment enforced by the foreign country upon that American company?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because Jhon really really needs to be able to threaten people about the things he did in the past apparently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He really can't let that butthurt money trolling business model idea go, can he? He'll flog this horse's carcass till it's nothing but dust before he gives up on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"He really can't let that butthurt money trolling business model idea go, can he? He'll flog this horse's carcass till it's nothing but dust before he gives up on it."
Oh, he fully admires the butthurt money model. I think the reason he's so opposed to section 230 is on the more personal note that he thinks it'll be far harder for him personally to commit fraud and con people if a simple google on his actual name would turn up reviews of his past behavior.
His defense goes FAR beyond a mere idolization of shady ambulance-chasing lawyers and copyright trolls at this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Libel Tourism
The SPEECH Act suggests otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Libel Tourism
I believe you’re referring to the SPEECH Act. It did pass, and it prevents the enforcement of foreign judgements within the US if it violates US jurisprudence on speech, like the CDA §230, DMCA, and 1st Amendment. It can’t be used to prevent foreign lawsuits that would be unenforceable here, though.
Frankly, there are some other aspects regarding jurisdiction that seem problematic. I don’t know how it works in Ireland, exactly, but in the US, if a person or entity from country/state A inflicts injury upon another person or entity from A or country/state B, and the injury occurred in A, B, or country/state C, then later the injured person moves to country/state D, that doesn’t mean a court with jurisdiction in D but not A, B, or C has jurisdiction over a lawsuit the injured person brings against the injurer over that injury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So confident...
Claims BuzzFeed(located in the US) defamed them(also in the US), sues in another country(with, purely by coincidence I'm sure, a much lower bar for that particular accusation) because they might sue Twitter for stupid reasons down the line and that company's HQ is in the country.
They might as well have admitted that even they know they wouldn't have a chance in US courts and therefore went shopping for a country with lower standards, as I doubt they're fooling anyone who spends even a few seconds thinking about it. As BuzzFeed rightly noted, 'The fact that he doesn't even seek to address these claims, choosing instead to abuse the Irish court system and attack BuzzFeed, speaks for itself. '
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Smith/horse with no name/Whatever/MyNameHere/Just Sayin'/The Anti-Mike sees an article that cursorily mentions Section 230, loses his shit, and rants about his mailing lists and women despite having enough influence to win over Hollywood and nuke websites he hates from orbit, like this one?
News at goddamn fucking 11.
Still waiting for that subpoena/lawsuit/press release with your real name on it, Prenda apologist.
Bring it, you unnamed, impotent old fuckwit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
His real name is Chris.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I personally like to think it's Herrick...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"His real name is Chris."
It's not.
It's Bob. Baghdad Bob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Venue Shopping is Smart
All of the hate for Tony is from everyone who has never seen him help people. Tony is one of the most selfless and caring individuals to spotlight the world. He is THE most giving celebrity on the planet and has helped millions get over the shit that holds them back. Attend one of his events, listen to any of his programs and you can HEAR the passion in his voice. He deserves his day in court to defend himself and the opportunity to share his side... and he shouldn’t be ridiculed to not try and defend himself in the court of public opinion... personally, I have presented myself to the press to defend a family member and all they did was spin my words to meet their story. Even if Tony did hold a press conference, his words would be held against him, or spun or bastardized by the media. So he uses a court that will be separate from the American culture of guilty before proven innocent. Go Tony. And you assholes who believe he’s guilty before he’s defended himself... I hope one day you know what it’s like to be on trial in the court of public opinion and realize that there basically IS no defense. Y’all expect him to bend over and take it. I hope YOU all bend over and take it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Venue Shopping is Smart
What, did Elon Musk call you a pedo, too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Venue Shopping is Smart
Anonymous Coward:
Stereotypical internet troll - your brain instantly goes to insults for your own amusement. Cute, but it just means you don’t have anything substantive to rebut. So I thank you for your witless commentary. You truly are as your name suggests, an anonymous coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shop Smart ship S Mart
That’s the default name here you twit. But the real question here is; are you paid to spew this drivel or or you merely a useful idiot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shop Smart ship S Mart
As a matter of fact, no I wasn’t paid for my opinion. How shocking. I honestly believe in Tony and genuinely support his search for justice—- notice I said “justice.” If he is found guilty or innocent, that’s for the jury to decide. If he is entitled to compensation from the media or not, that’s for a court to decide. Being in law school myself, if Ireland publications such as buzzfeeds european branches have libeled him, the foreign court venues are valid. Of course the court will decide soon if he has proper contacts to be heard there. And of course he will choose the venue most advantageous... if he didn’t he’d be stupid. He’s not a stupid man. The public and the press love to see people fall from high places by any means. Well I honestly believe that they will not see another Harvey Weinstein in Tony. But that’s what the media is gunning for. I am proud to defend Tony. If he is really culpable, then I hope justice is served to those women, but I just don’t feel like there’s a lot of fruit to be said in their accusations, and I see more of the blood thirsty media trying to have their second Harvey to devour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Shop Smart ship S Mart
Because all the people who can't afford to forum shop should all go fuck themselves, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Shop Smart ship S Mart
In addition to venue shopping being a really sketchy thing to do generally, this particular instance is just plain nonsensical. Neither party was in Ireland, an Irish citizen, or a resident of Ireland at the time of the alleged offense, and it’s difficult to say that the offense occurred in Ireland. It makes no sense that Tony could sue Buzzfeed over this in Ireland just because he moved there sometime after the fact. That’s not how jurisdiction is supposed to work. As a business located solely within the US owned by US citizens being sued over speech directed towards and concerning US citizens and residents, Buzzfeed should receive the same protections everyone in the US gets. Not receiving those protections would mean that justice won’t be served by them losing.
Buzzfeed doesn’t have a European branch at all. Its only physical location(s) is/are in the US. It is in no way an Irish publication. Twitter has a European branch in Dublin, but Twitter isn’t even a party to this lawsuit. That’s one of the main reasons this lawsuit is being discussed here: the venue makes absolutely no sense from a legal point of view. Try rereading the article; it specifically says that Buzzfeed has no physical presence in Ireland.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Wanting' doesn't mean 'owed' or 'allowed'
That’s one of the main reasons this lawsuit is being discussed here: the venue makes absolutely no sense from a legal point of view.
It does actually, just not a good reason, which is rather the point.
Legally it makes perfect sense that he would want a venue where his claims wouldn't get shut down from the start thanks to the first amendment and/or 230, the problem for him is that what he wants along those lines is irrelevant thanks to what the article and you pointed out about how it's not the right venue and is instead a pretty blatant abuse of the legal system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Shop Smart ship S Mart
"And of course he will choose the venue most advantageous.."
Sure, skirt the law if you can get away with it - why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shop Smart ship S Mart
Why can't she be a useless idiot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Venue Shopping is Smart
For the record, I have not come to a conclusion about whether or not the accusations against Tony are true. I also know nothing about him. I am just a neutral observer on that.
However, that is completely immaterial here. Even assuming that the accusations against him are false, and even if BuzzFeed is defaming him, that still doesn’t justify this obvious libel tourism and forum shopping.
Please explain why Ireland is a reasonable forum for this lawsuit considering the fact that, at the time of publication, all involved parties were Americans and only had physical residence in the US. Remember, Twitter is not currently a party to the lawsuit, so the fact that it has its European HQ in Dublin is irrelevant.
Do I expect Tony to just lie down and take these accusations without defending himself? No, I don’t. However, I can still criticize the means he chooses to use to defend himself. The ends don’t justify the means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Venue Shopping is Smart
hi tony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]