ATTN: Joshua Connor Moon and the "board of directors" of LOLCOW, LLC

[Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg]

"tl:dr" but you obviously read it. We don't need a license to laugh and call you names, Rudolph. And Josh doesn't have to do jack-fucking-shit. No one here has to pay you money to talk about you.

Oh, and not that it will make a difference, but here's a short compilation where you admit to masturbating your dog and talk about how this is apparently a ubiquitous practice. There is also a bit at the start where you state how the age of consent should be lowered because teen girls are slutty landmines. You would know, sir.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm_R3-ESKko

well, you really do need a license to use my images and writing the way your do. those compilations are completely in violation of civil law and aren't going to last very long once i set my attorney lose on this shit. out of context quotes are libelous, son.

 

[Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg]

This is especially hilarious: . "The videos we cite do exist and will utterly repulse any judge or jury they are shown to".

The only people who are "utterly repulsed" are angry autistic adult assholes like yourself. carry on, fool.

 

[MediocreMilt]

well, you really do need a license to use my images and writing the way your do.

We do? Why?

those compilations are completely in violation of civil law

They are??? Which portions of civil law specifically?

and aren't going to last very long once i set my attorney lose on this shit.

What is he going to do that the people and attorneys seen in TAKE THAT OFF THE GOD DAMN INTERNET failed to do?

out of context quotes are libelous, son.

Depends. What's the context of claiming to touch an underaged girl's no-no square that makes you not seem like a pedo?

This is especially hilarious: . "The videos we cite do exist and will utterly repulse any judge or jury they are shown to".

The only people who are "utterly repulsed" are angry autistic adult assholes like yourself. carry on, fool.

The people who would be utterly repulsed would comprise the overwhelming bulk of a jury of our peers. Take some actual meds, not ditch-weed.

 

[Albert Ball]

This is especially hilarious: . "The videos we cite do exist and will utterly repulse any judge or jury they are shown to".

The only people who are "utterly repulsed" are angry autistic adult assholes like yourself. carry on, fool.

Exhibit A your honor. These videos are the property of Tom Wasserberg and are not utterly repulsive at all.

Goddammit @emspex you missed some

 

[Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg]

This is especially hilarious: . "The videos we cite do exist and will utterly repulse any judge or jury they are shown to".

The only people who are "utterly repulsed" are angry autistic adult assholes like yourself. carry on, fool.

We do? Why?

They are??? Which portions of civil law specifically?

What is he going to do that the people and attorneys seen in TAKE THAT OFF THE GOD DAMN INTERNET failed to do?

Depends. What's the context of claiming to touch an underaged girl's no-no square that makes you not seem like a pedo?

The people who would be utterly repulsed would comprise the overwhelming bulk of a jury of our peers. Take some actual meds, not ditch-weed.

go study the law, fool. touching a well developed teenager does not constitute pedophilia.

Exhibit A your honor. These videos are the property of Tom Wasserberg and are not utterly repulsive at all.

he needs to license commercial use of my intellectual properties.

The Cyberlaw Guide to Protest Art: Rights of Privacy and Publicity

This is the Rights of Privacy and Publicity section of the Cyberlaw Guide to Protest Art. It covers the legal rights of privacy and…

medium.com

 

[blablabla]

Shut up stupid

 

[joebobmurphy]

This is especially hilarious: . "The videos we cite do exist and will utterly repulse any judge or jury they are shown to".

The only people who are "utterly repulsed" are angry autistic adult assholes like yourself. carry on, fool.

1. I would love to hear what context was excluded regarding you stating you jack-off dogs and want to be able to legally fuck teens. Not to mention the Sabrina story you have detailed, excruciatingly, numerous times.

2. Libel from taking things out of context is still contentious and I doubt your "case" would be the one to make a difference in case law.

3. Nope, we don't need permission to make fun of you. This was decided by the courts decades ago. You mentioned UK law earlier; I should remind your baked-self that we are in the US. Too bad, the UK might have been retarded enough to help.

4. Even if anyone here crossed the line, you still need to prove damages. You have lived in hovels and eaten garbage before Josh was even born. You have never been successful or popular outside your own head. You can't prove we've caused any loss. Even if you've lost something, what do you think is the likelier cause? The videos you release of yourself being a dog-fucking child predator, the paper trails of you attempting to groom minors on facebook groups(we have the screenshots, so don't even), or this dinky forum archiving all of the above?

 

[Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg]

1. I would love to hear what context was excluded regarding you stating you jack-off dogs and want to be able to legally fuck teens. Not to mention the Sabrina story you have detailed, excruciatingly, numerous times.

2. Libel from taking things out of context is still contentious and I doubt your "case" would be the one to make a difference in case law.

3. Nope, we don't need permission to make fun of you. This was decided by the courts decades ago. You mentioned UK law earlier; I should remind your baked-self that we are in the US. Too bad, the UK might have been retarded enough to help.

4. Even if anyone here crossed the line, you still need to prove damages. You have lived in hovels and eaten garbage before Josh was even born. You have never been successful or popular outside your own head. You can't prove we've caused any loss. Even if you've lost something, what do you think is the likelier cause? The videos you release of yourself being a dog-fucking child predator, the paper trails of you attempting to groom minors on facebook groups(we have the screenshots, so don't even), or this dinky forum archiving all of the above?

you need permission to use my image the way my name and image is being used, dweeb. the defamation, harassment and incitement are not things i need to prove to get a judgement for invasion of privacy by misappropriation. that shit is self evident gravy that will yield huge punitive awards.

 

[MediocreMilt]

you need permission to use my image the way my name and image is being used, dweeb. the defamation, harassment and incitement are not things i need to prove to get a judgement for invasion of privacy by misappropriation. that shit is self evident gravy that will yield huge punitive awards.

But where is the invasion of privacy when everything posted about you here is based upon photos, videos, and words that you, yourself knowingly posted in public?

 

[Leonard Helplessness]

He so obviously has no idea what he’s talking about that he either hasn’t talked to a lawyer, or he has and was told to piss off so decisively that he’s desperately posturing because that’s his only remaining option.

 

[joebobmurphy]

you need permission to use my image the way my name and image is being used, dweeb. the defamation, harassment and incitement are not things i need to prove to get a judgement for invasion of privacy by misappropriation. that shit is self evident gravy that will yield huge punitive awards.

Well, below are the 4 categories of invasion of privacy and my responses regarding your "case".

1. Intrusion of solitude: physical or electronic intrusion into one's private quarters. Everything we know about you comes from your interactions on public forums. As far as I know, no one has ever hacked your devices or invaded your domicile. We know everything we know because you get high and freely disseminate.
2. Public disclosure of private facts: the dissemination of truthful private information which a reasonable person would find objectionable. Again, you have provided all the info yourself. You can't state embarrassing facts on youtube or other forums and then get litigious when people comment on them. We are not legally obligated to refrain from talking about stuff you've voluntarily admitted.
3. False light: the publication of facts which place a person in a false light, even though the facts themselves may not be defamatory. Oh no, we might have fucked up and offered a false light version of a lawful and moral mode of dog fucking and child grooming.
4. Appropriation: the unauthorized use of a person's name or likeness to obtain some benefits. We ain't using your face to sell something and given that there are tons of youtube channels that make tons of money making fun of individuals like yourself with no legal repercussions, you are shit out of luck.

Even if you think you can work something out you still have the teensy problem that truth is always a defense in the US. You say it's defamation to say you fuck dogs? Boom, we show the video of you saying you fuck dogs. However, you are currently arguing that we need to pay money to commentate on the video of you admitting to fucking dogs. "Your honor, they needed to pay a license to talk about the video where I admitted to fucking dogs." That'll impress a judge.

But hey, why am I even arguing. Either way, this should be fun. Most likely your case will be hilariously stillborn. Even if you managed to get to court, we are going to be treated to a video of you sperging at the judge for calling you sir. The judge will, of course, have you tossed out because unlike the civil servants you are used to ranting at, judges don't have to, and will not take your shit.

 

[Smicneibn]

go study the law, fool. touching a well developed teenager does not constitute pedophilia.

The law doesn't care whether the teenager is "well developed". If she is underage it is statutory rape. It's not rocket science. Sex is for grownups.

 

[Your Wife's Boyfriend]

Keep sperging, Tommy, a bunch of Kiwis are getting off their asses and figuring out how to buy crypto for Jersh. Let's see who goes broke first: will it be a dog fucking pedophile so obviously insane that the Tranch wouldn't have him, or will it be literally thousands of software engineers who secretly loathe trannies but can't say so at work? I wonder.

 

[Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg]

Keep sperging, Tommy, a bunch of Kiwis are getting off their asses and figuring out how to buy crypto for Jersh. Let's see who goes broke first: will it be a dog fucking pedophile so obviously insane that the Tranch wouldn't have him, or will it be literally thousands of software engineers who secretly loathe trannies but can't say so at work? I wonder.

pretend money? lol.

The law doesn't care whether the teenager is "well developed". If she is underage it is statutory rape. It's not rocket science. Sex is for grownups.

the whole thing is moot. it will never be prosecuted and it does not give you the authority to incite violence against me.

Well, below are the 4 categories of invasion of privacy and my responses regarding your "case".

1. Intrusion of solitude: physical or electronic intrusion into one's private quarters. Everything we know about you comes from your interactions on public forums. As far as I know, no one has ever hacked your devices or invaded your domicile. We know everything we know because you get high and freely disseminate.
2. Public disclosure of private facts: the dissemination of truthful private information which a reasonable person would find objectionable. Again, you have provided all the info yourself. You can't state embarrassing facts on youtube or other forums and then get litigious when people comment on them. We are not legally obligated to refrain from talking about stuff you've voluntarily admitted.
3. False light: the publication of facts which place a person in a false light, even though the facts themselves may not be defamatory. Oh no, we might have fucked up and offered a false light version of a lawful and moral mode of dog fucking and child grooming.
4. Appropriation: the unauthorized use of a person's name or likeness to obtain some benefits. We ain't using your face to sell something and given that there are tons of youtube channels that make tons of money making fun of individuals like yourself with no legal repercussions, you are shit out of luck.

Even if you think you can work something out you still have the teensy problem that truth is always a defense in the US. You say it's defamation to say you fuck dogs? Boom, we show the video of you saying you fuck dogs. However, you are currently arguing that we need to pay money to commentate on the video of you admitting to fucking dogs. "Your honor, they needed to pay a license to talk about the video where I admitted to fucking dogs." That'll impress a judge.

But hey, why am I even arguing. Either way, this should be fun. Most likely your case will be hilariously stillborn. Even if you managed to get to court, we are going to be treated to a video of you sperging at the judge for calling you sir. The judge will, of course, have you tossed out because unlike the civil servants you are used to ranting at, judges don't have to, and will not take your shit.

tl;dr look this over, clarence and then come back and sperg some more delusional shit about me. the video content is moot, mushbrain. it's what you're doing with them that's actiopnable.

Copyright & Personality Rights | Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner

Jump into the SLW Institute as we discuss Copyright & Personality Rights. Learn more from the experts today.

www.slwip.com

 

[joebobmurphy]

tl;dr look this over, clarence and then come back and sperg some more delusional shit about me. the video content is moot, mushbrain. it's what you're doing with them that's actiopnable.

Great argument. It doesn't matter what I actually said in my videos; you're not even allowed to mention they exist without paying me. I honestly don't get what is not penetrating. If you put out a public video making a retard of yourself, we are allowed to repost it and say "lol, what a retard." We don't need your fucking permission.

 

[Owlflaps]

you need permission to use my image the way my name and image is being used, dweeb. the defamation, harassment and incitement are not things i need to prove to get a judgement for invasion of privacy by misappropriation. that shit is self evident gravy that will yield huge punitive awards.

We ain't paying you shit, retard. We get to laugh at you, for free. I'll happily live in that hate hotel you like to rant on about.

Die mad, dog fucker.

 

[Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg]

Great argument. It doesn't matter what I actually said in my videos; you're not even allowed to mention they exist without paying me. I honestly don't get what is not penetrating. If you put out a public video making a retard of yourself, we are allowed to repost it and say "lol, what a retard." We don't need your fucking permission.

keep telling yourself these things, genius. i'm not going to argue with you.

 

[DoctorJimmyRay]

I would just absolutely love to see Tom try and explain to a judge that the Farms is libelous in calling him a pedophile. "No, your honor, that WASN'T an admission of pedophilia in that video that I voluntarily posted to their site. What I said was that I only TRIED to fuck a child. Just the one. And she acted really old for her age so it doesn't count anyway. And don't get me started on this dog-fucking slander that's totally not true."

 

[joebobmurphy]

keep telling yourself these things, genius. i'm not going to argue with you.

Pfff, don't lie. You spend hours and hours each day here arguing with everyone. You WILL argue with me and everyone else because you are constitutionally incapable of ignoring anything. Hopefully one day you will provide a clear line of reasoning why I need to pay money in order to talk about videos you've posted to the public and actions you commit on public forums. That, or you could just explain why anyone would pay money to use your horrendously ugly "image." By all means, prove me wrong and ignore this message. You won't, because you can't shrug anything off and shouting doesn't work on us and neither does your threat to sick immigration lawyers on us.

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

well, you really do need a license to use my images and writing the way your do. those compilations are completely in violation of civil law and aren't going to last very long once i set my attorney lose on this shit. out of context quotes are libelous, son.

No you don't, fair use covers such things. Your "attorney" is an idiot. Under fair use we are able to use images of you to discuss you.

tl;dr look this over, clarence and then come back and sperg some more delusional shit about me. the video content is moot, mushbrain. it's what you're doing with them that's actiopnable.

Copyright & Personality Rights | Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner

Jump into the SLW Institute as we discuss Copyright & Personality Rights. Learn more from the experts today.

www.slwip.com

I'd ask you to reread that page but we all know you can't read.

the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

See that part about criticism, comment, and news reporting? We can use images for those to help with the criticism, comment, and news reporting.

Fucking moron.