The Kiwi Farms posts that supposedly defamed Fong-Jones were made by American users and the man sued in Australia had absolutely no connection to them other than leasing IPs to Joshua Moon's company. It's absolutely not legitimate. The only reason the man in Australia was sued is because Fong-Jones would not win a lawsuit against Joshua or the users of the site.
Joshua specifically talks about the legitimacy of the lawsuit in the article:
"In affidavits supplied to Australian court, Liz Fong-Jones has promised under penalty of perjury that these IP addresses are critical to the Kiwi Farms’s operations, uptime, and (most importantly) ability to deliver mean posts about him to the world-wide Internet.
We have not used these IP addresses in a year, and only used them publicly for less than a year. How critical these IP addresses are can be easily determined by the fact that the Kiwi Farms remains available to the world-wide Internet, and that we do not use any Flow Chemical IP addresses in doing
In regards to the litigation, your interpretation is wrong. The main reason why the default was granted is that LFJ lied in the affidavits to the court. It was stated under penalty of perjury that the IPs were absolutely necessary for the site to be able to stay up.
The site is still up and you may access it on the normal Internet with a normal browser. No IPs from Flow Chemical are in use. Therefore, LFJ's claims that the IPs were necessary are a lie.
The other claim significant to the litigation is that I am unserviceable. That the need to sue Vincent was that there is no way to sue me. I am currently involved in two, soon three, separate ongoing civil litigations in the United States. My attorney's address can be found by a link present on every single page of the Kiwi Farms. Simply put, LFJ lied that there is no way to service me.
Perhaps, if my website was Australian, it would be within the Court's jurisdiction to object to its contents and order it removed. Fortunately, it is American.
I hope this helps.
Is there some great and noble reason to refer to a woman as "he" that I somehow haven't heard about? Kinda hard to come up with an explanation other than "This Josh person seems like she's hostile to trans people." (Sorry, like he's hostile to trans people. These things are just so hard to get right, you know?)
If you call a pelican a seagull, I'm not censoring you if I tell you that it's actually a pelican. And if you continue to call it a pelican because you have a problem with seagulls and think they suck, I'm also not censoring you if I point out you're being a jerk. Free speech goes both ways!
There's nothing wrong with rejecting that demand and continuing to refer to it as a seagull, is there?
No need to be this much disingenuous, you can express support in other ways.
If you fix that, then people might take it more seriously. At the moment it looks more like you have an axe to grind.
Well of course they do. The whole point of the argument is that LFJ is so hellbent on trying to take Josh's site down in any and all ways possible, every single day, continually for years, and people are letting them get away with it. They both have axes to grind with each other.
He doesn't allow doxxing out of a commitment to free speech. The forum doesn't actually have that much free speech. If you criticize him you will get banned pretty fast.
There isn't much transparency either. Banned users aren't marked as being banned. And bans are often done without public notification. So unlike most forums, you can't tell if someone has been banned.
> He doesn't allow doxxing
Which is it? Not sure what you are getting at here.
To rephrase that sentence: Free speech isn't the reason he allows doxing on the forum.
An example: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/JcaLQ
I don't think a free speech absolutist would secretly ban people for criticizing him.
>If I ask Google Gemini to describe the Kiwi Farms in a sentence, it tells me “a controversial web forum known for its users' online harassment and stalking campaigns against various individuals and communities”, despite the Kiwi Farms having explicit and enforced rules against contacting people off-site (i.e. harassment).
Could you comment on the contradictory statements you have said elsewhere? Such as the ones where you admit that you turn a blind eye to harassment: https://old.reddit.com/r/keffals/comments/1bkp9my/proof_kf_h...
Why weren't these rules enforced against users such as "Not Based and Redpilled" when he hacked the game developer of Yandere Simulator? You were aware of it and described it as a violation of federal law. In fact, the only user who was punished was someone who criticized the hack: https://archive.is/dr0MR#10%
Aside from what you mentioned in regards to the court case, there's plenty of other issue with kiwifarms as well: https://old.reddit.com/r/keffals/comments/1bkp9my/proof_kf_h...
How have the complaints against him been tortious interference? As far as I am aware, they have been factual.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, he's allowed revenge porn (which is illegal in most of the usa) and hackers on his forum: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40396348
Revenge porn has gotten the forum dropped by some providers. One of the complaints Liz fong jones had about the forum was that her social security number was being shared on there: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/09/03/kiwifar... I think that has gotten kiwifarms dropped by other providers, since it apparently this came up in her leaked emails complaining about the forum.
The defamation case mentioned in Australia appears not to have been responded to (see https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSC/2023...), but the judge in the case was satisfied that she was actually defamed and doxxed on the site, that she had been harassed as a result of that doxxing, and that the plaintiff had been informed in advance and had done nothing.
It seems legitimate that courts in that case should be able to take such things down.