I hate the Internet and the people who own it

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Lawfare is incredibly expensive, hence the term. Many people and organizations have seen all their hard-earned money (or money solicited from donors) drained away in almost no time, with no result. This is especially the case when suing a large and powerful corporation. The law may be on the side of the Farms, but increasingly courts today will say, "Yes, the law does say that, but we don't like you." It'd be like asking the FBI to hunt down the trannies who are DDoSing us.

For comparison, even an almost normie site like Parler couldn't get a fair shake.

So, in general, if anyone is planning to start a legal battle, it needs to be chosen carefully.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Autistic Joe, Marvin, Pee Cola and 8 others
WhiteNight said:
It'd be like asking the FBI to hunt down the trannies who are DDoSing us
Click to expand...
Has this been tried?


2A8543B4-7279-4BF8-B74F-DC69460C59FA.png
 
Last edited:
  • Optimistic
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Agree
Reactions: massive_shitlord, Kosher Salt, Autistic Joe and 10 others
Barry McKockner said:
but punitive damages should be delicious with a company that size.
Click to expand...
Washington law does not allow Punitive damages for this tort (MONTCLAIR UNITED SOCCER CLUB v. COUNT ME IN CORP, CASE NO. C08-1642-JCC (W.D. Wash. Sep. 14, 2009))
Barry McKockner said:
Actual monetary damages would be hard for Null to prove
Click to expand...
Surely there must be some damages somewhere. The purpose of the lawsuit would focus more on making HE reverse their decision (by an injunction as an example) than recovering large amounts of money

Edit: another problem is diversity jurisdiction. He could allege the required amounts and just prove less at trial. IIRC that’s allowed.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Kosher Salt, Procrastinhater, Pee Cola and 3 others
Useful_Mistake said:
Washington law does not allow Punitive damages for this tort (MONTCLAIR UNITED SOCCER CLUB v. COUNT ME IN CORP, CASE NO. C08-1642-JCC (W.D. Wash. Sep. 14, 2009))

Surely there must be some damages somewhere. The purpose of the lawsuit would focus more on making HE reverse their decision (by an injunction as an example) than recovering large amounts of money

Edit: another problem is diversity jurisdiction. He could allege the required amounts and just prove less at trial. IIRC that’s allowed.
Click to expand...

Do they allow punitive with tortious interference claims? Because HE is interfering with the host/client contract.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Procrastinhater
WhiteNight said:
Lawfare is incredibly expensive, hence the term. Many people and organizations have seen all their hard-earned money (or money solicited from donors) drained away in almost no time, with no result. This is especially the case when suing a large and powerful corporation. The law may be on the side of the Farms, but increasingly courts today will say, "Yes, the law does say that, but we don't like you." It'd be like asking the FBI to hunt down the trannies who are DDoSing us.

For comparison, even an almost normie site like Parler couldn't get a fair shake.

So, in general, if anyone is planning to start a legal battle, it needs to be chosen carefully.
Click to expand...
I disagree, really. It has traditionally been expensive, but I suspect the right autists using ChatGPT or other AI (and using it correctly, not like a fat retarded Mexican) could be extremely effective on the cheap.

Hell, even without the AI, I'm pretty sure you could do some damage solely with a subscription to lexisnexis and perhaps on-the-ground access to courts in several Jurisdictions. Most suits are extremely over-written and over-broad, with lawyers trying to shovel in everything to both boost their hours and beef up the suit, but the wind up either watering it down, or having the specific required legal criteria hidden under a bunch of bloat.

You essentiallly find successful and recent suits, distill them, and copy the fuck out of them, and then submit in as many jurisdictions as possible (either paying the minimum fees, or submitting the "I'm destitute" paperwork), tailoring each one to that specific jurisdiction. You only need one to hit, and there's essentially zero penalties for not hitting (other than self-dox, but presumably that's already happened at the point one would do this).

Really I'm semi-surprised Josh hasn't already done this with the DDoS prevention bullshit, but I guess he had options at that point and didn't want to involve the government.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Autistic Joe, Procrastinhater, Positron and 3 others
Your Starter for 10 said:
You essentiallly find successful and recent suits
Click to expand...
The net neutrality bills are recent and have never been tested in court before.
Your Starter for 10 said:
Really I'm semi-surprised Josh hasn't already done this with the DDoS prevention bullshit
Click to expand...
Do what? He can't sue cloudflare for dropping him (just build your own KiwiFlare) and TI suits against the people who organised the campaign would require hauling cloudflare employees into deposition and would be monstrously expensive.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Kosher Salt, Procrastinhater, Marvin and 3 others
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Autistic Joe, Procrastinhater, FrickleMyPickle and 5 others
GothicGalLover said:
>MFW a fiercely independent shitposting website is deemed a larger threat by the international elders of zion than pedo/animal abuse/terrorist/scam sites just because they don't have a finger in itView attachment 5248000
Click to expand...
That's kind of why I wish Josh would submit a FOIA request to every federal law enforcement/intelligence agency requesting any records they have pertaining to him, Kiwi Farms, and any of his other brands. I looked up how to do it and it's as easy as copying a template and sending an email, but I'm not down to name dox myself. There's a very good chance there's absolutely nothing there, but you never know. A fucking congresswoman did call for us to be banned.

How to FOIA
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Autistic Joe, Pee Cola, make_it_so and 4 others
Null said:
Section 230.
Click to expand...
Then isn’t your request that AG enforces his law is pointless, as AG wouldn’t be able to enforce the law as per 230 (e) (3)? That puts us at square one on the issue again. Mind you, I’m not saying you shouldn’t have tried, but man (c) (2) (a) just seems way overly broad.
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Marvin, Procrastinhater and curiumotter
Useful_Mistake said:
Then isn’t your request that AG enforces his law is pointless, as AG wouldn’t be able to enforce the law as per 230 (e) (3)? That puts us at square one on the issue again. Mind you, I’m not saying you shouldn’t have tried, but man (c) (2) (a) just seems way overly broad.
Click to expand...
Section 230 does not prevent the state from enforcing criminal law. Most of the stuff that gets Section 230 attention is stuff that's simply not illegal under the First Amendment anyway, Section 230 is a way to preempt cases having to go to court that would not go to court in non-online situations. I obviously don't know Washington law but I would presume that the AG strategy theory is that he could bring criminal charges (or administrative civil violations), something Null cannot do on his own. (Yet.)
 
Last edited:
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Procrastinhater
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back