Sycophant talking points from yesterday:
- Pxie shared videos of others without consent
No evidence provided. The only semblance of evidence supports Pxie, suggesting she had to wait for permission:

via
https://imgur.com/a/YwxfR3n
Pxie denies the allegations:
https://x.com/pxielovee/status/1892683978592698817
- Pxie was not as sexually inexperienced as she claimed

via "
Final Statement"
Pxie claims Destiny was the second person she's slept with:
https://x.com/pxielovee/status/1892683983315714207
Destiny describes Pxie as "she was young so she was kind of new and wasn't that good" to Rose:
https://kiwifarms.st/threads/steven-bonnell-ii-destiny-destiny-gg.29205/post-19993452
Destiny provides no evidence of it being "guy
s," and knowingly lied if it's not accurate because he says they are "identifiable men." Pxie claims it was only one guy--her ex--not multiple guys (see above). Mentions "the guy" in the logs:

via
https://imgur.com/a/YwxfR3n
- It was "implied consent"
Everyone understands there is no implied consent if two people share sexually explicit material between them. Destiny is trying to say there are mitigating factors, that would imply consent:
i) Pxie having made recordings with another partner
ii) Pxie sending videos of her together with a 3rd party (Destiny is just telling on himself with assuming this was non-consensual. Either way, it does not follow that someone breaching a 3rd party's trust mean you have consent to breach theirs. After all, if this is Destiny's logic, then Destiny, by sending videos involving 3rd parties to Rose, gave implied consent to Rose/Solo to do the same)
iii) Pxie suggesting they record video
Of course, none of these make any sense, or in any way "implies consent" for someone to share this type of material with a 3rd party.
How long does "implied consent" last anyways? The logs were from 2020 (and if Destiny had any more recent, he would have released them), while Destiny sent this video around years later.
Legally, "implied consent" isn't a thing. Let's look at the statutes:
USC 6851:
Florida 784.049:
- Malice is needed
USC 6851:
No mention of malice
Florida 784.049:

This is the only hit for "malic." But this seems to only be for the criminal side?
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress:

Intentional
or negligent.
via
https://theleachfirm.com/emotional-distress-florida/
Invasion of Privacy, Public Disclosure of Private Facts:

No mention of malice.
via
https://floridalitigationguide.com/...f-privacy-public-disclosure-of-private-facts/
What I wonder is..how bad is it for someone to obfuscate, speculate (knowing that his footsoldiers will spread it as fact), and possibly outright lie like this, in terms of compensatory damages?
Add.: Destiny's M.O. goes back to at least 2020

via
https://imgur.com/a/YwxfR3n