archived 31 Dec 2022 20:15:55 UTC
archive.ph
View attachment 4170365
Okay, so a few things.
1. Alex Jones did not lose a defamation case, he refused to participate and lost by default.
2. Blair White did not possibly cause $60 million in emotional distress damages for Eli Erlick by repeating potentially wrong statements even if she somehow knew these were false. (Eli seems to be alleging that Blair knows that person is not dead but said it anyway. This is pretty much the only actual defamatory claim he's centering the case around. In his own words he says the other things were only implied.) This was how Jones' verdict went up, it was that times multiple families. There is no possible way for this case to work out in this way.
3. Blair White apparently moved to Texas in 2021. Texas has one of the strongest anti-SLAPP laws in the country and Eli is pretty much admitting that's what this is, not an actual defamation lawsuit. The comments on that failing (SAD!) GoFundMe certainly see that as the intent.
4. Assuming this was defamation (I'm skeptical) and that he's going to win (I'm
very skeptical) the above text on the GoFundMe seems to suggest that Eli thinks this will prevent Blair White from continuing to say transphobic, right-wing and hateful things. Blair White will pay damages, very small damages, to Eli Erlick for falsely implying he played a role in the death of someone who is not in fact dead. (Which will be easy for Eli to prove as he can simply get a statement from the not dead person Blair said was dead.) Then Blair White can continue making right-wing, transphobic and hateful videos and saying right-wing, transphobic and hateful things. Including implying that Eli Erlick is a "pedophile, drug trafficker, and child groomer" with the addition that he is also litigious and attempts to use the legal system ("ACAB END CAPITALISM") to silence critics.
I also looked into the attorney, this is from their "femmelaw.com" (really) page:
I noticed in another profile that they're "testing a novel theory of defamation
defense" apparently:
It's talking about the case Green won against Blair White that Eli mentioned in the GFM text, White was party to a defamation and cyberbullying lawsuit that got dismissed, I don't know if the "novel theory of defamation defense" is asking for a baseless lawsuit to be dismissed or not:
https://gaycitynews.com/court-walks-away-from-walkaway-lawsuit/
Of note is a statement from Green that may become amusing in the future:
I also found this law review article from J. Remy Green, which opens with a Terry Pratchett quote and then makes reference to Woman in the Moon and Ender's Game in the second paragraph, in which Green argues that any speech the state dislikes should be unprotected by the First Amendment and therefore the state should be able to criminally punish it, surprisingly the phrase "stochastic terrorism" does not appear even though it leans on this theory for its claim of infinite casual incitement:
https://lawreview.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/L-Remy-Green-Article-Final-Document-v2.pdf
There's lots to enjoy here other than those references, from an opening aside that's insane with equally insane citations:
To an insane argument that not allowing the state to criminalize any speech it wants to is disrupting the "marketplace of ideas" so the First Amendment should allow the state to do so with an appeal to ol Popper's paradox of tolerance:
To Gamergate, with six citations to Zoe Quinn's Crash Override memoir, to argue that Quinn's inability to have the state criminally prosecute people was a "market failure":
With one of the greatest citations (134) ever:
An argument that, yes, the First Amendment should allow the state to censor books (Hit Man was a book where the publisher advertised that it would help you commit crimes, someone used the book to commit crimes, the publisher was unable to get a lawsuit dismissed because of
their advertising, not the content of the book, something Green appears to massively miss despite being in the abstract of the case) and you should be forever liable (including for criminal prosecution) for any speech you ever make:
One of multiple instances of calling doxing (at least it's spelled correctly) to be "lawless action" and arguing for the criminalization of the entire internet to be allowed under the First Amendment:
So it looks like we have two very nice people here in Eli and his troon lawyer (not to be confused with the
far more incompetent Troon Lawyer) who despises the First Amendment despite using it to protect previous clients from Blair White.
