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....
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.