Why doesn't Null sue the lying journos?

[Cyclonus]

Since journos collectively decided to start sucking Keffals inverted penis, they've been churning out smear pieces about Null and the farms full of provable, demonstrable lies. @Null, why do you put up with this shit? Take the fuckers for every penny they've got and use the money to turn the farms into an unsinkable library of truth for the benefit of future generations. I'm sure your pal Nick Rekieta would be happy to represent you for a slice of the cheddar.

 

[Bubble Ba'ath]

Because then the next week headlines would all be like : "NEO NAZI TRANS-MURDERER USES RUSSIAN BOTS TO ATTACK PRESS" further increasing the difficulty of getting a fair hearing even in a court.

 

[Moon Cricket]

Because he will not win.

The courts are skewed in favour of those in power or with financial backing, both of which Null unfortunately does not have.

 

[Ultrapenguin]

There's a lot of effort involved in a case like that, especially when you take into account the nationalities involved, and the chances of success are extremely low.

In a sane world reparations would be in order, but we obviously don't live in a sane world or none of this bullshit would ever be happening to begin with and 80% of these people would already be in jail or beaten to within an inch of their life. At this point I think people need to abandon the idea that the system can be relied on to mediate anymore. Deal with it yourself, or it won't get dealt with.

 

[Napoleon Bonerfart]

Every other post on telegram for a while was some seething faggot with a hot take about daddy Null suing.

 

[augment]

Sue for libel? Even if we could sue journalists for lying and misinforming, there aren't enough lawyers on this planet.

 

[Onni Kalsarikännit]

Because it's expensive to get a (good) lawyer, the trials would take their time and it's even not sure if he would win.

Case closed.

 

[Bitcoin Henchman]

The press is extremely protected and are basically allowed to fuck up stories, and we got rid of a law against yellow journalism back in like the 70's or 80's, so if he did sue the journos not only would it cost a lot and take a while, he almost definitely wont win, they have more lawyers and money, they would ramp up printing stories to make his life hell, and in the end he would most likely have to pay them directly when he did lose.

 

[Stephanie Bustcakes]

The media always prints provable, demonstrable lies. You're just more aware of it in this case because you already know the truth. Always assume news is 100% lies and propaganda 100% of the time unless proven otherwise. If it were possible to successfully sue them over things like this, they would be out of business already.

 

[Just A Butt]

yeah cause everyone knows lawyers are free and shit

 

[Agarathium1066]

Even if he had infinite time and money it wouldn't do anything but stir up more people to come try to shit on the farm. They'd simply further smear and try to sway public opinion because defending yourself is often seen as a move done by a guilty party.

As is saying nothing because the court of public opinion is fucking retarded.

 

[MrTroll]

Because suing for defamation generally requires proving malicious intent, and truth is an absolute defense. Framing KF as a tranny-hating hate site that hates trannies is (A) not clearly the result of malicious intent, and (B) basically true.

 

[Beak Thing]

Because suing for defamation generally requires proving malicious intent, and truth is an absolute defense. Framing KF as a tranny-hating hate site that hates trannies is (A) not clearly the result of malicious intent, and (B) basically true.

It's debatable if there's any loss of reputation leading to damages either. Honestly I think this is turning into a Streisand moment for KF.

 

[Agent Abe Caprine]

Lawsuits are incredibly expensive.

 

[Capsaicin Addict]

First off, look up NY vs Sullivan.

The media has been incredibly hard to sue, especially if you are some sort of public figure. Add to this that the U.S. puts a heavy burden on the accuser with defamation laws, and getting a verdict to stick can be tricky.

Now, that being said, an awful lot of people seem to be less than impressed with how the media gets to do a Cleveland Steamer all over someone's reputation, then wander off without so much as an apology. So the tides may be changing.

 

[Dyn]

He'd lose. Null's been called a pedophile terrorist by seething online anons for the last ten years, and the journalists are just repeating that 'public knowledge'. Any court would likely find that his reputation was already so bad that he cannot be defamed.

 

[Jean Lafitte 1812]

As far as suing Keffals, nothing she's said amounts to legal defamation. Most of the damage to the site from CF dropping us and the hit pieces came from Keffals complaining of the doxing going on here, which did happen. Even the shit about the suicides that get blamed on us didn't originate from Keffals, so no liability there either. Essentially everything Keffals says about us is protected hyperbole or the truth just being twisted.

As for the media and hit pieces: they're just reporting on the Internet drama and Keffals' crusade against the site. It creates a legal cycle where you can't sue either the media or Keffals because they'll just blame the other party and there's probably not enough of a connection to sue them together.

If you want to see Kaffals sued, Destiny was implying that he's lawyering up for a lolsuit against her for the shit she pulled. Even if Destiny's likely argument is that the Farms is such a horrific entity that falsely connecting him to us is defamation per se on the level of credibly calling him a pedo or a Nazi.

 

[Xarpho]

The way that defamation suits are run is that you have to provable financial damage, which means opening the books, which is a risky move if you also have people seeking to destroy your life....and since Kiwi Farms isn't really a profitable business, it won't go anywhere.

Anti-SLAPP laws prevent people with unlimited money and power suing people who really can't defend themselves for defamation successfully but it doesn't work in reverse, so a newspaper could print 100% bullshit, and even if you could go after them, they'd lawyer up and claim that they meant no actual malice and weasel out of it, though by that time they'd probably just pay you to go away. And even then that would hinge on if they put in statements that were unverifiable. How Sandmann (Covington High School kid) had some measure of winning was that the press put in statements that he "blocked" Nathan Phillips "would not allow him to retreat".

Beyond that, defamation is basically bread and circuses, like Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard. Extremely expensive, doesn't really restore reputations or fortunes (especially if the person can't pay), and reveals dirty laundry about both parties.

 

[OrangeJuliusEvola]

Because the Farms continuing to exist and us continuing to post here mocking and deriding their lying asses will cause them more butthurt than any amount of lawfare ever could. Besides, why play a game where the decks are so stacked against you that you'd never win?

 

[Rob Wolchek]

Defamation laws in the U.S are incredibly tricky, a lot of things that have been said could be protected under the 1st Amendment. You also have to figure out which state you want to hold these hearings in, which increases costs. Unless you're an A-List celebrity or someone with endless amounts of money, it is definitely not worth suing anyone for defamation in the U.S unless you like wasting your money.