Encyclopedia Dramatica - The Kiwi Farms that time forgot, ownership passed around a multitude of drug addicts and losers like a cheap prostitute, constantly offline, dead any day now, graveyard of shitty millennial humor.

[AnOminous]

I'd like to know what doxing would not fall under "substantial emotional distress". But that is a rhetorical question. Have a nice night.

Those words have an actual legal meaning. "Substantial emotional distress" is harm of a level that it could require actual medical intervention.

It doesn't just mean being really butthurt.

And it can't prohibit First Amendment protected activity in any event.

 

[UMK]

something stupid

Those aren't weasel words. A weasel word is something that is intentional ambiguous.

Me saying that doxing is illegal depending on the circumstances is a true statement.

Just like killing somemone under some circumstance is legal.

Never did I say it was totally illegal. But as I said, you are just picking a fight.

 

[AprilRains]

Hm.

• join date: today
• only active in this thread
• concern trolling about doxing
• slings about legal terms with no understanding of what they mean

Seems legit!

 

[UMK]

Those words have an actual legal meaning. "Substantial emotional distress" is harm of a level that it could require actual medical intervention.

It doesn't just mean being really butthurt.

And it can't prohibit First Amendment protected activity in any event.

No that's not correct:

Substantial emotional distress means significant mental suffering or anguish that may, but does not necessarily, require medical or other professional treatment or counseling. - https://www.lawinsider.com/

I don't like internet definitions, but I don't have my copy of Black's law dictionary. It is also jurisdiction dependent, but we are talking about a federal statute.

Hm.

• join date: today
• only active in this thread
• concern trolling about doxing
• slings about legal terms with no understanding of what they mean

Seems legit!

Your colleague is wrong about substantial emotional distress, but unlike you, I am having a respectful discussion about it.

@AnOminous

I did a quick google search, and found an opinion, which coincidentally cited Black's law dictionary (a dictionary lawyers and Judges use):

Contraryto Osinger’s argument, “harass” and “substantial emotional distress” are not esoteric or complicated terms devoid of common understanding. See, e.g., Adams v. Ford Motor Co., 653 F.3d 299, 307 (3d Cir. 2011) (“Black’s Dictionary[784 (9th ed. 2009)] defines harassment as ‘words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose. . . .’”); see also Veile v. Martinson, 258 F.3d 1180, 1189 (10th Cir. 2001) (describing “substantial emotional distress” to be “understood by persons of common intelligence” to mean “mental distress, mental suffering, or mental anguish, and includes depression, dejection, shame, humiliation, mortification, shock, indignity, embarrassment, grief, anxiety, worry, fright, disappointment, nausea, and nervousness, as well as physical pain” in the context of a state stalking statute) (citations omitted).

As for your first amendment concerns, yes those are weighed. Courts will look at whether there is a legitimate purpose. Twitter cancel culture is a gray area, as one could argue that their behavior is to bring awareness, thereby serving a public interest.

 

[AnOminous]

I don't like internet definitions, but I don't have my copy of Black's law dictionary. It is also jurisdiction dependent, but we are talking about a federal statute.

It isn't just anything and good luck ever, ever proving it without some kind of expert testimony. It is not just being butthurt. It requires extreme, outrageous conduct beyond that allowed in a civilized society. The sort of language used is generally of this sort: "beyond all possible
bounds of decency, and. . .regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community[.]" Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Zeltwanger, 144 S.W.3d 438, 447 (Tex. 2004).

Good luck meeting such a standard. Any recovery based on "emotional distress" is going to require a lot more than reeeeing and imaginary PTSD.

As for your first amendment concerns, yes those are weighed. Courts will look at whether there is a legitimate purpose.

Pure speech doesn't need a "legitimate" purpose or any purpose at all.

 

[UMK]

It isn't just anything and good luck ever, ever proving it without some kind of expert testimony. It is not just being butthurt. It requires extreme, outrageous conduct beyond that allowed in a civilized society. The sort of language used is generally of this sort: "beyond all possible
bounds of decency, and. . .regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community[.]" Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Zeltwanger, 144 S.W.3d 438, 447 (Tex. 2004).

Good luck meeting such a standard. Any recovery based on "emotional distress" is going to require a lot more than reeeeing and imaginary PTSD.

I would like to agree. However I know all over the country people have been successfully sued for IIED (intentional infliction of emotional distress) for making parody facebook pages.

Which leads to the point that it rather depends on the jurisdiction.

Pure speech doesn't need a "legitimate" purpose or any purpose at all.

Pure speech is the communication of ideas.

Q.E.D. Putting someone's address on the internet with the intent to have them harassed is not pure speech.

At any rate, point is allowing doxxing on your site is playing Russian roulette on whether you will be sued or shutdown. Not a good policy.

Which is all I meant to convey.

 

[oddish]

Is there a reason null can't host ED like he does other "problematic" sites?

he hosted it for a while when sibin was in charge, I'm the one who suggested it. He also offered to host it after conrad went to jail, but I guess people on ED don't trust him. Only me and likeicare didn't give a shit and though we might as well let him since he's no better or worse than anyone else.

 

[Quoookie]

come to malhub.com

I will consider it. Thanks

 

[AnOminous]

I would like to agree. However I know all over the country people have been successfully sued for IIED (intentional infliction of emotional distress) for making parody facebook pages.

That wasn't a decision on the merits.

"On Wednesday, a Buncombe County Superior Court judge signed off on the consent judgment, which awarded Dial $250,000 in actual damages and $250,000 in punitive damages, for a total judgment of $500,000."

That's a settlement.

 

[UMK]

That wasn't a decision on the merits.

"On Wednesday, a Buncombe County Superior Court judge signed off on the consent judgment, which awarded Dial $250,000 in actual damages and $250,000 in punitive damages, for a total judgment of $500,000."

That's a settlement.

Keen eye. However, they settled because the Defendants knew they would lose. This came after a failed motion to dismiss, which means the Judge made a threshold opinion that Plaintiff's properly stated a claim.

There are better cases that went to trial that I could have used, so you got me there Mr. Goodman.

 

[AnOminous]

Keen eye. However, they settled because the Defendants knew they would lose. This came after a failed motion to dismiss, which means the Judge made a threshold opinion that Plaintiff's properly stated a claim.

Properly stating a claim and actually proving it are two entirely different things. What it meant is it would cost a lot to try. I'm not sure why they'd settle and make the amount public but I'd guess it's never getting collected and it was specifically so whoever the plaintiff was could make a big display of it. While never actually collecting it.

 

[UMK]

Properly stating a claim and actually proving it are two entirely different things. What it meant is it would cost a lot to try. I'm not sure why they'd settle and make the amount public but I'd guess it's never getting collected and it was specifically so whoever the plaintiff was could make a big display of it. While never actually collecting it.

That's true. Usually a settlement like this that has the amount made public has another sub rosa agreement that the judgement will not be collected unless there are further violations.

Your knowledge of the law is surely above a layman. Are you by chance a member of the bar or just well read?

 

[AnOminous]

That's true. Usually a settlement like this that has the amount made public has another sub rosa agreement that the judgement will not be collected unless there are further violations.

Your knowledge of the law is surely above a layman. Are you by chance a member of the bar or just well read?

I'm a J.D. Not currently an active member of any bar.

 

[UMK]

I'm a J.D. Not currently an active member of any bar.

I thought about getting my JD back in 2008. Sat for the LSAT.

Not too many public night school choices were I was. My veteran's grant only worked for public schools.

I did win a 7th Circuit case overturning the District Court's dismissal of defamation/civil rights claims against a Judge that had me fired while employed at the County. Not too many Pro Se's can say that.

Have a good week Mr. Goodman.

 

[AprilRains]

Just show us on the doll where we doxed you.

You're barging into a forum that has been doing this for a very long time, that has posted a very public rationale why it is legal, and blustering like you actually know something while always, always coming up short.

I think @AnOminous is being remarkably patient with you, and I'm not inclined to do the same. It is my great pleasure in life to waffle-stomp idiots, and I'll thank you not to question it until you've tried it for yourself. Not that you'll ever be in a position to.

 

[AnOminous]

I think @AnOminous is being remarkably patient with you, and I'm not inclined to do the same. It is my great pleasure in life to waffle-stomp idiots, and I'll thank you not to question it until you've tried it for yourself. Not that you'll ever be in a position to.

There are actually times where something that can be called "doxing" could actually at the same time be illegal. Credit card numbers are a really obvious example. SSNs are less obviously so, although there are some states where they are. I have never doxed SSNs when I have not been absolutely certain about the legality of it though. Tommy Tooter is a perfect example as he is so fucking dumb he has repeatedly posted his own SSN.

Doxing being illegal because someone got butthurt about it? Okay, I suppose it could happen. Just bring it bitch though.

 

[AprilRains]

There are actually times where something that can be called "doxing" could actually at the same time be illegal. Credit card numbers are a really obvious example. SSNs are less obviously so, although there are some states where they are. I have never doxed SSNs when I have not been absolutely certain about the legality of it though. Tommy Tooter is a perfect example as he is so fucking dumb he has repeatedly posted his own SSN.

Doxing being illegal because someone got butthurt about it? Okay, I suppose it could happen. Just bring it bitch though.

I agree with every word of that. There are some things you can do in the course of exposing someone's personal information that are very illegal. However, blurring that issue deliberately to make it seem like any doxing is legally risky is intellectually dishonest and offends the pure of heart. And also me.

Mainly I'm skeptical that this new user, who has not posted anything else anywhere else on this forum, is suddenly a self-appointed expert on doxing and is engaging in all of the most dishonest arguments of the opponents of that practice. He is pretending to be disinterested, and there's absolutely no way that's true.

 

[UMK]

lol why is this irrelevant faggot still speaking.

I came on these forums to answer questions about malhub.

Not to argue with a child about semantics and to listen to tough guy internet talk.

 

[AprilRains]

I like how you edited away al the crap about how you didn't even know I had posted. Great job of showing how not mad you are.

So you're the type of absolute faggot who is now in charge of ED? Jesus, and I thought Zaiger was bad.

@Freya is a much better ambassador for ED than you are. Go make some bathtub toast. And livestream it.

 

[UMK]

I like how you edited away al the crap about how you didn't even know I had posted. Great job of showing how not mad you are.

So you're the type of absolute faggot who is now in charge of ED? Jesus, and I thought Zaiger was bad.

@Freya is a much better ambassador for ED than you are. Go make some bathtub toast. And livestream it.

I usually edit my comments for clarity. Redundancy is deleted. It's obvious I would not get a notification since you did not reply directly.

No, that is paperclip (AEdiot) running ED. He doesn't want to use xenforo for some inexplicable reason, and the forum section is down (it's been down three days).

At first, I made a mock-up on GoDaddy thinking paperclip just didn't have xenforo, but that wasn't the issue. I then transferred the site to a server in Amsterdam.

Our new domain name is malhub.com . Freya (Baka), hater, gloriousreader, a fucking box, j15m, CFC, ASSBLONKER, scumhook, likeicare, and many more are all there.

We even have Oddguy, endo, and ubs although they just fucking lurk.

Well, see you around.