Laughing at your roach infested hovel and your adventures with an oversexed teenager (which should have been a no-brainer: NO, NO, NO,) isn't inciting violence.
You just proved my point. You could have ignored me.
That's not true at all. If you have a reasonable fear that your words will be used to prosecute you, you can evoke the 5th even in a civil deposition. See the Cosby thing where the only way they got him to testify in a civil suit was for the prosecution to promise to not prosecute him based on his testimony (which they did, and the appeals court found that prosecution to be invalid). Also see Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314 (1999), Granted, in most cases, Civil usage of the Fifth grants you less protections than in criminal matter, but you are still allowed to invoke such protection.
Depending on what he'd sue for, this question might be thrown out for lack of relevance.
If he was sueing for defamation, the matter of whether or not "child molester" was a substantively true statement would probably make the question "did you molest a child?" relevant.
You get adverse inference in civil cases, though. That means you only have British-quality privileges against self-incrimination.
I believe it'll depend on the State it happened. California for instance has several different ones. Without this, people could just "shop around" to find a State that would go through with the case. Arizona also had the "look back" clause but that ended December 2020. It was a good idea, but not many people keep track of laws being changed so it was almost useless.
Well he's fucked
www.shouselaw.com
The first Kiwi Farms suicide!
My favourite case for that was the NAACP case and that the statement "If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we're going to break your damn neck." is completely fine.
Eat shit, child molester.
Stfu you geriatric faggot.
