[Found] Crossing the Rubicon

[Twinkletard]

i'm going to fund this like biden funds ukraine.

suspiciously.

 

[dinnuffindu]

Mine eyes have seen the glory of Null's filing in court
Josh is rolling out the hard disks where receipts of sneed are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of a Jewish lawyer's word:
His truth is marching on.

I want the mainstream media to have to report on it. I'm not gonna need salt for the winter.

 

[Sexy Senior Citizen]

The Kiwis go marching one by one
Hurrah, hurrah!
We taunt the trannies just for fun
Hurrah, hurrah!

The Kiwis go marching two by two
Hurrah, hurrah!
They'll know our wrath before we're through
Hurrah, hurrah!

The Kiwis go marching three by three
Hurrah, hurrah!
Dong-Gone will face his destiny
Hurrah, hurrah!

The Kiwis go marching four by four
Hurrah, hurrah!
It's now Total Retard War
Hurrah, hurrah!
Hurrah! Hurrah!

 

[lolcowsdrama]

However, if there were made up claims of illegality, or allegations that can be proven to be untruthful then, there's more to work with, since that would be more akin to lying about unethical manufacturing processes or safety issues.


Not just that, and in addition to the "actual malice" bar I mentioned previously, there's the "substantial truth" bar from

What would made up claims about the kiwifarms even look like? And how would one prove they knew they were wrong, given everything that's said about the farms in the news?

 

[Cpt. Stud Beefpile]

The Kiwis go marching one by one
Hurrah, hurrah!
We taunt the trannies just for fun
Hurrah, hurrah!

The Kiwis go marching two by two
Hurrah, hurrah!
They'll know our wrath before we're through
Hurrah, hurrah!

The Kiwis go marching three by three
Hurrah, hurrah!
Dong-Gone will face his destiny
Hurrah, hurrah!

The Kiwis go marching four by four
Hurrah, hurrah!
It's now Total Retard War
Hurrah, hurrah!
Hurrah! Hurrah!

The Kiwis marching five by five
Hurrah, hurrah!
We'll make them wish they'd un-alive-d
Hurrah! Hurrah!
The Kiwis marching five by five -
We'll make them weep and wail and cry -
As they all go plunging down...
In a noose...
And their grave - will be carved - with their dead name, doom-doom-doom-doooom...

So help me God I'm tempted to do the vocals for this...

 

[xn--mck1c]

What would made up claims about the kiwifarms even look like?

Claiming that the site hosts illegal content, creates imminent threats to human life, drives people to suicide (especially if said person is found to be alive) etc.

And how would one prove they knew they were wrong, given everything that's said about the farms in the news?

Unless the news got the information from them in the first place, especially given the admission of the group as an organized campaign.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Claiming that the site hosts illegal content, creates imminent threats to human life, drives people to suicide (especially if said person is found to be alive) etc.


Unless the news got the information from them in the first place, especially given the admission of the group as an organized campaign.

I would love for the troons to bring up Byuu in court.

The clown show that was the twitter posts providing an exact timeline of when the 'death' happened, the fact Byuu being American is indisputable, and the Government of Japan saying no Americans died in Japan that month...that would single handedly destroy one of the biggest pillars of lies against the site right there.

 

[Peaches the Wonder Cat]

That's right. FIRE is trying to be what ACLU used to be and have recently changed their name from "Foundation for Individual Rights in Education" to "Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression". And everyone knows that autists posting on the internet is the same as neo nazis marching in Skokie.

FIRE may even take the case. Skokie was a landmark ACLU case. FIRE is itching for their own.

 

[lolcowsdrama]

tbh i'm banking on LFJ breaking down once proceedings turn to discovery. A lot of the points will be about accusations against her, and null would be able to get testimonies from everyone affected by LFJ, potentially putting it into the public record.

Would that actually be considered relevant by the courts to a claim about interference? LFJ's lawyer would probably object to any sort of discovery request along those lines or ask the court to keep it sealed.

 

[AnOminous]

FIRE may even take the case. Skokie was a landmark ACLU case. FIRE is itching for their own.

Skokie was much more of an edge case in that arguably the residents of the Jewish neighborhood in question were a captive audience being forced to endure a Nazi march. And yet the ACLU took the case and won it.

We are on an obscure website the so-called "victims" could easily ignore. Much like LibsOfTikTok, most of what we do is simply repeat what our so-called "victims" have posted themselves. If it's illegal for us to post that shit, maybe it should be illegal for them to have posted that disgusting shit in the first place themselves.

We're a mirror.

 

[lolcowsdrama]

I would love for the troons to bring up Byuu in court.

The clown show that was the twitter posts providing an exact timeline of when the 'death' happened, the fact Byuu being American is indisputable, and the Government of Japan saying no Americans died in Japan that month...that would single handedly destroy one of the biggest pillars of lies against the site right there.

Claiming that the site hosts illegal content, creates imminent threats to human life, drives people to suicide (especially if said person is found to be alive) etc.

Unless the news got the information from them in the first place, especially given the admission of the group as an organized campaign.

What sort of illegal content have they claimed Kiwifarms hosts?

I thought Cloudflare was the one who said the stuff about imminent threats to human life during the Keffals thing. Did LFJ also say something about that?


Did LFJ have any ties to Byuu? Anyways, Byuu isn't the only person the farms have been accused of driving to suicide. Chloe Sagal and Julie Terryberry are definitely dead.

Remember, even if they make false claims about the farms, It's not enough to prove that the claims are inaccurate. Null has to prove to the jury that LFJ knowingly lied about that stuff. Every news article about the Kiwifarms is negative, and there's no way that group is behind every story. Those claims were circulating long before LFJ started the organized campaign.

 

[xn--mck1c]

Would that actually be considered relevant by the courts to a claim about interference? LFJ's lawyer would probably object to any sort of discovery request along those lines or ask the court to keep it sealed.

Wouldn't rule it out, especially if it can be used to establish motives and interests.

In determining whether an actor's conduct in intentionally interfering with a contract or a prospective contractual relation of another is improper or not, consideration is given to the following factors:
(a) the nature of the actor's conduct,
(b) the actor's motive,
(c) the interests of the other with which the actor's conduct interferes,
(d) the interests sought to be advanced by the actor

I would love for the troons to bring up Byuu in court.

Even if they're smart enough not to, if they've been using that allegation in their email campaigns there could very well still be a process to determine if it was truthful. Even if not found technically defamatory (not a reckless disregard of truth), any new information from the discovery process should be interesting and can have other effects outside of the case.

---

What sort of illegal content have they claimed Kiwifarms hosts?

The claims that were made to service providers would have to be revealed via discovery. When I said

likely revolving around the wording used throughout the campaign.
[...]
However, if there were made up claims of illegality, or allegations that can be proven to be untruthful then, there's more to work with, since that would be more akin to lying about unethical manufacturing processes or safety issues.

I was making the point that there would be a difference between if the emails contained true facts versus if they had made up claims, since truth can be used as a defense, without asserting that they did make up stuff in their emails to the service providers.

I thought Cloudflare was the one who said the stuff about imminent threats to human life during the Keffals thing. Did LFJ also say something about that?

The court can try to find that out, ask CF how they came to that conclusion etc.
Also if the court wants to determine if the messages were what caused the termination of services, they could directly ask the service providers why they did so and find out, and they probably won't take kindly to vague/nebulous explanations.

Remember, even if they make false claims about the farms, It's not enough to prove that the claims are inaccurate. Null has to prove to the jury that LFJ knowingly lied about that stuff. Every news article about the Kiwifarms is negative, and there's no way that group is behind every story. Those claims were circulating long before LFJ started the organized campaign.

The information coming from the discovery would still be useful outside of the case though, so it's not entirely pointless.

 

[lolcowsdrama]

Even if they're smart enough not to, if they've been using that allegation in their email campaigns there could very well still be a process to determine if it was truthful. Even if not found technically defamatory (not a reckless disregard of truth), any new information from the discovery process should be interesting and can have other effects outside of the case.

They would probably want to seal the discovery because of that.

In regards to defamation, it seems impossible to prove, unless they outright admit they were lying.
Sure it was probably just an dumb lurker who decided to fedpost in Keffal's thread and Cloudflare probably overreacted, but it was a real post. (And I don't think Cloudflare is being sued).
Even if you can show Byuu is alive, you have to show that LFJ knew Byuu was alive. If they just say he killed himself and so did those other 2 people because of kiwifarms, then there is no way to prove that's a reckless disregard for the truth.

And they obviously are going to say that kiwifarms is harassing people.

The claims that were made to service providers would have to be revealed via discovery.

Well there are only a few possible sorts of illegal content. I think it they are nonconsenual pornography (revenge porn or CP), IP violations, and financial fraud. Not sure what else, maybe credible threats and malware/hacking.

Even then, there might be additional difficulty proving defamation should the Kiwi Farms be considered as a public figure, since the level of proof is raised to the reckless disregard of truth instead of it merely being wrong.

In addition there is a concept of someone being impossible to defame. It's possible for a person to have a reputation so bad, that it would be legally impossible to defame them.

 

[Joshuan Moon]

What sort of illegal content have they claimed Kiwifarms hosts?

I thought Cloudflare was the one who said the stuff about imminent threats to human life during the Keffals thing. Did LFJ also say something about that?

Two specific things I remember from when they were starting up their email spam pressure campaigns, both relating to uploaded files but not any user posts. I think in both cases it was a separate ftp server. The first, egregious one was pointing out a link to a Mister Metokur video with something like "Bathtub Boy" in the title trying to imply that, absent any context, the video is CP. The other was related to archives of zoosadist content that probably violated an animal crush video law. Basically it treats animal abuse videos similar to CSAM, so there isn't really a "saving the evidence" exception to that. But even if a valid point, the files were removed. "Hosts" would be a lie, "hosted" would be truthful.

 

[Lord of the Large Pants]

In addition there is a concept of someone being impossible to defame. It's possible for a person to have a reputation so bad, that it would be legally impossible to defame them.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't work when the people being sued are part of the defamation.

"Your Honor, we called this man a child molester so many times that his reputation is beyond ruining. Clearly, he cannot sue us."

 

[TheOtherSideofMakeBelieve]

They would probably want to seal the discovery because of that.

You can want what you want, that doesn't mean you get it. If this gets to discovery there's not really any reason for most things to be sealed. This isn't the case of a minor getting raped. Pretty much everything involved should already be public knowledge if it's true. I'm having a hard time coming up with something that they could have said that would be both true and not public knowledge. If they're saying something that's not public knowledge it's most likely something they made up

The only way discovery stays hidden is if both sides agree that it should remain private and I think there's only one side that wants it private

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

The Kiwis marching five by five
Hurrah, hurrah!
We'll make them wish they'd un-alive-d
Hurrah! Hurrah!
The Kiwis marching five by five -
We'll make them weep and wail and cry -
As they all go plunging down...
In a noose...
And their grave - will be carved - with their dead name, doom-doom-doom-doooom...

So help me God I'm tempted to do the vocals for this...

The Kiwis marching six by six
Hurrah, hurrah!
The trannies they all have zipper tits
Hurrah! Hurrah!
The Kiwis marching six by six -
One day they'll regret chopping off their dick -
And they will never ever be...
Real women...
So they cope - and they seethe - and dilate, doom-doom-doom-doooom...

 

[lolcowsdrama]

Two specific things I remember from when they were starting up their email spam pressure campaigns, both relating to uploaded files but not any user posts. I think in both cases it was a separate ftp server. The first, egregious one was pointing out a link to a Mister Metokur video with something like "Bathtub Boy" in the title trying to imply that, absent any context, the video is CP. The other was related to archives of zoosadist content that probably violated an animal crush video law. Basically it treats animal abuse videos similar to CSAM, so there isn't really a "saving the evidence" exception to that. But even if a valid point, the files were removed. "Hosts" would be a lie, "hosted" would be truthful.

I don't think the court is going to treat an error about present vs past tense as reckless disregard for the truth.

Distribution and creation of Animal Crush videos are federally illegal, but possessing them isn't. But there are exceptions in regards to determining if you need to contact law enforcement: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/48

Anyways, in regards to other illegal content, I think I've seen people accusing the farms of hosting revenge porn.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't work when the people being sued are part of the defamation.

"Your Honor, we called this man a child molester so many times that his reputation is beyond ruining. Clearly, he cannot sue us."

Kiwifarms (and Null) have had a bad reputation long before LFJ came around. As far as I am aware, people like Vordrak are not LFJ in disguise.

 

[xn--mck1c]

They would probably want to seal the discovery because of that.

They could try to convince the court to do so, not sure what grounds they'd use to keep if Byuu was alive under seal though.

In regards to defamation, it seems impossible to prove, unless they outright admit they were lying.
Sure it was probably just an dumb lurker who decided to fedpost in Keffal's thread and Cloudflare probably overreacted, but it was a real post.

Yes it's hard to prove, but them being forced to answer questions could reveal more information. Did CF have anything else to go by other than that 1 post? If they did believe the post to be true and were acting in good faith, did they involve law enforcement? etc.

(And I don't think Cloudflare is being sued).

But it's relevant to the case to show if CF dropped KF because of the interference or if it was done out of their own volition.

Well there are only a few possible sorts of illegal content.

Not really going to speculate further on that part, since I just brought them up as illustrative examples.

In addition there is a concept of someone being impossible to defame. It's possible for a person to have a reputation so bad, that it would be legally impossible to defame them.

If you are referring to

The rule of substantial truth is based on a recognition that falsehoods which do no incremental damage to the plaintiff's reputation do not injure the only interest that the law of defamation protects.
[....]
Falsehoods that do not harm the plaintiff's reputation more than a full recital of the true facts about him would do are thus not actionable.
(Haynes v. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.)

Then would the assertion be that the campaign would cause the same amount of damage to KF if the false statements were left out?

I don't think the court is going to classify confusing present and past tense as reckless disregard for the truth.

Why not? Big difference between saying someone was a fugitive vs someone is a fugitive. The distinction between past and present here paints a completely different picture, and reasonable course of action.

 

[lolcowsdrama]

If you are referring to

Then would the assertion be that the campaign would cause the same amount of damage to KF if the false statements were left out?

It is sometimes related to that, but not always:

The doctrine has developed along two pathways. The first—the “issue-specific” approach—bars relief for a plaintiff whose reputation related to a specific subject matter is so tarnished that he or she cannot be further injured by allegedly false statements on the matter. The second— the “incremental harm” doctrine—bars relief where the challenged statements harm a plaintiff’s reputation far less than unchallenged statements in the same article or broadcast.

https://www.haynesboone.com/news/publications/the-libel-proof-plaintiff-doctrine

If a person has no reputation to protect, then he or she may be considered “libel-proof.”

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/libel-proof-plaintiff-doctrine/

Why not? Big difference between saying someone was a fugitive vs someone is a fugitive. The distinction between past and present here paints a completely different picture, and reasonable course of action.

You can easily claim you made a grammatical mistake or that you forgot they removed the content.