You can demand that all you like. You're usually not getting it in an American court. Never mind collecting it when you'd be at the absolute back in the line behind all the creditors this shitbox of a company already has, if you actually somehow do get it.
"wlel"
Funnily enough I absolutely disagree:
This is a two pronged approach. While CSAM is obviously a more serious accusation on the face of it and will be part of the lawsuit, it's like a blunt ugly hammer you use to smash your enemies. Claiming they received official government approval whilst in reality exercising their own power is insidious. Instead of a hammer this is a knife that their politically motivated executives use to stab you in the back and rip out your fucking organs with a gleeful smile on their face. It pushes (intentionally and cerebrally) the false narrative that we were removed for legally ordered legitimate reasons. It's impersonating a judge's authority.
I was going to say that the CP claim was worse, since people could use that by telling other people that Josh tries to do business with, "Oh, didn't you hear? The Kiwi Farms got kicked off of Epik for hosting CP. Do you really want anything to do with them?" Then I realized that they could also do that with the other claim. I still say that hosting CSEM is the worse of the two, though.
I miss my old covfefe press...
Yes, because it can still cause tons of damage to the plaintiff for the time that it was up publicly. For example, someone could have lost a job or contract for defamatory statements that were up for a week which could have cost them $100,000. In this case, theres tons of screenshots that are being reshared and spread all over the place; genie can't be put back in the bottle. Archiving people still parroting their false statements could be used to show the extent of damages regardless of what damage control the company tried to do.
Vordrak used to bully providers into dropping KF all the time and then claim they'd dropped KF over hosting CP. It's a tactic which has been used successfully often enough that it would be useful for there to be enough of a consequence to make providers think twice in the future.
Yes, but they would have a better position to argue about damages and whatnot than if they just refused to admit fault at all.
No, only donations to qualified organizations (like 501(c)(3) organizations) are deductible, not donations to individuals.
based niggerjew financial system, thanks
What really matters is the perception that if the donations get to $74,000 it won't fund the lawsuit. I don't think a post on page #132 in this thread will do much to help in that regard.
If you won't have one for whatever reason, at least consider adding a disclaimer of what happens with the money in case of a partial run. I'm willing to donate to sue Epik. much less so to help your retarded friend.
Yes. It's literally that simple.
That's not what I said you fucking retard. But yes, spending defendants into bankruptcy has been a hobby of rich people for a long time.
