HarveyKlinger

How soon before the come to VOAT and demand a handover of user names and IP addresses?

CJJacobs

RIght. And if they do, I would think that would be grounds for a class-action. Because we aren't doing anything wrong/illegal. THEY ARE!

HarveyKlinger

Just playing devils advocate here... ANY post that says "so and so is a pedophile" is defamation of character and every instance of it from that same person is another count. I don't know where VOAT is physically located but they could easily get a warrant to seize the equipment and gather all of the info if it's not located in some country outside of their reach. So anybody on here that names names, businesses, charities, etc. would be held liable.

jealoushe

Come and get me.

CJJacobs

Great point.

Is there a difference between saying 'so-and-so is a pedophile' and 'so-and-so may be a pedophile' legally speaking?

Also, is there is legal difference between an average citizen being discussed and a known public personality or public political figure?

Otherwise, this is a great reminder.

HarveyKlinger

There is a HUGE difference in "so and so is a pedophile" and "I believe so and so is a pedophile." One gets you sued because you said something as fact, one is you stating your personal opinion and is perfectly legal.

The difference between the two types of people being discussed won't matter in the case of slander/defamation of character. Remember when James Woods sued the guy that called him a coke head or something like that? That was one statement by one guy. It wasn't 100 statements or even 10. He made a single tweet to that fact and Woods sued. It is expected a public figure can be made fun of or satired much more than a private citizen can. So if you made fun of Donald Trumps hair (without calling him something like a pedo or a nazi) you're in the clear. If you make fun of a kid with down's syndrome you can be sued for bullying. Not quite the same thing but I think you get the point.

Just a quick note, if someone ELSE outside of this forum called someone a pedophile, you can site that as previously established evidence if it hasn't been disproven or fought legally, it's fair game. So if some public figure like oh... BREITBART tweeted something like “How prog-guru John Podesta isn’t household name as world class underage sex slave op cover-upperer defending unspeakable dregs escapes me,” you may have a defense since it can be reasonable assumed that it is not known that the opposite is true at the time the statement is made.

NOW, just found this to back some of the above up:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/28/andrew-breitbart-tweet-before-death-adds-fuel-to-o/

The Washington Post said:* "The First Amendment is a bulwark of democracy but provides no protection for defamatory allegations published in knowing disregard for the truth. Mr. Alefantis is more than entitled to sue for defamation and libel, if he can find the purveyors of the garbage heaved his way.”*

CJJacobs

Interesting info. Thank you. So it sounds like you are saying, it may be decently established to say Podesta is a pedo. But it would not be objectively established enough to say Alefantis is?

If I am understanding you correctly?

HarveyKlinger

Pretty much but even when the law is the law, once you're before a judge/jury the law has no place in the courtroom and they can nail you for intent. It's all shitty and muddy but at the very least, calling someone a pedo is going to get you in trouble if they haven't admitted to it or got arrested for it AND the child involved wasn't prepubescent. SO many people on this forum don't know what a pedo is and call adults being convicted of having sex with a 15 year old a pedo. Legally, that's defmation of character because being convicted of having sex with someone underage doesn't make you a pedo. They are ONLY a pedophile if the child hadn't hit puberty yet.

CJJacobs

Important info. Perhaps post this somewhere in a main thread?

HarveyKlinger

Sadly, I doubt many will read it and most that will will call me a shill. So many posts have gotten so outlandishly crazy, trying to desperately to find something when there is nothing there that trying to discuss something that isn't 100% supportive of the idea is ridiculed. One guy asked about the use of police tape and if cops ever use it in a gunman type situation BEFORE they've apprehended him. I responded with what I know is fact and he just wouldn't accept it. So I gave up and will let him make the conclusion that the gunman was a false flag and perhaps the cops were also actors. I dunno what some of these guys think sometimes.

CJJacobs

Yeah. Hilarious. But the gunman WAS a false flag. And the WashPo is a well-established disinformation outlet.

HarveyKlinger

I'm still waiting to find out if he or others suspect the cops were real or not. :) Because TECHNICALLY, if they got a permit to do something and close down the street, they could use fake cops with slightly incorrect uniforms and wooden guns and probably be 100% legal in doing so, like when they film a TV show. Of course I'm making this up (in case someone reads this) but some of the theories have been hilariously bad.

CJJacobs

And a lot of them have been hilariously good. And true. Cause the dude does have an IMDB page. And his Dad is with FBI.

Come to think of it...you are sounding like a shill.

HarveyKlinger

I'm not. I swear (which is exactly WHAT a shill would say I suppose). If you search, I think I may have been the first to report he had an IMDB page.

CJJacobs

And I am still gonna research the hell out of Alefantis, because at this point there is a TON of circumstantial evidence that he MAY be a pedo.

Caratacus

Possible. I just think the continued pressure on MSM is going to create more retaliatory legislation combating what they call "fake news." More laws against = lesser probability of winning.