Here in the Great Southern Land of the Holy Spirit, we have some citizen journalists who have risen in profile thanks to the Cabal lunacy that is/was 2020/2021. One of those is a fellow who became a member of the Rebel News Team, the mob out of Canada doing breitbart-esque journalism. Name of Avi Yemini Twiffle account.
(Yes, he is denounced by some quarters as an operative of the Mossad, Mah Jewz, etc., but so far, he's doing a significant amount for the growing Freedom Movement in Australia. Personally, I don't have enough data to really evaluate, but so far he's doing far more good than harm, imo.)
Today he won a court battle to in which the court ordered Twitter to release the details of a particularly nasty shill account that has been spruiking the ... heheh ... virtues of the Marxist CCP Minion Daniel Andrews, who is currently Premier of the state of Victoria (think Newsom in California, or a tiny little state-level Turdeau. You heard me.) and acting anonymously but heck of a lot like an actual PR account (ref: my contribution to the mess): defending the Andrew's regime and attacking those who stand up against it.
I think the premise here is that the twitter account - name of PRguy who uses the image of a Simpson's character (reporter) as his avatar - has defamed Yemini and Yemini intends to bring a defamation suit against him.
So he took it to court, and the court ordered that Twitter has to reveal the details of the account.
This has the Leftist/Marxist shills and squakers all in an uproar. Bad precedent. Yemini's position, however, I think is quite reasonable. He's not doxxing the account; he wants to bring a suit against it and of course, that's not possible if the account remains anonymous. In other words, anonymity is important and fair, but not when it's used to break the law and violate other people's rights.
It's an interesting twist, because we are anons, and we know how destructive doxxing can be.
Is this a local win? Or should the account remain in anonymity?
I'd be interested to hear what the board thinks about this....
There are a ton of various popular government funded Twitter accounts. Brooklyn dad etc are all government and/or shareblue funded.
Knowing that and proving that are two different things.
This could be a very big deal.
Well, in the case of BrooklynDad someone got access to his bank statement and saw all of the deposits from ShareBlue or something like that, sometime at the beginning of 2021. Not sure if that is still available but there were digs on him by leftist anons shortly after.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/m27c6d/the_paid_accounts_on_twitter_are_currently_being/
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2021/03/10356352/brooklyn-dad-defiant-paid-twitter-biden-democrats-controversy
And I think that this link is the most damning of them all: https://nypost.com/2020/05/04/dem-pac-to-use-anti-terror-technology-to-counter-trumps-campaign/
Didn't q imply the Satan account on Twitter was someone important at one point?
"Hey, no fair. I should be able to commit crimes anonymously!"
Our enemies deeply want to kill anonymity on the Internet because they want to use their slander and harassment and intimidation tactics against anyone that disagrees with them in order to get them fired and personally and professionally ruined in real life. Everyone they strip of anonymity brings them closer to killing it for everyone.
Yes! It's like with many things having to do with freedom; leftists will use some minor aspect to eventually take away the whole thing. Anonymity needs to apply to the entire political spectrum, because it is a form of free speech.
Well well, this is very interesting. I too am still wary of Avi, especially his Israeli military time served, and his calling out by Peekay Truth back in the day, but,... I definitely appreciate his accosting of WEF delegates in Davos recently with Aussie legend cameraman Rukshan. He also has seemed solid in his reporting of Aussie lockdown absurdities. Will be watching this story intently. Thanks for posting mate!
Edit to add: I honestly don't know what to make of it, if Avi is a good guy then great, let's get a victory. On the reverse of the coin, is this a DS circus side show? Personally, I like Avi and his brazen style. Time will tell...
I've been wary of them for a while, but I have to concede Ezra and his crew are the only ones in Canadian media who have consistently taken the fight to the enemy in media, and haven't taken (our) government funding, and Trudy hates them. So for the time being "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
I can't believe everyone is evil, and to be fair a good Jew and a good Christian are both waiting for Christ. So I have to believe there will be some good Israelis who are sick of the same shit we are.
His military time could go either way on that point. I'm consistently surprised so many in our militaries are gullible to fall for the claptrap being consistently pushed, so I have to assume some in/from the Israeli military have to be doing the same eye roll when they hear of another terrorist attack that happened because everyone failed to do anything right that day and multiple people did things wrong - y'know like wedging a security door open.
I wholeheartedly agree with you fren.
Perfectly stated.
It's not that I like/support rebel news, but there aren't really any others (in Canada at least) that have the same level of reach/
Quite right.
Stay vigilant and expect the them to return to their true nature.
It's control the narrative and counter-narrative play.
It may well be.
Who among us expects to break the law and not be caught? I think we all know that isn't how it works—certainly if some company has information about a crime, it's going to get shared. The idea is that due process is our protection, the difference between investigation and doxxing.
But I think some people engaged in disrupting law and order are the ones expecting a pass. They expect not to get investigated and not to get doxxed.
Yeah, my sentiments exactly. We utilize anonymity not in order to be protected from engaging in criminal (or civil) violations against others, but entirely different.
That's how you use it now, but that's only because they haven't been able to fully roll out their Ministry of Truth to criminalize any utterance contrary to the State's narrative.
This seems like a honey pot.. Seems like a win, but is it merely setting a precedent for coming after anons?
Very easily could be...
I like the idea of anonymous accounts. There is value in being anonymous. There's is value in a moniker.
We are still responsible for our words.
And if you can't be anonymous there will be severe consequences to breaking ranks with the narrative and they'll attempt to ruin you personally and professionally for disagreeing with them.
What would be very spicy, however, if it turns out he is a paid Andrews crony account.
If he's just doing because he's a brainwashed nuffnuff, well, that's fair enough. But he certainly gives off the vibes of being a paid, controlled deliberate operative.
These govt shill accounts are to stupid to be anon… Only anons, who want to remain anon, know how to be anon…
But even then, unless you have intelligence grade IP spoofer, NSA knows who you are…
Sounds like a win but I disagree with it vehemently, as a matter or principle. It's a win for now but this can too easily be misused to the point where some simple trolling may be considered somefeIony.
They finally caught Catboy Kami
https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/326db87d153dc33f5d71c8e6f55b9327?impolicy=wcms_crop_resize&cropH=853&cropW=1280&xPos=0&yPos=56&width=862&height=575
Yep, I like it but now gov can also use the same precedent. Be aware.
That's the crux of it, right? It's tough for an anonymous slur to rise to criminality, but if the gov't is actively slandering people it shouldn't stand. It's almost like asking when does trolling become a crime. Not an easy question, but the court already agreed, so we get to watch. Interesting.
To convict of libel, you have to show that the statement was intentionally untrue and that it caused damage. Most online trolling doesn’t cause demonstrable damage. Getting the conviction (or winning the tort) is somewhat difficult to do, which is why I’m also surprised this case is ongoing. Interesting indeed
It's an interesting question and an interesting precedent. We just went through this with Libs of TikTok and we came down on the side of defending the privacy and anonymity of the woman who runs the account from predators like Taylor Lorenz (the WP "journalist"/attack dog).
Sometimes you need that shield of anonymity to keep the psychopaths off your back. The Twitter hate mob, the Alphabet mafia, the totally unhinged psychopaths that call in death threats and really mean it, etc. There needs to be some protection from that and it won't come from the media platform or the government when your mission it to criticize them and show their hypocrisy. You have to take care of your own safety. So, in general, I'm against doxxing.
Should it be done in the courts? Rarely and in the most extreme of circumstances, it might be necessary. However, we've seen clearly how that can be abused as well. The FISA warrant system was abused to allow wholesale spying on a large portion of Washington DC. The sitting President himself was being surveilled (legally, no less!) because a corrupt lawyer went to a corrupt judge, who then authorized it. And the Left are MASTERS at lawfare. If you give them a tool, they'll abuse it. So, I don't necessarily want to trust the Courts. The Left will pack the courts with their cronies and we'll then have legal doxxing of one side's political enemies.
I sympathize with Avi Yemeni. He's a patriot for sure, and he gets subjected to all sorts of organized hate. The Aussie police have looked for excuses to get at him as well, because he called out their corruption over COVID lockdowns and showed them as the tyrants they were. I'd love to see him be able to pursue justice against someone who's clearly harassing him.
What I don't know is how to word a solution in such a way that the totalitarian Left won't abuse.
This case could be acceptable doxxing if it’s shown that the defendant is guilty of libel. The Libs of TikTok account holder wasn’t guilty of libel. She just showed the libs for who they are, so her anonymity has no reason to be infringed upon.
Its such a trying time to be alive.
The fact that Lawfare is a thing show just how degenerate the system has become. The law was supposed to organize and protect society, not be twisted as a weapon to subvert society at the hands of traitors.
But here we are, in the upside down seeing law being the tool of anarchists.
A thought, what is to stop the opposite side using this as they do. For harassment and using the courts process to punish us? Obviously if the court allows it.
Let's put it this way: how many conspiracy theories do you know of that could be considered defamation in court?
WINNING!!! I do hope that the Awaken Twatter Snowflakes are beginning to realize that NO ONE wants to put up their sh!t!!!! These sf are finding out the hard way...NO MATTER WHO ONE IS...IT IS NOT RIGHT AND IT IS WRONG TO MARK SOMEBODY IN A NEGATIVE WAY...
Apologize for the capitals but the snowflakes need to be brought down on the peg board to the ZERO LINE!!!!!!
DOX the toxic SOB!
That's what the left says about anyone that speaks against what they believe.