Anonymous big_al_the_riddler 5d

Posting screenshots of tweets is not defamation

0

Anonymous #1 5d

The site was called “Charlie’s murderers” and the home page had the text “Expose Charlie’s murderers” on it. Highlighting people’s information under that context is absolutely defamation.

1

Anonymous big_al_the_riddler 5d

Again, posting twitter screenshots is not defamation

0

Anonymous #1 5d

Rules for thee but not for me amirite? You people lose your shit when Kirk’s tweets are reposted but you’re perfectly fine with this

3

Anonymous #1 5d

They’ve now changed the site to charliekirkdata.org and that text has been changed to “Charlie Kirk Data Foundation,” with the names and photos of all who were on that site now gone. They absolutely bailed to avoid defamation lol

1

Anonymous #1 5d

It is defamation if you’re equating or insinuating those people are murderers lol

1

Anonymous #2 5d

Have any republicans claimed reposting Kirk’s tweets is defamation? If so, show your source

0

Anonymous #1 5d

That ain’t what they even said man lol, this is some painful levels of cope

1

Anonymous big_al_the_riddler 5d

Until you answer for your rhetoric that is at least partly responsible for the political assassination that took place last week you do not have permission to speak.

0

Anonymous #1 5d

Case in point lmao, I didn’t cause jack shit my man

1

Anonymous big_al_the_riddler 5d

Technically it isn’t, I went into this with someone else yesterday. Only if there’s specific statements like “Sally is a murderer” with their picture/tweet/etc. Then they’d have to sue the person who posted that, and the website as materialistically supporting the libel. But to my knowledge there was no statements, just info and their screenshots, thus protecting the website from defamation case. Now they’re fucked on harassment and stalking charges though

5

Anonymous og_beer 5d

I would argue there’s absolutely a case of the website itself opens with the phrase “expose Charlie’s murderers” before allowing someone to post information but idk man

2

Anonymous #4 5d

Oh? Where was this acceptance of cancel culture and doxxing when it was turned against you in the 2010s? Back then it was all whining and bitching about “you shouldn’t fire people over social media posts” and now you’re encouraging it? What a bunch of hypocritical self-righteous grifting fucks you guys are.

1

Anonymous big_al_the_riddler 5d

You should be on that website imo

-2

Anonymous big_al_the_riddler 5d

Unfortunately the law requires very specific false statements :/ even if it’s worded as an opinion it doesn’t count. But again harassment and stalking will be pretty clean cut

3

Anonymous #1 5d

Okay ragebaiter that’s very nice, now you go play in the corner while the adults chat

-1

Anonymous #2 5d

No no you did that in the 2010s you can’t be complaining now that it’s come back to bite you. Not my fault your employer doesn’t want you to represent them in the current climate, and maybe it’s always been wrong to cheer on assassinations. This is just accountability.

0

Anonymous #4 5d

Aren’t you supposed to be the party of Jesus or at least according to Trump the “party of peace.” What happened to “revenge is bad/turn the other cheek?” You just want to be justified in your actions. And when some “crazy lone wolf shooter shoots person off Charlie Kirk list” headlines come about, will you feel the slightest bit responsible?

5