7 ms·

Could a $400k Australian court ruling silence Kiwi Farms?

47 points by rdoherty 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
zhenfong 3y ago
[flagged]
sgjohnson 3y ago
A complete non-article. Of course that the part on what actually happened is buried right in the middle of the article. > The case claimed that a Brisbane-based company, Flow Chemical, and its sole director, Vincent Zhen, were “instrumental” to its publication and for keeping it accessible, even though they were not the authors of the defamatory Kiwi Farms thread. > Because the matter was undefended, an interlocutory judgment was made against Flow Chemical and Zhen in July and Fong-Jones was awarded damages of $445,000 plus costs this week. The defendant didn’t show up to the court so a default judgement happened. No case law was set here. Nothing has changed, at all.
Der_Einzige 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- colpabar 3y ago
  [flagged]
sickofparadox 3y ago
"Build your own website" "Build your own payment processor" "Build your own hosting system" "Build your own DDOS protection" "Build your own IP system" While Kiwifarms is a sight full of degenerates and wicked people - degenerates and wicked people are most often the fringes where free speech should be defended, before laws start punishing those who simply speak out against the government. I'd also say its worth mentioning that the doxxing that began the #dropkiwifarms incident with Clara Sorenti wasn't even published on kiwifarms, it was posted on another site that will remain unmentioned - but it would be too much of an ask for a major newspaper to have its facts right, I suppose.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- lovich 3y ago
  > "Build your own website" "Build your own payment processor" "Build your own hosting system" "Build your own DDOS protection" "Build your own IP system" Yea, these are all private companies/actors and it turns out that as you have more and more reprehensible behavior then more and more groups no longer want to do business with you. As a question for all the free speech absolutists who come out crying whenever some group doing absolutely shit behavior like this gets “silenced” via private groups dropping them as a client, what is your solution to letting them still project their voice on private property without infringing on the property owners rights? The only solution I can see would be for the government to nationalize these “public squares” so that they are actually public and have the normal free speech protections(per your specific nations view of free speech). The problem there is that the group of free speech absolutists and the group of people who have a stroke at the idea of the government controlling any sort of infrastructure like these seem like a Venn diagram. I also understand this was a government action in the article but I am replying to a comment referencing private property in terms of “build your own X”
  - sickofparadox 3y ago
    My solution would probably be to encourage societal shame upon the people begging companies to become arbiters of morality. Companies generally don't care enough about these things unless some moral crusade comes along and they kneejerk do whatever they are being brigaded to do. It happened with Cloudflare in this article.
    - lovich 3y ago
      So use the same techniques you’re decrying? If you’re suggestion for a moral quandary is to fight fire with fire then most people are going to choose the side they find more morally “good” and you’re going to find that free speech gets limited more and more as you hold up groups like kiwi farms as someone to protect from non government infrastructure and services. You’re not solving the fundamental mismatch between letting people/orgs do as they please with their property and simultaneously wanting to let other private actors do as they please on the same property. “Free Speech” as a concept only aligns with “Free Speech” as a right when it comes to interactions between the government and private actors. It doesn’t line up with private-private interactions because you are inherently infringing on others rights when you want to use their property in a way they don’t want it to be used
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
unsignednoop 3y ago
[dead]
anonymous854FED 3y ago
Statement from the owner of KiwiFarms from the telegram group, slightly censored: >The courts of Australia have determined that a person I know is personally liable for over $400,000 in defamatory damages to Liz Fong-Jones. >Vincent is Australian. He owns a company called Flow Chemical Pty Ltd in Australia. The Australian RIR, APNIC, leases him a few IP addresses. Those IPs have been used by my American company 1776 Solutions, LLC to host various web services. Among those services has, at various times, been the Kiwi Farms, a website of Lolcow, LLC in the US. Kiwi Farms hosts comments from users all over the world. >Victoria courts have determined that both his company and _him as a person_ are liable for close to half a million dollars in damages for statements made by anonymous users on a web forum owned by a company hosted by a company leasing IP space from his company, regardless of their truth or accuracy. This judgement was made in default in his absence because apparently he felt the entire thing was stupid and would be thrown out without him doing anything. >This loss amounts to nothing for me. I have not been able to reliably use these IP addresses in over a year because Liz Fong-Jones has been harassing any ISP they route through. I also have no stake in Flow Chemical Pty Ltd, so I am not at risk. I can just get new ones at any time in the US. >However, this is obviously unbelievably f*king ret*rded and evil. I'm not going to let a gross tr**ny fuck over good people. I am looking for references to attorneys in Australia who would be willing to help overturn this absolute travesty. <jcmoon at pm.me> >The precedent being set in Australian court should terrify anyone living there. You are now personally liable for eating sh*t for anything anyone says, even if it is the truth, if you are within 3 degrees of separation of them.
- Minor49er 3y ago
  You missed censoring one instance of "fuck"
- lovich 3y ago
  I don’t think anyone thinks this reasonably sets a precedent. The only thing it did precedent wise is reinforce the precedent of not no showing to you’re own defense if you don’t want to have a bad time. The last paragraph he’s made is just fake news. He likely could have had it easily thrown out if there was any attempt to do so. Based on the articles quote about him telling another agency to shove their fines up their ass the gentleman seems like the kind of individual who thinks the law and government power doesn’t apply to him, and is always incensed to find out it actually does
Ridj48dhsnsh 3y ago
Looks like they're still accessible at kiwifarms.net and kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyxcyd.onion A crypto donation to one of their wallets is probably one of the most effective ways to fight back against online censorship.
jksflkjl3jk3 3y ago
[flagged]
vfclists 3y ago
Does this mean that the provider of a telephone service which obviously uses phone numbers is responsible for the conduct of its customers?
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  No. 1) This means nothing, it was a default judgement against a no-show defendant and 2) Even IF this case "meant something", it would mean, if you rent your phone number to someone who uses it to harass someone, you might carry some liability for that.
kanetw 3y ago
KF funnily enough is one of the few remaining websites for reasonable discussions about politically charged topics. The defendant not showing up is peak stupid. Especially if you think it's a non-issue, fucking show up. Anyway, it will have no impact on KF, just like every other deplatforming attempt just made it more popular.

47 points by rdoherty 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

zhenfong 3y ago

[flagged]

sgjohnson 3y ago

A complete non-article. Of course that the part on what actually happened is buried right in the middle of the article. > The case claimed that a Brisbane-based company, Flow Chemical, and its sole director, Vincent Zhen, were “instrumental” to its publication and for keeping it accessible, even though they were not the authors of the defamatory Kiwi Farms thread. > Because the matter was undefended, an interlocutory judgment was made against Flow Chemical and Zhen in July and Fong-Jones was awarded damages of $445,000 plus costs this week. The defendant didn’t show up to the court so a default judgement happened. No case law was set here. Nothing has changed, at all.

Der_Einzige 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
colpabar 3y ago
[flagged]

sickofparadox 3y ago

"Build your own website" "Build your own payment processor" "Build your own hosting system" "Build your own DDOS protection" "Build your own IP system" While Kiwifarms is a sight full of degenerates and wicked people - degenerates and wicked people are most often the fringes where free speech should be defended, before laws start punishing those who simply speak out against the government. I'd also say its worth mentioning that the doxxing that began the #dropkiwifarms incident with Clara Sorenti wasn't even published on kiwifarms, it was posted on another site that will remain unmentioned - but it would be too much of an ask for a major newspaper to have its facts right, I suppose.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lovich 3y ago
> "Build your own website" "Build your own payment processor" "Build your own hosting system" "Build your own DDOS protection" "Build your own IP system" Yea, these are all private companies/actors and it turns out that as you have more and more reprehensible behavior then more and more groups no longer want to do business with you. As a question for all the free speech absolutists who come out crying whenever some group doing absolutely shit behavior like this gets “silenced” via private groups dropping them as a client, what is your solution to letting them still project their voice on private property without infringing on the property owners rights? The only solution I can see would be for the government to nationalize these “public squares” so that they are actually public and have the normal free speech protections(per your specific nations view of free speech). The problem there is that the group of free speech absolutists and the group of people who have a stroke at the idea of the government controlling any sort of infrastructure like these seem like a Venn diagram. I also understand this was a government action in the article but I am replying to a comment referencing private property in terms of “build your own X”
- sickofparadox 3y ago
  My solution would probably be to encourage societal shame upon the people begging companies to become arbiters of morality. Companies generally don't care enough about these things unless some moral crusade comes along and they kneejerk do whatever they are being brigaded to do. It happened with Cloudflare in this article.
  - lovich 3y ago
    So use the same techniques you’re decrying? If you’re suggestion for a moral quandary is to fight fire with fire then most people are going to choose the side they find more morally “good” and you’re going to find that free speech gets limited more and more as you hold up groups like kiwi farms as someone to protect from non government infrastructure and services. You’re not solving the fundamental mismatch between letting people/orgs do as they please with their property and simultaneously wanting to let other private actors do as they please on the same property. “Free Speech” as a concept only aligns with “Free Speech” as a right when it comes to interactions between the government and private actors. It doesn’t line up with private-private interactions because you are inherently infringing on others rights when you want to use their property in a way they don’t want it to be used

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

unsignednoop 3y ago

[dead]

anonymous854FED 3y ago

Statement from the owner of KiwiFarms from the telegram group, slightly censored: >The courts of Australia have determined that a person I know is personally liable for over $400,000 in defamatory damages to Liz Fong-Jones. >Vincent is Australian. He owns a company called Flow Chemical Pty Ltd in Australia. The Australian RIR, APNIC, leases him a few IP addresses. Those IPs have been used by my American company 1776 Solutions, LLC to host various web services. Among those services has, at various times, been the Kiwi Farms, a website of Lolcow, LLC in the US. Kiwi Farms hosts comments from users all over the world. >Victoria courts have determined that both his company and _him as a person_ are liable for close to half a million dollars in damages for statements made by anonymous users on a web forum owned by a company hosted by a company leasing IP space from his company, regardless of their truth or accuracy. This judgement was made in default in his absence because apparently he felt the entire thing was stupid and would be thrown out without him doing anything. >This loss amounts to nothing for me. I have not been able to reliably use these IP addresses in over a year because Liz Fong-Jones has been harassing any ISP they route through. I also have no stake in Flow Chemical Pty Ltd, so I am not at risk. I can just get new ones at any time in the US. >However, this is obviously unbelievably f*king ret*rded and evil. I'm not going to let a gross tr**ny fuck over good people. I am looking for references to attorneys in Australia who would be willing to help overturn this absolute travesty. <jcmoon at pm.me> >The precedent being set in Australian court should terrify anyone living there. You are now personally liable for eating sh*t for anything anyone says, even if it is the truth, if you are within 3 degrees of separation of them.

Minor49er 3y ago
You missed censoring one instance of "fuck"
lovich 3y ago
I don’t think anyone thinks this reasonably sets a precedent. The only thing it did precedent wise is reinforce the precedent of not no showing to you’re own defense if you don’t want to have a bad time. The last paragraph he’s made is just fake news. He likely could have had it easily thrown out if there was any attempt to do so. Based on the articles quote about him telling another agency to shove their fines up their ass the gentleman seems like the kind of individual who thinks the law and government power doesn’t apply to him, and is always incensed to find out it actually does

Ridj48dhsnsh 3y ago

Looks like they're still accessible at kiwifarms.net and kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyxcyd.onion A crypto donation to one of their wallets is probably one of the most effective ways to fight back against online censorship.

jksflkjl3jk3 3y ago

[flagged]

vfclists 3y ago

Does this mean that the provider of a telephone service which obviously uses phone numbers is responsible for the conduct of its customers?

mrguyorama 3y ago
No. 1) This means nothing, it was a default judgement against a no-show defendant and 2) Even IF this case "meant something", it would mean, if you rent your phone number to someone who uses it to harass someone, you might carry some liability for that.

kanetw 3y ago

KF funnily enough is one of the few remaining websites for reasonable discussions about politically charged topics. The defendant not showing up is peak stupid. Especially if you think it's a non-issue, fucking show up. Anyway, it will have no impact on KF, just like every other deplatforming attempt just made it more popular.