Jonathan Yaniv / Jessica Yaniv / @trustednerd / trustednerd.com / JY Knows It / JY British Columbia - Canada's Best Argument Against Transgender Self-Identification

[QWXXP Surprise!]

When the mods wake up, maybe. But at the moment, there sure are a lot of people interested in downvoting what should be a very innocuous thread to those who don't know what's going on, and a very interesting thread to those that do.

I don't use reddit often and I've never taken the time to observe how much a thread's ratings do or don't jump around, but that's what it looks like to me right now.

Reddit, as I understand it, uses an algorithm that obscures the true rating of the thread, so you may see some fluctuation with the rating. Right now it's fluctuating between +5 and +6 for me. As I didn't start the thread, I can't see what the upvote % is, but you should be able to. That may change as well.

 

[diophantines]

Reddit, as I understand it, uses an algorithm that obscures the true rating of the thread, so you may see some fluctuation with the rating. Right now it's fluctuating between +5 and +6 for me. As I didn't start the thread, I can't see what the upvote % is, but you should be able to. That may change as well.

Gotcha. I don't think it's restricted to the person who started the thread though, because I can see the upvote percentage on everyone's thread. Well anyway, the thread in question is at 65% and fluctuates almost every time I refresh. When I started watching in earnest it was in the seventies, started dropping into the fifties, before climbing back into the sixties.

 

[AnOminous]

In other words, if anyone did this they would have to be very careful and only state things that are objectively, factually true.

Or just not say who they are.

 

[toocoolfool]

Practically speaking, a business would probably consider such a caller to be crazier than Yaniv and ignore them.

But since you asked...

Legally speaking, in addition to the "human rights" BS, Canada's defamation laws are also really fucked up. This gives me an opportunity to further rant about such things.

My understanding (I'm not American, so I'm open to correction on this) is that in the US, plaintiffs in a defamation case must prove falsity and material harm, as well as either gross negligence (if the plaintiff is a private citizen) or actual malice (if the plaintiff is a public figure). Defendants are also considered innocent until the plaintiff proves otherwise.

In Canada, plaintiffs don’t have to prove falsity, malice or special damages to win a defamation suit, and once the elements are met defendants are considered liable until they prove otherwise. Justification/truth is a defence to defamation, but a fair comment or qualified privilege defence is defeated if it is demonstrated that the defendant acted out of malice.

In other words, if anyone did this they would have to be very careful and only state things that are objectively, factually true. Even merely implying that he could be dangerous could still be actionable defamation even if it's supported by the factual examples of what he's done, if the court decides the caller was acting out of malice rather than out of duty (qualified privilege) or as a comment (fair comment--and that defence would also require that the matter be one of public interest, which the courts likely wouldn't accept in this case even though I'm sure most of us here would beg to differ).

I know this probably sounds ludicrous, but Yaniv has demonstrated himself to be extremely litigious and to use the legal system as a weapon, and Canada has some of the most plaintiff-friendly defamation laws in the English-speaking world, so they are another tool he could employ.

I feel bad for Canada. This is why I was wondering if you could go around their fucked up laws by not mentioning the lawsuits, just focus on what is objectively true - you're letting a business know to be on the look out for a creepy pervert that has thing for women's restrooms. Those businesses could draw their own conclusions, you're just telling them the facts.

 

[AnOminous]

I feel bad for Canada. This is why I was wondering if you could go around their fucked up laws by not mentioning the lawsuits, just focus on what is objectively true - you're letting a business know to be on the look out for a creepy pervert that has thing for women's restrooms. Those businesses could draw their own conclusions, you're just telling them the facts.

Well, as he pointed out, Canada's libel laws are fucked. You don't even have to prove that the statements were false. They can be completely true and you can still lose. Especially if they actually know who you are.

 

[Cato]

I feel bad for Canada. This is why I was wondering if you could go around their fucked up laws by not mentioning the lawsuits, just focus on what is objectively true - you're letting a business know to be on the look out for a creepy pervert that has thing for women's restrooms. Those businesses could draw their own conclusions, you're just telling them the facts.

Well, as he pointed out, Canada's libel laws are fucked. You don't even have to prove that the statements were false. They can be completely true and you can still lose. Especially if they actually know who you are.

In addition to what @AnOminous says, innuendo can be defamatory even if only true facts are stated. One really needs to walk on eggshells in Canada. As obvious as it is to everyone here what Yaniv is, a Canadian court might not see it that way.

Like I said, in the hypothetical with the phone calls they aren't going to be traced to discover the identity of the caller or anything, but I do think this is stuff any Canadian who might want to speak out should be aware of so they can appropriately protect themselves from this lunatic.

 

[toocoolfool]

Well, as he pointed out, Canada's libel laws are fucked. You don't even have to prove that the statements were false. They can be completely true and you can still lose. Especially if they actually know who you are.

So let me make sure I'm understanding this: if someone just said "Hey, look at these chatlogs by Jonathan Yaniv" and just left it at that, you could still get sued for defamation and lose?

In addition to what @AnOminous says, innuendo can be defamatory even if only true facts are stated. One really needs to walk on eggshells in Canada. As obvious as it is to everyone here what Yaniv is, a Canadian court might not see it that way.

Like I said, in the hypothetical with the phone calls they aren't going to be traced to discover the identity of the caller or anything, but I do think this is stuff any Canadian who might want to speak out should be aware of so they can appropriately protect themselves from this lunatic.

True that, you can't ever be too safe when dealing with sexual degenerates like Yaniv.

 

[An Sionnach Seang]

Silicon Valley and Hollywood are the same hive of degeneracy at this point.

it just goes to show that Joseph McCarthy was more correct than he could ever have predicted

 

[Cato]

So let me make sure I'm understanding this: if someone just said "Hey, look at these chatlogs by Jonathan Yaniv" and just left it at that, you could still get sued for defamation and lose?

The elements of defamation are:

-The statements were defamatory (they would lower the plaintiff in the estimation of a right-thinking member of society).
-The statements were made in reference to the plaintiff.
-There was publication (communication of the statements to at least one person other than the plaintiff or the defendant's spouse).

In the scenario you bring up, all of the elements of defamation would be met even though the statements were completely true. The onus would then be on the defendant to actually prove (on a balance of probability) the defence that the statements were true. In the example you provide, this should be quite easy, but nonetheless, if the defendant failed to respond they could be found liable.

The further complication I was mentioning is that any kind of implications or commentary about how businesses should ban the guy because he poses a risk of sexually harassing/assaulting people might not be covered by a justification/truth defence even if they are an inference supported by chatlogs, etc.

 

[QWXXP Surprise!]

The elements of defamation are:

-The statements were defamatory (they would lower the plaintiff in the estimation of a right-thinking member of society).
-The statements were made in reference to the plaintiff.
-There was publication (communication of the statements to at least one person other than the plaintiff or the defendant's spouse).

In the scenario you bring up, all of the elements of defamation would be met even though the statements were completely true. The onus would then be on the defendant to actually prove (on a balance of probability) the defence that the statements were true. In the example you provide, this should be quite easy, but nonetheless, if the defendant failed to respond they could be found liable.

The further complication I was mentioning is that any kind of implications or commentary about how businesses should ban the guy because he poses a risk of sexually harassing/assaulting people might not be covered by a justification/truth defence even if they are an inference supported by chatlogs, etc.

Jesus christ that is fucked. This sort of reminds me of the UK's ridiculous libel laws.

Also, a mod appears to have responded to your thread, @diophantines -

The Mod team did not have anything to do with the removals, either the OP deleted them or the Reddit admins removed them.

What a mystery.

 

[Cato]

Jesus christ that is fucked. This sort of reminds me of the UK's ridiculous libel laws.

That's because Canada is a commonwealth country and our defamation laws derive from the UK.

 

[AnOminous]

That's because Canada is a commonwealth country and our defamation laws derive from the UK.

So do ours, but the common law was abrogated by the First Amendment such that truth is now a near-absolute defense. (There's a somewhat intertwined tort of "false light" in which true but misleading statements can be sued over but it originates from invasion of privacy rather than defamation.)

 

[diophantines]

Also, a mod appears to have responded to your thread, @diophantines -

The Mod team did not have anything to do with the removals, either the OP deleted them or the Reddit admins removed them.

What a mystery.

Yikes. They were spread out over the month and all from different people, so I highly doubt a bunch of strangers decided to delete some old posts in unison.

Hopefully this gets DeFranco to take notice though, assuming word gets back to him. He gets extremely pissy and overeacts whenever people step on his toes, and this seems like the kind of offense that would tick him off.

 

[waxmykiwis]

http://archive.is/9hfZ0

Interesting contributions to the discussion by "Hailey Heartless"(hereinafter Captain Binbag, as it's so gross to use his fetish name.)

Love the explanation when someone asks him who "JY" is. In Binbag's world, he's just an innocent person who filed a human rights complaint and is now being persecuted by the TERFs!

Interesting that he's blaming GC for Yaniv having become a public figure. For the record, The Economist wrote about him first. All the Terfs did was put Yaniv's name to his actions. Binbag is using this as an argument for getting r/GC shut down. Why focus on this particular offence, out of all the million ways that GC have literally murdered transwomen?

But the most interesting thing is that he's popping up on the Yaniv thread defending him in the first place.

I'm convinced now that Binbag is Yaniv's man on the inside. He's boasted before about his contacts in Twitter security.

His investment in defending Yaniv seems to go beyond the standard trans refusal to acknowledge trans crimes. I wonder if Yaniv has dirt on him, or they're mutually implicated in something.

 

[toocoolfool]

http://archive.is/9hfZ0

Interesting contributions to the discussion by "Hailey Heartless"(hereinafter Captain Binbag, as it's so gross to use his fetish name.)

Love the explanation when someone asks him who "JY" is. In Binbag's world, he's just an innocent person who filed a human rights complaint and is now being persecuted by the TERFs!

Interesting that he's blaming GC for Yaniv having become a public figure. For the record, The Economist wrote about him first. All the Terfs did was put Yaniv's name to his actions. Binbag is using this as an argument for getting r/GC shut down. Why focus on this particular offence, out of all the million ways that GC have literally murdered transwomen?

But the most interesting thing is that he's popping up on the Yaniv thread defending him in the first place.

I'm convinced now that Binbag is Yaniv's man on the inside. He's boasted before about his contacts in Twitter security.

His investment in defending Yaniv seems to go beyond the standard trans refusal to acknowledge trans crimes. I wonder if Yaniv has dirt on him, or they're mutually implicated in something.

Disgusting. He went out of his way to downplay what Jonathan Yaniv did. I think you're right, I bet these sickos run in the same circles and it is in "Hailey's" best interest to keep things quiet.

edit: Is there really not a thread on Hailey? I searched and couldn't find him, which surprised me.

 

[illhavetwo]

http://archive.is/9hfZ0

Interesting contributions to the discussion by "Hailey Heartless"(hereinafter Captain Binbag, as it's so gross to use his fetish name.)

Love the explanation when someone asks him who "JY" is. In Binbag's world, he's just an innocent person who filed a human rights complaint and is now being persecuted by the TERFs!

Interesting that he's blaming GC for Yaniv having become a public figure. For the record, The Economist wrote about him first. All the Terfs did was put Yaniv's name to his actions. Binbag is using this as an argument for getting r/GC shut down. Why focus on this particular offence, out of all the million ways that GC have literally murdered transwomen?

But the most interesting thing is that he's popping up on the Yaniv thread defending him in the first place.

I'm convinced now that Binbag is Yaniv's man on the inside. He's boasted before about his contacts in Twitter security.

His investment in defending Yaniv seems to go beyond the standard trans refusal to acknowledge trans crimes. I wonder if Yaniv has dirt on him, or they're mutually implicated in something.

"After the case was dropped, GenderCritical published the person's name in violation of the publication ban."
What is it about these troons that keeps them for understanding basic legal concepts, like the fact a Canadian pretend court doesn't actually have jurisdiction outside Canada and no one gives a shit about their publication bans? I can practically hear his stumpy sausage fingers tapping the keyboard and writing yet another report to reddit admins. Good luck, Binbag.

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

Did a general search on reddit and it looks like he got fucking 4chan, of all places. Or the /lgbt/ board, at least.

Even 4chan is censoring this? Man, this really is reminiscent of gamergate.

Disgusting. He went out of his way to downplay what Jonathan Yaniv did. I think you're right, I bet these sickos run in the same circles and it is in "Hailey's" best interest to keep things quiet.

edit: Is there really not a thread on Hailey? I searched and couldn't find him, which surprised me.

We should make one. For now I'm putting screenshots of Hailey's stuff in the "most repulsive tranny" thread to avoid clogging up this one with things unrelated with Jonathan.
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/most-physically-repulsive-tranny.36943/

 

[Sinner's Sandwich]

His investment in defending Yaniv seems to go beyond the standard trans refusal to acknowledge trans crimes. I wonder if Yaniv has dirt on him, or they're mutually implicated in something.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are in the same troon pedophile ring

 

[toocoolfool]

I wouldn't be surprised if they are in the same troon pedophile ring

It could just be that Jonathan Yaniv knew each other or ran in the same social circles. They're both in Canada and they are both """transgender""". Given the same social status and living in close proximity, it's almost guaranteed that they either interacted directly or came to know each other through mutual friends.

Add in the fact that they are both perverted freaks, I would hedge my bets on them hanging out together at least once.

 

[one_time_user]

I am pretty sure the connection between the two was Oger (my memory says anyway)