Josh said he couldn't listen to Rekieta because he sounded "too smug" in the first minute or so, but there was some very salient points he made about the courts will interpret the wordings of the tweets. Josh's lawyer might be pulling a Ty Beard and telling him things he wants to hear for a payday instead of being realistic with his chances of victory.Here's the Rekieta clip I got the above screenshots from:
Null's cult-of-personality stans are in the comments making fun of Rekieta, when he's making some very good points actually.
Are Kiwis reading these comments from people disputing Null's defamation claims underneath the Rekieta clip? I guess not:
View attachment 45162
Null claims that the xeet where Epik said "the US authorities forced us to take action" was defamatory because it implied that Null was either a suspect or being investigated... but why does Null read into this reference to "US Authorities" that HE is the implied suspect? (Guilty conscience?)
I wonder, has Null considered the possibility that Epik might have reached out to LE about the screenshots because they wanted to report the person that was in those screenshots, not Null himself? Not everything has to be about you, Null. You have a lot of gross people profiled on your forum that LE might wanna look into. If you and your users are uploading all kinds of "receipts" about these people but not actually reporting them to LE, your ISP might do that themselves, once they've realized the kind of people you and your users are profiling on your forum. What if Epik had received a report concerning the thread about the GoonClown (which is also full of public admissions of pedophilia on his part AND has a video of him masturbating while admitting to being a pedo) Epik reported the thread to the FBI, then xeeted about complying with "US Authorities"? How would that be defamatory?
If I was working at Epik's abuse department and I had received screenshots of what someone claimed was CP, I'd immediately forward the entire abuse report with all of the screenshots to LE, just to be safe. Is the likelihood of Epik doing that really so unusual and outrageous to Null?
Here's another possible scenario: What if Epik had received the screenshots, weren't sure what to do, so they contacted LE for advice on how to proceed lawfully, and it was LE who told Epik, "You must take down whatever website those pictures are on to stop the distribution of potential/suspected/alleged CP"? Is Epik engaged in defamation by stating they did whatever LE told them to do?
These are all possible scenarios, but it's Null who insists that there was no involvement from "US Authorities" and that "Epik admitted this [claim of LE involvement] was a lie". The fact is, Null simply doesn't know if there was any contact at all between "US Authorities" and Epik about the screenshots or anything else on his forum. However, if Epik, in good faith, believed that the initial abuse report concerned potential or suspected CP on a customer's website, more likely than not they would've contacted LE about it, whether they notified Null of this or not.
Is there truly no one left on KF who can explain these things to Null?
Can no one explain to Null that it's perfectly normal and customary for an ISP to contact LE when they've received an abuse report about potential CP on a customer's forum? That this doesn't mean the ISP has any malice towards Null as an individual, but they're just trying to follow the law when dealing with such material being reported to them?
Null has become a monomaniacal one-track mind who has surrounded himself with yes-men and cheerleaders who dare not challenge him on anything.
Last edited:

