2019-03-19 - Media requests regarding the Shooting

[Stoneheart]

In Australia, at least, it is an incredibly expensive process to sue a media organisation for defamation. John Marsden was a wealthy man and won his case against the media, but the total damages awarded didn't even cover his legal costs.

We can dox them. having all kind of Spergs who are pissed at your paper going after you is way more effective than sueing.

 

[dacote]

@Null, wrote this for you, it basically separates fact from fiction (feel free to suggest changes) and explains what the media has said that is true and what is libelous:

Lies New Zealand’s Media and Other Rags Who Followed Them Have Uttered About The Kiwi Farms

Note: I’m a member of the Kiwi Farm forums and thus I may have a bias for them, feel free to verify my claims by going to them and…

medium.com

http://archive.li/vUFqz

you've been a bit overzealous here. saying that calling josh an alt-right incel is a 'lie' is like calling someone a liar because that goth kid they just referred to is actually an emo.

also the association with the florida school threats isn't a lie. it might have been vordrak who made the threats but josh is sure as shit associated with that.

and that copypasta shit to stocking was real even if it was ancient

the only outright 'lie' here is the reason for being sacked by 8chan

 

[GethN7]

you've been a bit overzealous here. saying that calling josh an alt-right incel is a 'lie' is like calling someone a liar because that goth kid they just referred to is actually an emo.

also the association with the florida school threats isn't a lie. it might have been vordrak who made the threats but josh is sure as shit associated with that.

and that copypasta shit to stocking was real even if it was ancient

the only outright 'lie' here is the reason for being sacked by 8chan

Keep in mind the whole thrust was that they saying these things in a LEGAL context, as in, citing all these as absolute facts without sources or citations.

On the first item, they were claiming since Null is all the things they said, he's a criminal. I know most are wrong and at best gross exaggerations, and even if they were all true, they have no legal bearing on Null either way.

Second, while he may be associated with edgelordy BS, he is legally innocent of actually DOING any of it. Since this is all said to libel Null, basically claiming all of his ED page is legal fact, I was pointing out that no, legally, he has committed no crimes that they allege.

In the case of libel, they have to prove their case being able to assign legal responsibility to the party being libeled for what they say. If they cannot legally claim he committed those acts they allege, they have committed a civil offense under US law, which would be operative since the party being lied about is an American citizen. Even if he's been implicated as being associated with illegal acts, if he did not actually do them (was not charged/convicted), then they still libeled him, especially since they provide no cited proof from objective sources proving their allegations.

 

[2nd_time_user]

In the case of libel, they have to prove their case being able to assign legal responsibility to the party being libeled for what they say. If they cannot legally claim he committed those acts they allege, they have committed a civil offense under US law, which would be operative since the party being lied about is an American citizen. Even if he's been implicated as being asociated with illegal acts, if he did not actually do them (was not charged/convicted), then they still libeled him, especially since they provide no cited proof from objective sources proving their allegations.

I'll be that guy. What does "implicated" or "associated" mean?

Just because there's no civil or criminal complaint doesn't mean someone didn't do something. Or that they did for that matter.

 

[GethN7]

I'll be that guy. What does "implicated" or "associated" mean?

Just because there's no civil or criminal complaint doesn't mean someone didn't do something. Or that they did for that matter.

Here's an example:

Someone is accused of raping a child. That person is legally innocent of doing so, but the association with the claim sticks and they are forever associated as having done it in the public eye even if they never were legally proven to have done so.

What these libeling rags are doing is claiming "Josh Moon is linked to X" to defame and discredit him, even if in a legal sense he is innocent of any civil or criminal wrongdoing. He might have been involved, like when he was believed to have been the one who sent threats to schools, but legally, he didn't do it, but these libelous rags fail to make that distinction on purpose to mislead people into believing Josh Moon is a criminal scumbag and thus everything he says is just as trustworthy and thus he's the monster, even if the proof he's actually guilty of anything in a legal sense does not exist.

 

[2nd_time_user]

Here's an example:

Someone is accused of raping a child. That person is legally innocent of doing so, but the association with the claim sticks and they are forever associated as having done it in the public eye even if they never were legally proven to have done so.

By this standard, Jonathan Yaniv is innocent. I'm just saying.

 

[GethN7]

By this standard, Jonathan Yaniv is innocent. I'm just saying.

Legally, yes.

However, that's the the whole point of not libeling someone, you aren't supposed to say something about someone that you claim as fact if you cannot legally prove it. Opinion is protected speech, as is anything that is objectively true by provable evidence. In Yaniv's case, he has yet to assert any claims of libel because he knows all the shit calling him a creepy deviant is true, hence using "this hurts my feelings" nonsense to try and suppress it, much like how the NZ authorities have no power to legally stop people from suppressing the footage of Tarrant's crimes outside their country, hence their attempts to exert pressure on non-NZ organizations and countries to do so that has no actual legal force.

Therefore, if the NZ news rags made clear it was ALLEGED Josh Moon did these things, it would be scummy but legal, but they do not make that distinction nor cite any sources for their allegations to show they are merely acting off what available evidence they have.

 

[Kosher Salt]

I'll be that guy. What does "implicated" or "associated" mean?

Just because there's no civil or criminal complaint doesn't mean someone didn't do something. Or that they did for that matter.

As I understand it, a standard that is typically used for libel, once it's established that the alleged claims are false, is basically "would those false claims cause greater harm to reputation in the eyes of the average person than the correctly stated truth would've caused".

So... if the truth would've harmed his reputation just as much as the lie did, it's pretty hard to claim defamation. But if the lie was any worse than the truth, you've potentially got a case.

 

[Marchesa of the Vast]

@Null, wrote this for you, it basically separates fact from fiction (feel free to suggest changes) and explains what the media has said that is true and what is libelous:

Lies New Zealand’s Media and Other Rags Who Followed Them Have Uttered About The Kiwi Farms

Note: I’m a member of the Kiwi Farm forums and thus I may have a bias for them, feel free to verify my claims by going to them and…

medium.com

http://archive.li/vUFqz

For future reference, all caps is generally bad form. Using bold or italicized formatting to stress words comes across as more professional.

 

[GethN7]

For future reference, all caps is generally bad form. Using bold or italicized formatting to stress words comes across as more professional.

I considered that, but since I used those forms of punctuation liberally in the document for my breakdown of the libelous article, I wanted to avoid confusion by the casual reader.

 

[GS 281]

Using bold or italicized formatting to stress words comes across as more professional.

that gets obnoxious real fast. just let the gravity of what you have to say naturally emphasize for the reader. If you're writing and you realize "hey this part is important", then perhaps everything else around it isn't that important and can be trimmed.

 

[Marchesa of the Vast]

that gets obnoxious real fast. just let the gravity of what you have to say naturally emphasize for the reader. If you're writing and you realize "hey this part is important", then perhaps everything else around it isn't that important and can be trimmed.

I don't believe I recommended overusing it. Simply that it is a preferred alternative to using allcaps for stressing.

 

[heathercho]

I don't believe I recommended overusing it. Simply that it is a preferred alternative to using allcaps for stressing.

Emphatic Order would remove the need for stressing, however, this is in a mixed use essay format, so it doesn't need to stick to any style. The casual reader will understand that stress is implied by liberal capitals (or italics/bolding).
The use of pathos, ethos and logos with examples really aims it towards and audience that needs capitals (or liberal stylisation), tbh. The idiots who hate this website need to be told emphatically which words to focus on. Anything that implores morons with smooth brains to focus on the point is level standard. You could literally put a shotgun in their face and yell Allahu Akbar and they'd say "Religion of Peace, KIWIFARMS BAD" in their dying breath.

At least that would be my take if I were editing it.

 

[wabbits]

In other threads in "Take that off the god damn Internet..." they're ready to slaughter each other over gun rights, while we here are preparing to move on to why exclamation points weaken credibility. Sherry, anyone?

 

[symantec]

In other threads in "Take that off the god damn Internet..." they're ready to slaughter each other over gun rights, while we here are preparing to move on to why exclamation points weaken credibility. Sherry, anyone?

"Gun Rights!" see? it makes your argument seem too enthusiastic.

 

[IAmNotAlpharius]

The gaul of some of these journalists is annoying. Not only do they miscontrue what the New Zealand police wanted, they also are trying to stamp out primary sources of a tragic event. They should know the importance of information...

Thankfuly Null had the balls to archive what he did. I’m glad the video and documents were saved for historical and educational reasons. It’s an awful event but imagine if every massacre was erased from history. We could never learn from them. Both the video and manifesto are primary sources on the killer and his motivations. If they were succesfully removed from the internet, future historians would rue the lost insights they provided. There’s only so much one can learn from secondary sources.

Deleting the video and the manifesto won’t bring the victims back to life. Nor will it make white supremacy disappear. We may as well use them to understand and prevent future tragedies. In fact, some American police have already asked for the videos for training purposes. With that footage, they can save lives and learn how to better counter an active shooter. Footage that many activists would rather put to the flame for political points.

 

[HG 400]

For future reference, all caps is generally bad form. Using bold or italicized formatting to stress words comes across as more professional.

that gets obnoxious real fast. just let the gravity of what you have to say naturally emphasize for the reader. If you're writing and you realize "hey this part is important", then perhaps everything else around it isn't that important and can be trimmed.

Emphatic Order would remove the need for stressing, however, this is in a mixed use essay format, so it doesn't need to stick to any style. The casual reader will understand that stress is implied by liberal capitals (or italics/bolding).
The use of pathos, ethos and logos with examples really aims it towards and audience that needs capitals (or liberal stylisation), tbh. The idiots who hate this website need to be told emphatically which words to focus on. Anything that implores morons with smooth brains to focus on the point is level standard. You could literally put a shotgun in their face and yell Allahu Akbar and they'd say "Religion of Peace, KIWIFARMS BAD" in their dying breath.

At least that would be my take if I were editing it.

The best way of stressing parts of a document is to stand behind the reader and punch them in the back of the head while screaming the parts you want to stress at them whenever you think they've just reached one.

 

[janekop]

Haven't seen this mentioned yet - KF is in the Wikipedia article "Christchurch mosque shootings"

 

[Freddy Freaker]

View attachment 701784
Haven't seen this mentioned yet - KF is in the Wikipedia article "Christchurch mosque shootings"

Surprisingly neutral for SJpedia

 

[2nd_time_user]

r/newzealand is back with this pinned mod message.
tl;dr: Don't debate guns or free speech. Don't name the shooter (but having links to articles that do is ok.) Do not attempt to link the video or manifesto. We're talking to the police and will turn over any info we have on anyone who has. Love, the mods.

Christchurch Terror Attack - Moderator Update : newzealand

archived 21 Mar 2019 12:01:01 UTC

archive.is

METAChristchurch Terror Attack - Moderator Update (self.newzealand)
submitted 22 hours ago by TheRealBallchynzKawakawa shill - announcement
Kia Ora all. The mods thought it was timely to provide an update on a number of matters:
Moderation Policies
While the sub has started to quiet down there are still some issues that are coming through. The mods have discussed and in general the following removal policies will apply.

• New Users or Users with no history that are wading into debates pushing agendas (Free Speech, Gun control etc) will likely be removed. NZ Has no codified right to free speech, and this subreddit is under no obligation to have a free for all. These users are usually identified through tools the moderators have to analyze post history.
• Articles or self posts that regurgitate or re-open gun / free speech debates. This draws out a whole lot of vitriol that is frankly not useful. Articles with new information or policy progress will be allowed, but we reserve the right to remove these if they devolve into shit fights.
• We will be removing any comments that name the accused shooter. Articles that mention his name will be allowed.
• Anyone sharing the video or manifesto, or describing the video / manifesto will have their comment removed and be subject to a ban.
• White Nationalist Dog Whistles will be removed and the users potentially banned
• While messages of condolences are genuine and heartfelt. These should be expressed in the sticky threads, rather than their own separate posts. These post will be removed, however, no action will be taken against the user
• We've always had a rule against hate speech, but we will be enforcing it a lot more strictly than we may have in the past.

Police Notification
To have complete transparency, the moderators have been in contact with the Police. We have made the decision to release the username of those sharing the video and manifesto, should that be requested of us.
Lastly, we strongly encourage you to come together and support one another. If you are having trouble please reach out to friends, family, colleagues. Naku te rourou nau te rourou ka ora ai te iwi.
Aroha Nui.