#anyone else will be reported for defamation and slander

[ridethehammett]

i love kirk but i will clown on him until my final resting day.

[not-goldy]

Right now there are some tkk left confused. Some left after Paris, some have been barely hanging on. Even saw some saying what Tae did with JK with the face time shirtless screenshot, actually mad them angry because now they feel Tae is gaslighting them or trolling them, esp since its all but confirmed he was in fact dating Jennie for 2 years. Coming to terms with things isn't easy or instant. It takes time. You don't have to switch from Tk to Jikook and accept Jikook is real now. What you can do is set yourself on your own path, away from the major big TK accounts still gaslighting you and making hella money off you. You say, well they aren't leaving and staying for a reason, maybe they do know things about TK. OR maybe its more like, why would they leave, even if Taekook is not real, cause you give them clout, money, attention and exposure. They ain't leaving when you do that, but you can.

The 5 big tk accounts who always end up on report accounts and you know who they are. Start with reporting these accounts and help them get taken down. Or better yet, take a stand against them and speak your peace to them. You earned the right. Do you honestly, deep down really think Jikook did this because there were no other choices? Come on. Don't do that to yourself. You've been corrected by Karmy who actually speak Jk's language on what he wanted to do and the reality is, it wouldn't have been where Tae is. And Tats didn't prevent him for being with Tae, cause Tae could have scarified and did this with Jk and went with him and you know this. This isn't a case of Jk will transfer to be with Tae after 5 weeks. You also know that is not gonna happen, it would defeat the whole point of what Jk did enlisting through buddy system. I am speaking to you like a rational adult. Like a human. Don't let these accounts who have gaslit you and made money off you, continue to lead you down a path of thinking Taekook are real and dating and Jimin and Hybe are villains keeping them apart and after military Tk are gonna come out and announce they are married with 2 adopted children. (TBH, you should have reported that grumpy tkk woman the day she said this, cause you know that is not sane. Its actually defamation, slander and mental illness) that you went alone with. You know Jk is a capable adult. You wanna say, well he liked a taekook tiktok. And honey he is the creator of GCF Tokyo, the biggest Jikook edit with a queer love song. He might have liked a TK tiktok edit, like he did a Jinkook edit, but he went with Jimin to Japan for 5 days right before enlisting. Sorry, to me that holds more significance. Saying Tae showed them shirtless was sending a message. They were also in sperate houses, talking and Vmin also said they video call shirtless, so there's that. Not to mention Jikook were standing next to each other on their private vacation with arm around their naked torso, in Jk's bday post pic from Jimin. The word T O G E T H E R, not separate houses. Don't do this to yourself and do the compare game, it won't work out for you. Do yourself a favor and Take what Jikook did with this enlistment as a reminder, to never let anyone else tell you what to feel or think, cause Taekook lives is telling you Jikook are not close, but Jikook are showing you different. Think for yourself. Or, wait around and keep holding on and let the fall be so bad, you will never recover from it. That is a scary thought to live with. If you think Paris was a bad fall, you wait for Jikook out of the Military. This was your warning shot from jikook. Your way as an out for good. Their way of telling you nothing will ever stop them from prioritizing each other and best believe they gonna show you when they get out. I would listen to them, if it were me and not someone gaslighting me to make money off me. Choice is yours.

💜💜💜💜💜💜

[kirain]

Hazbin Hotel and VivziePop Drama

I've been hearing/seeing a lot of drama concerning Hazbin Hotel and it's creator VivziePop, and while I don't know her personally or really care what people think, I do hate slander and the spread of misinformation. Truly nothing in this world upsets me more than when people believe rumours while making no effort to fact check, and that's exactly what's happening right now. That said, I wanted to try and clear up some of the rumours going around about Vivzie and the show, because I think some of them are absolutely outrageous and need to be addressed.

1. Vivzie hired an abuser onto the show.

Now, I’m not here to burn anyone at the stake, especially since I don’t know anything about Chris Niosi (the alleged abuser), who I believe openly admitted to the allegations? Regardless, this is a moot point. He’s not credited anywhere at the end of the episode. So either he was booted before production wrapped up or he had nothing to do with the show in the first place.

2. Vivzie supports bestiality.

Admittedly I thought this one might be true, since she draws so many anthropomorphic animals. In the very least, I figured she was probably a furry, but I haven't seen any evidence supporting this accusation either. Near as I can tell, this rumour started for two reasons. One, because of her famous Zoophobia comic, which revolves around a therapist named Cameron who gets assigned to work with human-like animals. Ironically, poor Cameron suffers from crippling zoophobia, which makes for some pretty decent comedy. I didn't read the whole comic because, quite frankly, it’s not my cup of tea and I just don’t have the time. But from what I saw there are no examples of bestiality anywhere in its contents.

Two, this message, which blew up all over social media:

To me, this just proves that people are more interested in virtue signalling than checking to see if their claims are actually true. Everything about this message is 100% false, which I’ll touch on in my next point.

3. Vivzie is a pedophile and she’s drawn child porn.

This is hands down the worst allegation and holy shit, I really wish people would stop using it to defame someone when they don't have any proof. This is a life-ruining accusation and you're disgusting if you believe it based solely on hearsay. This rumour began to spread when Vivzie allegedly shipped the two underage characters in the above photo and drew them NSFW-style. At the time, one character was 19 while the other was 14, and the relationship was a very illegal student-teacher relationship.

This is WRONG! The characters were not 14 and 19, they were actually 18 and 19, the legal age of consent! Additionally, the relationship wasn't student-teacher. One character is a student and the other is Alumni (a student teacher). This one pisses me off the most because it’s obvious the person who sent that message didn’t even bother to conduct any research. They said, “He’s a teacher, she’s a child.” Both characters are MALE!

Since then, Vivzie has apologised for any NSFW art she drew in the past and stated that it's not a reflection of her art today, and I'm inclined to believe her. Almost every artist has drawn NSFW content at some point in their career, and hers wasn't even distasteful. Other than this one example, there is no evidence anywhere that suggests she’s drawn “child porn”. In fact, she’s never even drawn explicit NSFW.

Please stop spreading this rumour. It’s dangerous and completely incorrect.

4. Vivzie said the "N" word!

No, she didn’t. It was a fabricated tweet. That is all.

5. Vivzie is copyright striking every video that criticises her!

No she isn't. YouTube’s DMCA is automatically striking people who are using full clips without permission. Vivzie has gone public several times, telling people exactly how to avoid getting a copy strike from the algorithm, which is something she absolutely does not have to do. At this point, she doesn't owe you anything. In my opinion, she should just sit back and watch these channels burn.

6. Vivzie copies and traces other artists’ work.

This is another one I’ve seen going around, but I looked into it as thoroughly as I could and failed to find any concrete evidence to support the allegations. As of right now, there are only two examples of Vivzie “copying” or “tracing” other artists’ work, and both of them can be explained. The first is a gif she made with a character from her Zoophobia comic, which looked a lot like the girl from ME!ME!ME!:

Damn, that’s pretty incriminating. She obviously stole-- oh, wait. This gif was part of a ME!ME!ME! MEP (multi editor’s project) and Vivzie didn’t take full credit, despite the fact that it’s not even a direct trace. It’s supposed to look like the original, which she fully cited. The second example comes from a short dance sequence from her Timber video, which seems to have been inspired by several Disney movies. As Vivzie herself stated, that was an homage to the original animations. Lots of artists and shows do this, including the beloved Stephen Universe series.

Regardless, this doesn’t count as stealing character designs or plagiarising someone’s work. It’s meant to be respectful, an admiration of other projects. Other than these two instances, however, there is no evidence of her tracing or stealing other people’s art. From what I’ve discovered, all other designs she’s been accused of “stealing” are characters she bought and paid for. They’re quite literally HER characters.

7. Vivzie supports problematic creators.

I’m getting really tired of guilt by association. Vivzie follows and enjoys some controversial figures, but who cares? We can argue all day about whether or not the accusations against them are true, but it ultimately has nothing to do with the show or Vivzie as a person. I do the exact same thing, to be honest-- follow and listen to people on all sides so I can learn, understand, and form my own opinions. The fact that some people think this is bad, to me, is absolutely mesmerising. Vivzie doesn’t control what the people she follows post, and if they do something overly questionable she publicly criticises and denounces it.

From Vivzie:

Now that that’s been dealt with, I’d like to address some complaints/claims about the actual show.

8. Vaggie is an angry Latina stereotype and a lesbian stereotype. Vivzie is appropriating Hispanic culture and misrepresenting the gay for profit.

First off, I see a lot of people passing around yet more misinformation regarding Vivzie's race. So many people seem to think she's white? Well, I'm here to tell you they're wrong. Very incorrect. Vivzie is in fact Latina, and Vaggie is meant to mirror some of her own personality traits.

Second, who is Vaggie mad at? Context matters, and if we take a look at the episode, we see that Vaggie is literally only mad at two specific people: Angel Dust and Alastor. Why? Well, for starters, it's her girlfriend's dream to run a rehab hotel for sinners, and Angel Dust nearly demolishes that dream single-handedly. Vaggie has every right to be over-the-top vitriolic. Then there's Alastor, a known sadist, narcissist, and murderer who loves trapping people in his nefarious schemes. He invites himself in, effectively takes over the hotel, and pushes both her and Charlie aside. At one point he even sexually assaults her by slapping her butt during his musical number. So yeah, I think her seething ire is totally justified. Keep in mind, however, that when she's around Charlie she's calm, collected, and happy. I wouldn't call that a stereotype.

Thirdly, the lesbian stereotypes. I keep hearing this argument but I really don't see it. Both Vaggie and Charlie have so much personality and trust for each other. Maybe I'm wrong, but the stereotype I know always totes a more butch, tomboyish woman with a ditsy, innocent, naive woman. Charlie is optimistic, but she isn't stupid. She refuses to shake Alastor’s hand because she knows he’s likely trying to screw her over. She’s also not entirely innocent herself and uses words like “fuck” and “shit”. I also wouldn’t call Vaggie butch or tomboyish. She has a cute, girly presentation, complete with a pink ribbon in her hair, lace stockings, and a dress. She's protective of her girlfriend, as I think we all are with our partners, and there's nothing wrong with that. They're flawed characters, as every character is meant to be. This isn't a problem.

9. The show is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, blah, blah, blah.

I’m amazed this is even an argument. The show is supposed to be a dark comedy that takes place in HELL. You know, the place the worst of the worst end up after they die? What were you expecting? Everyone gets a shot or two fired at them, but that doesn't make them bad characters nor does it make the show itself horrible. Take, for example, Katie Killjoy, the news reporter so many people are up in arms about. She says she doesn’t “touch the gays” because she has “standards”. Well, here’s a newsflash of my own: we’re not supposed to like her! She’s an antagonist. Not to mention ten seconds later Charlie insults her and isn’t the least bit slighted by her pretentious attitude. The characters are strong and don’t take shit from anyone, because to some degree they’re all terrible people who can throw down when it’s called for.

Obviously if you don’t like the show or think it’s offensive, I’m probably not going to change your mind. That’s perfectly fine. You’re entitled to your opinions and you don’t have to watch the show. Just stop lying and stop trying to take it away from everybody else. Stop attacking Vivzie and spreading misinformation without checking the facts. I realise a lot of people probably aren’t trying to be vindictive and only want to do something good, but just remember this: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[sixtyeightdays]

Only you, Marinette. Only you.

in which marinette lifts thors hammer with no knowledge of how great it is to wield mjolnir 😔✋🏻

kind of crappy but thats okay

-

Normally, when Tony Stark's name was brought up, the following words would be either 'Avengers', 'Iron Man', or something along the lines of cool and amazing.

But this time, as Tony Stark's name fluttered through the compound of College Francois Dupont, the following words were 'Why her', 'What happened', and'Marinette Dupain-Cheng'.

See, throughout Lila's entire reign at Francois Dupont, unknowingly to the Italian, a certain bluenette had been giving her and all of her classmates choices.

Lila chose to ignore Marinette's warning.

Alya chose to believe Lila and cut off all ties with Marinette.

Nino chose to follow Alya and ignore Marinette.

Adrien chose to remain quiet for fear of Lila getting akumatised.

The class chose to believe Lila, drinking up her lies and claimed connections to celebrities that'll 'boost their careers in the future'.

Now, Marinette wasn't normally one to show off her connections to the world, unlike Lila, who lied about celebrities with every breath she took.

No, Marinette preferred not to mention her celebrity contacts.

However, this time, she had thrown all caution out the window and texted him.

-

mari <3

cant wait to see all of you soon!

do you think you can pick me up at my school drop off point after i end school instead of the bakery next week?

the one and only

sure thing, mari

everyone misses you too and they cant wait to see you again

any reasons why the sudden change though

mari <3

no reason

-

It was a week before he arrived. A week full of taunts and bullying from the people who used to be her friends.

But the day had come, and Marinette was about to leave this place for the summer, and was finally going to be where she wanted to be again.

It was the last period, and Marinette, having finished her work already, started on a new design. She had just finished it when the door crashed open, making Mlle. Bustier and the class jump.

The shock turned into exciting adoration, however, as standing there in all his glory were the Avengers.

Steve Rogers, Bruce Banner, Thor, and of course, Tony Stark. Pepper was also there, trailing behind with Natasha who were muttering about how dramatic the boys were.

Alya immediately jumped to her feet, fumbling for her phone that she held with shaking hands, and started a livestream.

'Hi everyone! It's your Ladyblogger here, and today the Avengers came to visit! Oh, I bet Lila got them to come, she is Tony Stark's goddaughter after all.'

No one noticed Marinette snort into her palm.

Max gaped at his idol in the doorway, his glasses sliding off his face in his shock before he hastily placed them in it's proper position.

Thor ignored the reporter, making his way to the back of the class where Mari sat, placing his hammer on top of Mari's sketchbook, much to her chagrin.

The devious smile the god gave her confirmed that he did it on purpose, and Mari smacked him in the arm and glared at him.

'Was it really necessary to break down the door?' She deadpanned, unimpressed.

Alya gasped. 'Marinette! Don't be so rude to the Avengers! They're here for Lila, not you.'

Thor frowned in confusion. 'Who is this.. Lila you speak of?'

Alya gasped again. 'She's Tony Stark's goddaughter!' She frowned at the god disapprovingly.

'She spends her summers there, how could you not recognise her?' The Italian in question was sinking into her seat, regretting the lie she told.

Tony clicked his tongue.

'I have a goddaughter, yes, but it isn't this Lila girl. I have never heard of a Lila. No, I'm here for Marinette, my actual goddaughter.' He shot a pointed look to Alya at the last bit, before he and everyone else walked over to Mari.

Pepper passed by Alya and handed out two stacks of papers.

Alya cautiously picked it up and Pepper said, 'These are lawsuits for both you and Lila. It is for defamation and slander of different celebrities, as well as spreading false information.'

Alya gaped at the blonde as she made her way up the stairs to where Mari and everyone else was before turning to Lila with a glare.

'Were you lying the whole time?'

The class erupted in shouts at the girl, until she broke and called out that Adrien had known, but didn't say anything.

'It was for the best! Her lies weren't hurting anyone!'

'I didn't submit my music portfolio because Lila said she'd guaranteed me a spot.' Nino uttered quietly, realising that he had lost a chance to have his big break.

Mylene looked gobsmacked. 'I passed up the offer of meeting Alexander Hamilton because Lila said she'd get him to meet me for free.'

One by one, the students began listing everything they missed out because of Lila's lies, from Alix not being able to be in the X-Games like she was promised, to Kim, who had quit his swim team because Lila told him she'd get Michael Phelps to train him personally.

Adrien cracked and admitted that yes, he was wrong, but Marinette knew too!

The class suddenly remembered Marinette.

Marinette, who had been telling them all along that Lila was lying.

Marinette, who they had bullied because they thought she was jealous.

Marinette, who was scolding Tony Stark right now, wait what?

Sure enough, the bluenette was reprimanding the billionaire, who's head was hanging low like a kicked puppy, with Natasha smirking in the corner.

'I told you to come after school! There's still 15 minutes before school ends, Uncle Tony, you couldn't wait another 20 minutes?'

He hung his head and Steve snickered, until Marinette turned to him.

'Why did you let him come so early? I thought you were the responsible one.' She pinched the bridge of her nose.

The class took advantage of the momentary silence to swarm Marinette, until the Avengers glared at them and they backed away slightly.

'Girl, we're so sorry for believing that liar! Will you forgive us? We'll be best friends again.' Alya looked excited, a gleam in her eye.

'Do you think you can get me an interview with Tony Stark?'

Marinette looked at her in disbelief.

'So you want to be my friend again, just because I'm Tony's goddaughter.' Pepper and Natasha looked furious as well, while Tony eyed his goddaughter's class.

Steve placed a hand on Marinette's shoulder.

'Besides, Marinette already has a best friend.'

Alya spluttered. 'Who?'

A swarm of black and blue flew into the room and crashed into Marinette, causing her to fall back into her seat.

'Peter!' She laughed. 'MJ! Ned! Great to see you guys too!'

Peter smiled gave her a brotherly kiss on the cheek, while MJ gave her a hug and Ned fistbumped her.

'Oh! That reminds me, MJ, I'm done with the design for the dress you wanted! Let me show you!' Mari looked around for her sketchbook before noticing it under Thor's hammer.

Thor, noticing this, moved his hand forwards to pick up the hammer, but his jaw dropped as Marinette easily picked up the hammer with one hand, holding it up while she moved the sketchbook underneath it away before placing it back on the table.

She flipped through the pages of it, not noticing the shocked looks on her classmates and family's faces, and the pale face of Lila. She had become enemies with a girl who could lift Thor's hammer!

Alya, who was still live streaming, looked like a fish, and her hands, which were still raises in the position of recording, trembled.

Marinette let out a small 'aha!' when she found the page she was looking for, and looked up to see her friend's shocked face.

She frowned. 'Do you not like it?'

Adrien, still rather astonished, spluttered out. 'Marinette.. you just lifted Thor's hanmer!'

At the sound of his name, the god snapped out of his stupor, and lifting his hammer, he pointed at the bluenette. 'She is worthy! I must take her to Asgard with me!'

Marinette cocked her head. 'It's just a hammer and it wasn't even that heavy. Now you big babies, let's go back to New York!'

She grabbed MJ's hand before picking up her bag and running out, she and MJ excitedly chattering about the dress, Marinette having not understood the implications of lifting Thor's hammer, and MJ, who had seen weirder things in her life.

The Avengers, Ned and Peter blinked before filing out of the room slowly, following the excited bluenette and brunette.A certain blonde god staring at nothing in particular.

'She doesn't know what lifting my hammer means?' He snorted. 'Only you, Marinette. Only you.'

-

well yeah there isnt exactly a ship for this but i wanted to write something where mari lifts thors hammer bc i dont see enough of those

mj and peter are together, in case u didnt know

kind of lost interest in the end but thats okay lmao so the endings kinda crappy but i think weve established that i cant write for shit

thank u for coming to my tedtalk ok byee

[kellichristina]

The Brad Pitt blackmailer story left off cameras two years in Texas-Fina...

The civil lawsuit against Brad Pitt and Make It Right will be dropped. 

The case will stay with the Texas and California attorney general’s office and authorities. Decisions have been made in the last 8 months and I can formally say that we will NOT be moving forward with the civil lawsuit. My final legal opinion and fourth Texas attorney made this final decision this month. As for the media or anyone else out there, you want to avoid discussions on the “merits of the case.” The merits of the case will land you an 8-hour discussion, huge headaches, and an argument you want to avoid. This will be the first time that I set down a winning case and leave it with government channels. David from Houston assisted me last year during litigation last year. If David was allowed to make this decision, he would have filed this case without me into California last January 2021; the case was dismissed over personal jurisdiction in Texas 2020. 

My Texas attorneys will be refusing  time spent with Brad Pitt or his attorneys.

However, my last attorney Dan offered to work with the attorney generals’ office and authorities. The civil case is being dropped over emotional damages towards myself and years of my life affected. Obviously, my Texas attorneys are biased, and my personal businesses and life are more valuable than five minutes longer with celebrity Brad Pitt The Brad Pitt blackmailer story stayed off cameras upon my request for two years in Texas. Brad’s attorneys blasted a story during litigation and broke a protective order. They hit me with slander and defamation. Celebrity Brad Pitt has a ruined reputation over these circumstances. I don’t have any reason to talk about Brad Pitt any longer. When you handle situations wrongly and with a lot of negligence then it come back to bite. This celebrity name dies and let’s move on with life. This summer, I brought back the final and fourth attorney that retired and sold his law practice on the length of this case and matters. Attorney Dan spent three weeks reviewing all the filings and discovery reviewed in early 2020.  It was very nice to hear yet another attorney says “Great job Kelli. WOW. Great job on this case.” 

Why did I drag a Dallas attorney out of retirement for decisions? He handled the Brad Pitt blackmailer in the fall of 2018, and he ran off the blackmailer. The first Brad Pitt showed up in my life the spring of 2018 and the contact came from a Los Angeles CA phone line which matches celebrity Brad Pitt. In the first month, of course I would have my own private security check the phone line for security. My security reported that it was a special transfer line and he thought “it was Brad Pitt” with the special phoneline. A relationship would develop that summer and this “Brad Pitt” would start requesting donations for Make It Right. I would start to make payments in increments of $5K that summer. Meanwhile, in the summer of 2018 then multiple Brad Pitts off Instagram and Facebook showed up and started contacting me too. I obviously began suspicion and I started researching the fake emails, fake pictures, fake IDs, fake video chats and a list of fan collections going out for fans. including Brad Pitt requesting money for his divorce because “Jolie froze accounts” that summer. Early September 2018, my bankers requested that I call celebrity Brad Pitt and Make It Right foundation immediately to verify activity. I would call Make It Right and begin reporting all the fake Brad Pitt activities, collections for various funds, fake videos, fake calls, and all suspicious activities to human resources Marian. Marian and I had a series of phone calls and emails discussing the fake Brad Pitt and fan collections. Marian Cooper told me that she would contact Brad Pitt and an executive from Make It Right ASAP. They would handle all investigations. At the same timing, the Brad Pitt phone from Los Angeles, CA became pissed off and violent over being cut off on money. This Brad Pitt began calling magazines saying he was Brad Pitt and he wanted to turn in some of my lingerie pictures. He began blackmailing me and stating that he needed $20K or my pictures were getting blasted. I DO NOT CONFORM TO BLACKMAIL. The blackmailer didn’t get any money but a Dallas attorney in his face. Attorney Dan ended up chasing away the blackmailer with “cease and desist” orders and Dan had already run for an emergency Collin County judge. 

The blackmailer was reported to Make It Right. After the Brad Pitt blackmailer then how does this story continue? Brad Pitt would contact me again in December 2018, of course apologizing for the blackmailer and knowing all the details that I had given Make It Right that same fall. What did Brad Pitt want? He wanted to make things right. Brad was due to meet my bankers and a government officials. Brad Pitt would never show up obviously which leads to all the plane flights, jet plane charges, booked flights sent over for payment and FRAUD.

[trashy-drarry]

#FreeKesha

I want to take a moment to talk about Kesha, Dr. Luke, and the situation between the two. I know this isn’t Drarry, so it’s not exactly what any of my followers are here to see exactly, but I believe this to be important. 

In October of 2014, Kesha sued her producer Dr. Luke - real name Lukasz Sebastian Gottwald - on the grounds of sexual, emotional, physical, verbal, and gendered abuse, specifically rape and forcing her into an eating disorder. The goal of the lawsuit was to no longer be forced to be physically around Dr. Luke or have him constantly looming over her and her work. She wants no association with him.

In retaliation to the lawsuit, Dr. Luke filed a counter-lawsuit on the grounds of defamation in attempts to break their contract, saying that she does not want a continuation of creative differences.

On the 11th of October, 2019, it was made public that she was denied to have her recording contract with Dr. Luke broken by the courts and that she was set to face trial next year. 

The DailyMail published an article that released this information with a statement directly from Dr. Luke’s lawyer, “Kesha and her representatives repeated her false accusation that Gottwald had purportedly drugged and raped her in countless public forums,” as well as that Kesha “spread a knowingly false and wholly defamatory accusation that Gottwald had purportedly raped another female recording artist.” On top of that, the article came with these quotes of previous statements by Dr. Luke within deposition(s):

As you can see, Dr. Luke has said that Kesha has not contacted any doctors or medical providers about the alleged forms of abuse she suffered prior to when she filed the lawsuit in 2014. He also directly states that Kesha is a liar, with some of his examples within the article being jokes that she had made, such as her saying Mick Jagger is her long-lost father.

With that, Dr. Lukes lawyer makes a statement about the supposed defamation Kesha is trying to cause, using the court documents of a conversation between Kesha and Lady Gaga about Katy Perry and rumors of sexual abuse as an example. 

However, I would like to touch upon a few things:

Dr. Luke stated that there would be no records of Kesha discussing the abuse she suffered to medical providers or doctors, yet there is--court documents (that Luke had fought to be made public) showed that Kesha discussed the abuse to her therapist in 2011 and 2012, three years before she sued him.

Usually, these would mean essentially nothing; someone thinking something isn’t the same as actually knowing it. It could’ve been possible that Luke said there would be no records because he genuinely believed it. However, he knew of these documents. He was the one fighting against Kesha to have these been made public. Dr. Luke had deliberately lied within the court of law, to lawyers, in order to push a narrative that Kesha was a liar. He knew of these therapy records and deliberately tried to manipulate the situation.

Not only were there discussions between Kesha and her therapist, but phone records were submitted to the court showcasing that Kesha had contacted multiple people as well as medical providers directly after the supposed assault.

With the phone records, there was also testimony by a handful of people saying Kesha called them after the alleged assault, distraught and confused, or that her mother had called her own friends, upset by what she just heard.

These are directly conflicting with Dr. Luke's statements of there being no history to back up Kesha's claims of contacting multiple people to report her abuse, something he seemed to be sure of. With that though, there’s still more:

Dr. Luke and his lawyer claimed that Kesha was the one to spread the rumor of Dr. Luke sexually assaulting Katy Perry in attempts for her to slander him and create more peer pressure to have Sony drop Luke and have the court break the recording/producing contract between Kesha and Luke.

Yet Dr. Luke had leaked the court transcript of the private conversation between Kesha and Gaga, something Kesha had expressed both after the fact and even within the transcript itself that it should stay private.

Luke and his lawyer are deliberately trying to paint Kesha as an awful person that was spreading an incredibly malicious rumor that Luke (and Katy) have said was not true. However, as you can see within the screenshots, the conversation between Kesha and Gaga was private and Kesha had objected to making the conversation public (as it was not her place to do so). It also shows that neither Gaga nor Kesha was the one to actually create the rumor either.

These texts were released on a very specific day, though--on the day these were released, just before the texts came out, an artist called ‘Becky G’ sued what is called ‘Core Water,’ claiming Dr. Luke forced her into an unwanted deal and was threatened that he would ruin her career.

With the counter-lawsuit still going on and being focused on something that wasn’t even Keshas doing but rather Dr. Lukes, as well as additional lawsuits against her and her family he has filed, it’s clear that he’s trying to drain her of her income due to speaking out--punish the victim, that’s a pattern he seems to have.

Firing lawsuit after lawsuit at someone in attempts to drain them of the money they have is a common tactic he has done whenever someone has spoken out against him reusing songs or stealing someone else's, or to anyone who details bad experiences with him.

Throughout the whole ordeal, Dr. Luke has stood by his defense of calling his own innocence, yet his lawyers have used common victim-blaming tactics that try to shift the blame (of a rape Luke swears never happened) onto the victim.

There has also been multiple testimonies detailing what they know about Kesha, what they know about Luke, and their professional relationship with Luke.

Lady Gaga testified that she had found Kesha in only her underwear in the backroom of Dr. Lukes studio and that she knew Kesha was going through trauma. 

Kelly Clarkson within a deposition that Luke was a habitual liar who rarely had women who wanted to work with him. She described her experience with him as “unpleasant.”

Sharon Osbourne has gone on to describe Dr. Luke as a “bully.” 

Monica Cornia, Keshas former manager, had said that while recording her second album, ‘Warrior,’ she would always want her around as she was scared of being alone with Luke.

P!nk has gone on record saying “he’s not a good person” in reference to Dr. Luke; allegedly she almost jumped him due to being so furious at learning that he recycled a previous song he worked on for the artists The Veronicas and used it for her. Since then, she’s refused to work with him.

Charli XCX has been outspoken even before the Kesha trial on her disliking towards him; it’s alleged that he body-shamed her, much similar to what he did to Kesha.

Avril Lavigne and P!nk and pink have both sworn within court that the reason they no longer collaborate with him on music is solely based on their own bad experiences with him.

Bebe Rexha came forward about a “terrifying” experience at Dr. Lukes house which left her in a bad state of anxiety, fearing she may be sexually assaulted. 

The American court system has failed, holding an assaulter in safety and protection while letting and encouraging that man to ruin the reputation and livelihood of his victim and possibly more. I have nothing more to say other than #FreeKesha and I hope she one day, hopefully in the not-so-distant future, gets the justice she deserves.

[contemplatingoutlander]

This post was submitted by “Damage.”

Do you think Cait has grounds for and can sue for character assassination all these bloggers that constantly post such hateful and derogatory rants about her and her and Tony? The level of hate is astonishing and alarming. Their blogs are easily reachable using Google with Cait’s name allowing anyone to read their disparaging posts and they also lash out on Cait’s SM accounts.

I read this and I can’t believe so many are free to actively trying to damage and ruin someone’s reputation and nothing can be done to the perpetrators.

This is from ____ who is furious for being mislead by the photo which turned out to be Glasgow rather than Dublin. She called and continues to call Cait the most vile names you can imagine and this is her latest:

[Note from CO: ”Damage” goes on to quote this blogger and to provide a link but I’d rather not repost this sort of hate. Suffice it to say the quoted blogger  repeats all the old conspiracy stuff about the “fake engagement” and  wonders if Cait is going to fake a marriage and a child.]

contemplatingoutlander responds: Thanks for sharing your thoughts “Damage.”

I’m not a lawyer but I understand that for a variety of reasons it is difficult for celebrities to win libel suits and they usually go after the press, not fans. But in an article in Ranker by Jacob Shelton, it seems that more and more celebrities are taking legal action.

“In this day and age, with phone records, endless email chains, and people who save three gigs worth of text messages, if you’re going to say something mean about a celebrity, it better be true. Celebrity lawsuits aren’t anything new, but they seem to have been happening more frequently in the last 20 years. The most prevalent cases happen when a celebrity feels like they’ve been slandered – be it by the press, by another celebrity, or just some guy on Twitter. Slander is serious business: If enough people believe a lie about you it can be perceived as real and in the entertainment biz, perception is reality. Here’s a list of celebrities who were slandered, and celebrities who sued.”

The author of the article sites a case involving James Woods that seems relevant to this discussion:

“In what is surprisingly the first Twitter defamation lawsuit, James Woods took action to sue Twitter user @abelisted for calling Woods a “cocaine addict.” The actor admitted that he didn’t know who Abe List was, but he still filed a lawsuit against the anonymous Twitter user for 10 million big ones.”

According to a 07.19.17 article about Woods by Eriq Gardner  in The Hollywood Reporter, the libel occurred in response “to Woods’ conservative politics”:

“In filing the lawsuit, Woods wanted to send a message. ‘AL, and anyone else using social media to propagate lies and do harm, should take note,’ stated the complaint handled by Michael Weinsten at Lavely & Singer. ‘They are not impervious to the law.’”

The article goes on to say that Woods eventually dropped the suit after the person who made the tweet died (but there also appears to have been a financial settlement and a letter of apology from the person).

So are Sam or Cait going to sue fans for libel for spreading rumors about the “fake engagement” and “secret marriage” and “children”? I doubt it but it doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t be careful about what they put out on social media. Unless you are 100% sure of what you believe (and basing accusations on fuzzy receipts and dubious sources is far from solid evidence) one might want to qualify statements that could be damaging to a celebrity. 

And BTW a non-celebrity like Tony would have a much easier time winning a suit if he chose to take legal action. The statements some of the SamCait conspiracy theorists (CTs) have made about his sexuality are simply not true (see POST). Furthermore, as far as I know, Tony is NOT Cait’s PA. It’s not okay to claim he is or to spread rumors about his businesses unless you are 100% sure of what you are saying.

In conclusion, even though a lawsuit for libel is highly unlikely, given the dubious sources and ambiguous or bogus receipts the SamCait CTs base their hateful claims on, it might be prudent for them to rethink and modify what they are saying about Tony, Sam’s former SOs, and Cait and Sam on public social media. JMHO

[cs-discourse]

Let it Go

So I've been thinking about this lately, and it really bothers me. I notice a lot of people harp about "letting things go" on CS, but honestly that's a load of BS. If someone does something really awful to someone else, like bullying them when they're emotionally vulnerable, slandering them publicly online without sufficient proof, or straight up taking advantage of someone's suicidal thoughts or feelings to try and shame them or to inflict emotional damage on them, I don't think anyone has any right to tell the victim to "let it go." You wouldn't tell someone IRL to "let it go" if they were the victim of the same things happening to them in school.

People seem to still be confused that harassment and defamation are crimes. Cyberbullying is a crime. Slandering people is a crime. People don't take these things seriously because these issues very rarely get reported, but I can tell you right now that I know tons of users right off the top of my head who would have to pay a pretty penny if someone decided to do something about it one day.

These things have long term affects on people, and you have zero right to tell them to get over it, no matter how long it's been. Sitting behind a screen gives people a lot of gall to do or say stupid and harmful stuff that they would never say IRL. What makes me especially upset is how people tell other people to "get over it" when they STILL talk smack about that person years later. That's not how it works!

You don't get to bring something up every single day and then demand the person you are continuing to harm and bully that they should let it go. Especially not when YOU have caused them damages that they can never recover from. (Like being permanently banned from something, or losing 100s of dollars, or attempting suicide, etc etc.) That isn't okay! I know someone who has actually had to file a police report because people continue, over a year later, to slander them and claim false statements about them. I don't think they ever would have filed one if their bank hadn't told them to when they tried to get their money back over something. A lot of you, if not most of you, are adults. Time does not give you a pass for the awful things you did and continue to do. You have no right to request someone "let it go," when you continue to dehumanize, berate, insult and slander them. It's wrong. Just my opinion, but people on CS need to learn how to be decent human beings.

[wendystevensreview-blog]

Wendy Stevens Review - Truth Comes to Light

Everyone makes mistakes but sometimes mistakes and just a fraction of truth can be fabricated into a web of lies causing a feeding frenzy for scam artists to take advantage of.

Your online reputation can take a hard hit and you find yourself climbing out of a hole that someone else dug for you. Why? Because these scam artists get their kicks out of hurting people; usually they’re jealous or filled with vengeance, but ultimately, they themselves are the con artists scamming the business person out of big bucks to make these lies disappear.

Anyone can say anything about anybody online. People can hide behind their computers, staying low on the radar, and spreading untruths. That’s exactly what happened to Wendy Stevens. It was a difficult season in her life 17 years ago when she admittedly made a mistake. Reacting on emotion, with no intention to hurt anyone, Wendy was ultimately forgiven by society and the people she offended for that $700 mistake. Due diligence shows her reported conviction of 17 years ago which she has made full restitution for. Completely open about this low point in her life, Wendy has nothing to hide, and she’s never tried to cover anything up.

In recent years, a scam artist has taken full advantage of Wendy’s minor fraud case and taken one truth and wrapped these outrageous lies around it – slandering Wendy Stevens as a scam artist herself. Wendy has maintained a life of integrity, and there is absolutely no truth to these recent allegations. They've created a sensation on the Internet, talking about a scam in which they have actually falsified. In today’s world, we can take any name or celebrity, even “Mother Theresa” or “Oprah” and brand their name with the word scam. Someone could take a “John Smith” who is a pedophile in Seattle and take a “John Smith” who lives in Nashville and tag him to what is an actual public record of someone who has a legal conviction.

Did you know that some people actually make a living as online extortionists for hire? If you Google “Kirk Kennedy,” you will find that you can actually hire him to smear an online reputation and then pay him again if you want to retort that smear. He’s got you coming and going. It’s like tar and feather. You can go win a court order if you want to invest half a million dollars. You're still going to have the residue of some tar on you.

There is the Freedom of Information Act that protects...You can say anything you want, and some people will say, "Wait a second. Can't you cite slander, libel, defamation, or file a lawsuit?" Yes, you can but the challenge is this – Google will not delist a blog unless you have a signed order from a judge. This scam artist literally posted Wendy Stevens’ private information including: social security number, driver's license, and other personal information from her life in a blog format for the world to see as if it was all the truth.

Online bullying has gotten so bad in our society. Wendy recommends writing to your congressman or your senator. But people are recognizing, we have to be held accountable for what we say, and we better be really clear, not on what someone says they said but make sure you're quoting something that's a reliable source.

It’s been the biggest lesson for Wendy Stevens, and she believes it’s part of the reason she experienced her own meltdown. It’s important for everyone to realize we're all capable of mistakes. Is the conviction real? Absolutely, it is. It's in Wendy’s book. She’s spoken about it from countless stages across the world. She asks her audiences, “How many of you have done something you're so embarrassed about or ashamed of?” Almost everyone’s hands go up.

Wendy states, she has friendships that are 40 years, 30 years, 20 years old and when someone picks up the phone who doesn't know her yet, someone who may have just met her in business, those people who seek out either references, referrals, people on LinkedIn…They say, “Hey Wendy, what is this?”

Wendy Stevens refuses to give in to online extortion. In the end, Wendy lets her results and proven track record with her clients speak for itself. She lives her life above and beyond reproach. She provides more value than ever in exchange because that's been a part of her journey.

In the end, this has been a path for Wendy to truly recognize; forgiveness is the most important thing. It's something she’s dedicated part of her online future to – for people to recognize where the real sources are and what to believe is truth.

How do you find out what's true and what's not? That's something that's important but for her own personal circumstances, the whole point is to recognize, we don't know what we don't know. We do know that all truth comes to life with time.

Public Shaming https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq7Eh6JTKIg&t=3s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_humiliation

[96thdayofrage]

Dan Kovalik is a labor and human rights lawyer, but most of all he is an anti-imperialist and an author of three books. Kovalik’s first two books tackled the specific US war drives against Russia and Iran. His third installment, The Plot to Control the World: How the US Spent Billions to Change the Outcome of Elections Around the World, addresses the broad scope of US election meddling abroad. The book provides much needed political and ideological life support to an anti-war movement in the U.S that has been rendered nearly invisible to the naked eye.

The Plot to Control the World is as detailed in its critique of U.S. imperialism as it is concise. In just over 160 pages, Kovalik manages to analyze the various ways that the U.S. political and military apparatus interferes in the affairs of nations abroad to achieve global hegemony. He wastes no time in exposing the devastating lie that is American exceptionalism, beginning appropriately with the U.S. imperialist occupations of Haiti and the Philippines at the end of the 19thcentury and beginning of the 20th. The U.S. would murder millions of Filipinos and send both nations into a spiral of violence, instability, and poverty that continues to this day. As Kovalik explains regarding Haiti, “While the specific, claimed justifications for [U.S.] intervention changed over time- e.g., opposing the end of slavery, enforcing the Monroe Doctrine, fighting Communism, fighting drugs, restoring law and order -- the fact is that the interventions never stopped and the results for the Haitian people have been invariably disastrous.”

“Kovalik wastes no time in exposing the devastating lie that is American exceptionalism.”

US expansionism has relied upon the ideology of American exceptionalism to silence criticism and weaken anti-war forces in the United States. American exceptionalism claims that the U.S. is a force for good in the world and completely justified in its wars of conquest draped in the cover of spreading “democracy and freedom” around the world. Kovalik challenges American exceptionalism by showing readers just how much damage that US expansionism and militarism has caused for nations and peoples in every region of the planet.Russia, Honduras, Guatemala, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Vietnam and many other nations have seen their societies devastated by U.S. “election meddling.” In Honduras, for example, a U.S.-backed coup of left-wing President Manuel Zelaya in 2009 made the nation one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a journalist, indigenous person, or trade-union/environmental activist. Thousands of Hondurans have been displaced, disappeared, or assassinated since the coup.

Another important aspect of The Plot to Control the World is its exposure of U.S hypocrisy surrounding the subject of “election meddling.” Since the end of the 2016 Presidential elections, the U.S. military, political, and media branches of the imperialist state have accused Russia of virtually implanting Donald Trump into the Oval office. The U.S. public has been fed a steady dose of anti-Russia talking points in an apparent effort on the part of the elites to beat the drums of war with the nuclear-armed state. No evidence has been presented to prove the conspiracy, as a recent National Public Radio (NPR) analysis states plainly. However, there is plenty of evidence that the United States is the most depraved and dangerous “meddler” in the affairs of other nations that history has ever known.

“The author shows readers just how much damage that US expansionism and militarism has caused for nations and peoples in every region of the planet.”

Just ask the much-vaunted Russians. Kovalik devotes an entire chapter to the 1996 Presidential election in Russia that re-elected the wildly unpopular Boris Yeltsin. The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 began an era of “shock therapy” in the newly erected Russian Federation, a euphemism for the wholesale theft and transfer of socialized wealth into the hands of oligarchs and multinational corporations. Millions would perish in Russia from an early death due to the sudden loss of healthcare, housing, jobs, and other basic services. In 1996, President Bill Clinton ensured that Yeltsin maintained his near total grip on state power in Russia by providing the Russian President with a team of U.S. political consultants and over a billion dollars’ worth of IMF monies directly to the campaign. U.S. political and monetary support allowed Yeltsin to rig the election in his favor despite his dwindling popularity. Kovalik shows that if anyone should worry about election meddling, it should be the people of Russia and not the US elites that control Washington.

The Plot to Control the World takes readers into the Democratic Republic of Congo, where the CIA’s coup of revolutionary Patrice Lumumba continues to haunt the resource rich nation in the form of endless US-backed genocide. It travels to Guatemala, where the CIA overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz led to a U.S.-backed slaughter of a quarter million Guatemalans under the auspices of several military dictatorships. Kovalik shows us that the election of the fascistic Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil was no aberration, as the U.S. was primarily responsible for the rise in fascism in Brazilthrough its direct role in placing the nation under the control of a military dictatorship in 1964. The military dictatorship predated the CIA’s ouster of Chile’s Salvador Allende in 1973, which handed the once socialist state to Augusto Pinochet’s murderous and repressive leadership.

“The mission is always the same: to destabilize independent nations that refuses to bow down to the dictates of U.S. imperialism.”

The entire skeleton of the U.S. military state is on full display in The Plot to Control the World. The U.S. military state utilizes an array of tools to overthrow democratically-elected governments that it deems to be a threat to corporate interests. These tools include the U.S. intelligence agencies, so-called Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) such as the National Endowment for Democracy, and the various branches of the military itself, to name a few. Regardless of the tools employed, the mission is always the same: to destabilize independent nations that refuses to bow down to the dictates of U.S. imperialism.Thus, while Nicaragua, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Vietnam may possess unique histories, their economic and political development has been shaped by the destructive interference of the United States.

Dan Kovalik is not likely to be reviewed in the New York Timesor other corporate outlets. That’s because Kovalik unapologetically speaks out against U.S. empire and all that upholds it. In doing so, Kovalik’s The Plot to Control the World walks in the footsteps of anti-imperialists such as Michael Parenti and William Blum. Blum, a former State Department employee, spent his post-State Department life providing humanity with knowledge about how US imperialism operates on the global stage. The New York Timeswasted no time in slandering Blum in their obituary . This showed the great lengths that the ruling elites will go to discredit, defame, and condemn critics of the military industrial complex and how important it is for those who oppose war let go of any expectation that the corporate media will cover Kovalik’s work or anyone else who speaks out against war.

“White supremacy is the biggest lie of all and is completely embedded in the ideology of American exceptionalism.”

With that said, one of the reasons that the left in the U.S. is so weak is because it has been numerically and politically isolated by the lies of the Empire. White supremacy is the biggest lie of all and is completely embedded in the ideology of American exceptionalism. Despite the ruthlessness of the austerity and incarceration regimes, many Americans continue to be convinced that the U.S. is the most exceptional nation in the world and do not balk when its military wages wars abroad at the expense of U.S. tax dollars and civilian lives. U.S. imperialism has made sure that Americans feel that they are special colonizers who see the victims of the U.S. military state as savages worthy of slaughter. The Plot to Control the World is based on a different premise: internationalism. The book links the struggle against US imperialism to the needs of the oppressed and working class living in the heart of empire, making it an essential read for those who are sick and tired of the prevailing narrative of American exceptionalism and want to be armed with knowledge that is essential toward changing it.

[gutterballgt]

My trip was honestly so much fun! I made lots of friends and had such a great time! Also bouncing off the press thing, I imagine that the PPDC has about an equal amount of good press and bad press. Chuck and Raleigh are polite and kind to the fans that are grateful for them saving the world, but god help the reporters that accuse them of anything in an effort to make them look bad in the eyes of the people. Let’s just say they were lucky Herc was there or else someone would have lost an eye.-Kai

Yay! I’m so glad you had fun! I don’t ALWAYS love the outdoors (and right now, it’s so hot and muggy here that it would be misery), but they can be ALL the fun at the right time with the right people in the right place!

And yes. Yes yes yes.

There’s been more than one table-flipping incident. The first two times were by Chuck, because of course they were. He’s trying to rein it in, but he’s only human, and backsliding when someone asks if Raleigh still feels guilty for killing his brother is so understandable that Mako did it, too. Raleigh just went white as a sheet and sat silent and ramrod straight in the chair while the chaos surrounded him.

That reporter AND her publication were never allowed anywhere NEAR a PPDC press event again. Blackballed entirely. And every other outlet there refused to share information with them.

They went out of business in less than two months.

But the third time shocked everyone because it was… Herc. He wasn’t even supposed to be on the stage. He was just in the back, as usual, monitoring proceedings and ready to intervene only if necessary. Mako was more than capable of deciding when a given event was over, and Chuck and Raleigh had blatant permission from Herc to get up and walk out if they felt like table-flipping was near at hand. No questions asked. No punishment.

That said, he listened with growing irritation as a charming-looking, clean cut male journalist started asking Chuck questions about Scott. Raleigh and Mako kept shooting the kid more and more concerned glances as Chuck’s hands first fisted, then hid under the table, then grabbed onto Raleigh’s thigh hard enough that he flinched.

But the kid didn’t get up and walk out. He barked ever-shorter, ever-less-welcoming answers, but the bloke just wouldn’t stop.

Finally: “So what WAS it that finally drummed your uncle out of the PPDC? What’s a guy gotta do to get tossed out of a company that included Chinese car thieves and American ruffians and Russian thugs and–”

Before anyone at the actual press table could move, Herc stormed out onto the stage, stomped in between Mako and Raleigh (because Chuck had Raleigh’s thigh in a deathgrip with both hands, his jaw clenched so tight that everyone close enough to see it worried about his teeth), grabbed the press table in his one good arm, and flipped that fucker into the audience, mics and water bottles and all. The front row, perhaps having seen their doom storming in from the back curtain, had luckily high-tailed it for the sides of the room before the table landed.

The next few rows followed, just in case.

The idiot with the shitty questions found himself standing alone in the third row, pale and wide-eyed but already starting to look angry and offended.

“How dare–”

“You listen right the fuck up.” Herc’s no-bullshit tone cut across his protest like a fine-beam laser scalpel. “If you ever dare insult my rangers, alive or dead, again, I will have you up on charges for defamation of character, and you will be sued within an inch of your life for slandering the good men and women who saved this whole goddamn planet.”

He strode across the stage, pointing at him with lethal focus, the muscle of his arm flexed so taut that he looked like a Renaissance painting. “And if my brother’s name ever so much as crosses your lips again… if I see his name in print anywhere… so help me whatever God there might be, but I will snatch the life from you myself. You have no idea what piloting can do to a ranger’s mind, what happens to human thought processes when faced with impossible monstrosities from another dimension that want to eat you and will kill you if they can. You’ve seen from a distance. Scott Hansen faced those fuckers from close enough to smell the carrion reek of their breath. So don’t you DARE speak his name. Ever.”

Chuck, who was still clutching Raleigh’s leg, finally stood up, his entire body as clenched as if he’d bitten a live power line. Raleigh stood up with him as if on cue, his jaw clenched and his expression cold and stony. Mako, bless her impassive expression and her glowing, glaring eyes, merely stood, lifted her clipboard, and made a very clear, distinct strikethrough on her list.

It might as well have been a royal thumbing down of the loser of a life-or-death coliseum battle.

That, more than anything else, shut the reporter up. He was done and he knew it. Worse, he had very likely just tanked the publication he worked for. No amount of firing him and PR stroking would save them after this.

As one, all four surviving rangers turned and walked out of the press event. The applause started small – just one journalist, or perhaps two – but rose steadily until the departing pilots could hear it even as they gathered together in the furthest corner room to calm down. Mako immediately hugged Herc, who was too pissed off and adrenaline-wrecked to return it right away. Raleigh and Chuck joined in without hesitation, enveloping the poor marshal in a wall of sympathy and understanding.

It took a while, but eventually, Herc was able to sigh out the worst of the sick, raw anger and accept the comfort they offered.

He spoke to his brother for the first time in years that night. It was a stilted conversation, but a good one.

The first of many to come.

Scott’s name never ended up in any publication.

[jjillekkot]

2017 is ending ! and so should this bullying & negativity !

2017 has been a tough year on everyone. Regardless of where you live on this globe, we’ve all suffered in one way or another. From the US election to Brexit, from the terrorist attacks in London and Manchester to the ethnic cleansing in Myanmar. We’ve survived hurricanes and tropical storms in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. The mass shooting in Las Vegas. Even now in the height of Christmas season, California’s fires burn on. Palestinians are being illegally arrested, detained and displaced every day. Not to mention Net Neutrality battles in the US and Canada. No matter where you might be, something has affected you.

And outside of just the world news, the RPC has dealt with many things. We’ve seen hate crimes and suicides. Toxicity and bullying beyond belief. Ageism and accusations. There’s been so much hurt that the community has inflicted upon itself. So here’s a list of things that the RPC can work on in 2018.

AGEISM. Fandom is a place for people of all ages. It’s not just for teenagers and not merely for adults. This is applicable for both sides. There’s so many people who say “ Don’t talk to me if you’re under 18 ! Stop lying about your age ! “ and similarly there are others who say “ You’re too old for this fandom ! Focus on your own life and get your own hobbies ! “ What both of y’all need to understand is that roleplaying is a collaborative activity. And not only that, it’s such a large community that you could easily just go from one blog to another. To damn a whole age group for an individual experience is toxic and close-minded. Those who are underage still have a place here-- because it probably figures that you were online when you were underage. And for those who are underage, don’t get yourself into activities that could easily get the other party into legal trouble. Respect each other’s boundaries; and if you can’t play nicely, don’t play at all. There are so many variations of characters, of fandoms, of portrayals that you can very easily just... move on elsewhere. Do that, and do so quietly.

ANONYMOUS HATE. Or even, just hate in general. It should just be a rule in general: if you don’t have anything positive or constructive to say, don’t say it at all. It’s not that hard to just move on to another blog. If it makes you uncomfortable to see someone on your dash, unfollow them. Still there? Blacklist them. Tumblr Savior gives you the option to remove the banner that notifies you if an item has been hidden from your dash. It’s like they’re not around at all. Afraid they’ll message you? Block them. And one additional option would be to speak up if you can be non-spiteful about your message, clear the air, and go in peace. No reason to just be nasty to people. 

PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE NEGATIVITY. I’m not counting vaguing because sometimes you need to be able to let people know about a situation without being too in detail: it can be a cry for help without being too obvious. But I mean just stirring the pot to see what will come of it. Just saying something negative to someone like “ No one cares about x ” or “ You know you should really do this or otherwise x. ” It’s childish & it shows a lack of accountability. People will ask for your opinion when they want it: otherwise you can probably keep it to yourself, or move on if the blog no longer suits your interests. No need to harass someone out of some sick sense of entertainment or pride. 

ACCUSATIONS. Get both sides of the story, understand the situation, make informed decisions. And then, once you do, keep things to yourself. You can warn your friends or something privately if you have a concern about someone based off of personal experience, but rumors spread so fast around here. Even if something is proven to be true, like say someone is bullying or being abusive, and they’re still active? It’s not your responsibility to continuously bully them about it. If you’re so concerned, contact an authority figure. If you know Tumblr Staff isn’t taking it seriously enough, then contact your local authorities-- online bullying is a serious thing that police are supposed to take seriously. If you think you have a real case-- or heck, even if you’re worried? Get serious and contact someone. Otherwise, if you don’t have any evidence to back up your accusation, or you’re just tagging along, you’re just another part of the problem. You are contributing to an unhealthy online culture. 

SHAMING. There’s a trend of claiming people are into pedophilia and bestiality, or even go on to call people rape and abuse sympathizers. That is not okay! At all! Some people write content to cope over something that occurred in their private lives. Some people want to experience writing something outside their comfort zone or daily lives. Some people are interested in experimentation. Whatever the cause may be, that’s no reason to call people anything. Do you not realize that if these victims-- yes, victims ( because that’s what they are ) could easily report you for abuse, and if inclined sue you in court for defamation of character? Because that’s what you’re doing, publicly slandering someone’s name out of something you personally don’t feel comfortable with. Don’t like someone’s interests? It’s probably tagged-- meaning you can blacklist it. Still uncomfortable? Chances are that there’s someone else who writes a similar enough style or character-- so unfollow. What authority do you have to blaspheme someone for the content they produce on their blog in their own space in their own comfort in their own time if it’s not hurting anyone else in the process?

FACECLAIM / POC BASHING. Which I think is a really interesting phenomenon because most of the time the people who call others out for their choice in face claim aren’t even of the race themselves? The idea of the faceclaim is to have that person pick a public face that matches the portrayal of the fictional character they’re writing, usually of an animated background. And it’s also gross to tag someone else to bash another person for you? I’ve been asked to publicly call out someone on their choice of FC-- and that’s disgusting. Don’t bully someone ‘cause of a personal preference. And if you’re trying to “ stand up “ for POC, which is what I assume this is supposed to be... you should probably just ask a POC what they think of the situation. But be prepared to like consider your thoughts wrong: ‘cause sometimes what you consider correct just... isn’t. I was asked to call out several people on “ white washing ” WOC, and honestly POC don’t come in a cookie cutter model... This isn’t to say I don’t appreciate the faceclaim resources made available: because those allow someone to make a valuable educated decision on a choice as opposed to a random Google search. But like, it’s not necessary to harass anyone over what you think might have triggered your radar. Instead, you could start a discourse without accusation, politely ask how the person made that decision, & then like if you don’t agree with the moral / ethical decision of that person idk,  move on.

DUPLICATE HATE. Discomfort is acceptable: and you can unfollow or blacklist or block, whatever you need to do to distance yourself from a duplicate should you feel uncomfortable with them. But under no means necessary is it necessary to bully, abuse, harass, slander or otherwise attack another person for sharing the same muse as you. Because unless it’s an OC, you don’t own rights to that character anyway, and the only person who has the authority to tell someone not to write a character is the person / company who owns the creative rights. If you’re not pleased with someone else’s portrayal of your character? Focus on your own, make it the best it can be. Produce the content you’d like to see about ‘ your ’ muse. Stop deflecting responsibility onto everyone else.

I am sure there’s plenty of stuff I’m missing out on, but these are things I’ve seen a lot over the year & while it’s probably a dream, I’d love to see change in 2018. But I think change begins a person at a time, and it begins with us. If this at least opened your eyes a little, then I’m glad. Let’s make this next year a better one.

[ripoffreportassist]

10 things you should do if you Search that a Ripoff Report is appearing in your Google search results

A Ripoff Report can quickly appear in your Google search results, making it difficult to find the business you’re looking for or damaging your company’s reputation before you’ve even had the chance to defend yourself against false accusations. What should you do if this happens? Here are 10 things you should do if you discover that a Ripoff Report is appearing in your Google search results.

1) Call your lawyer

If there’s information on a ripoff report that’s libelous or otherwise not true, contact an attorney to see what recourse you have. If you don’t know of one already, ask friends and colleagues for recommendations; they might be able to recommend someone to talk with about your case. It may also be worth it to look up attorneys who specialize in reputation management and online reputation management—many such lawyers will offer free initial consultations. While speaking with an attorney does come at a cost, there are plenty of low-cost legal options out there as well. Make sure not to pay unless and until he or she has done something for you.

2) Call your ISP

Many have had success calling their internet service provider and asking them to remove Ripoff Reports from their search engine. In some cases, companies have been able to get these reports removed from Yahoo!, Bing, and even Google—especially when they’ve been able to prove that what’s being said isn’t true. It doesn’t always work but it might be worth giving it a shot; who knows? You could end up saving yourself thousands of dollars and tons of stress! To be honest, most people never even consider looking for information like How can I get my negative report removed from Google? when dealing with an issue like having their business falsely accused on the Ripoff Report. Call your ISP; chances are they can help.

3) Get Google Help

In most cases, rip-off reports can be removed from Google search results for free. Call up Google and explain that there’s a report on their site that contains inaccurate information about your business or practice. They’ll ask for a faxed statement from you stating all of these points before they remove it. Sending them a statement by email will not be sufficient to have it removed. You can also take help from an ORM service company in India if you don’t have enough knowledge about it.

4) Do not respond!

Some websites allow you to contact their operators directly. If you can find an email address or phone number for a site, it's often worth reaching out to see if they'll take down or remove your review. A few reasons why: 1) Even though these sites typically don't have legal jurisdiction to force you to take down negative reviews, they might be able to convince others to make changes on their end. 2) Sometimes, people who put up misleading reports will back off once they realize someone is contacting them directly. 3) Sites like Ripoff Report rely on volume for revenue, so fewer reports could help them reduce some of their volume over time.

5) Contact the site owner directly

Typically, there’s no point in reaching out to Ripoff Report or any other similar sites. While they may have an option for users to file feedback, you are unlikely to get anywhere with them. It’s better to take steps to minimize how much weight these types of websites have on your business. Do not publish contact information on your website: There’s no reason for visitors to your site or potential customers to know where you or anyone else associated with your business lives and works. This allows people like Dr.

6) Remove all evidence online of this report.

Go to each website where you can edit content and remove everything they have about you. This includes all of your contact info, such as email address and phone number. You can also delete any posts on social media accounts or anywhere else online where information about your business appears. Keep an eye out for similar posts on blogs, discussion forums and message boards, but don’t panic: just delete them and move on to Step 2.

7) Use slander/libel removal services (Cease & Desist).

Yelp will typically remove fake reviews from its platform, but doing so can sometimes take a while. In fact, it’s not uncommon for fake reviews to appear for several months before they are taken down. To make sure Yelp knows about these fake positive reviews, give them negative reviews on their Yelp page. Not only will these negative reviews likely get picked up by Ripoff Report SEO companies but they could even help push down some of those helpful 5-star positive reviews. If you already have Yelp pages set up for your business then just add some negative feedback about how terrible these other businesses have been to you. When doing so, use strategic keywords in both places that relate to rip off reports and SEO experts will direct readers to your page instead of theirs.

8) Sue them back. And win!

Yelp provides a free platform for disgruntled customers to make their voices heard. As such, there's no better way to respond to a Ripoff Report than by posting honest, positive reviews of your own business on Yelp. This not only makes you more visible but helps offset any damage from misleading content on other sites. A few quick tips: Check out what's currently being said about your business on Yelp before jumping into the review fray. Start with some basic facts about what type of business you run and then focus on personal experiences and brand promises that directly connect with consumers.

9) Give negative reviews on their Yelp page.

If someone has defamed your business on Yelp, take those reviews down! You can also go on Yelp and leave positive reviews as well. Pay them with cash to take down their page: This may sound drastic, but paying someone with cash to take down their page could be money well spent. Having an online presence is vital for business success. Once your reputation is tarnished by malicious reviews, it can be hard to recover without some heavy SEO and PR help or running into someone who’s familiar with your brand and willing to write a good review. The more people who see negative reviews about your business online, the harder it will be for you to win back customers from competitors who don’t have any bad reviews of their own.

10) Wait 3-6 months for their report to be de-indexed completely.

Once on page 1 of Google, it can take anywhere from three to six months for any update or change to be completely reflected on those pages. The first step, then, is simply patience: letting new and relevant content rise up and push out older and/or poorly organized pages. If time doesn’t help, consider getting additional reviews on third-party websites like Yelp or Facebook; by having more reviews with higher ratings, sites like Ripoff report will likely deindex your company over time as long as you have no history of fraudulent business practices or lawsuits. Just make sure any reviews are actually representative of what you do –– not just satisfied customers! It’s easy to filter out positive reviews by visiting their social media accounts before posting an authentic review.

[art-defense]

Reporting on Patreon (and elsewhere)

We have become aware of a post making the rounds accusing a Patreon account of copyright infringement.

First, we would like to remind you that urging everyone to reblog, and urging everyone to report, can actually do more harm than good.  Only the artists or their authorized agents can report--not just on Patreon, but on any site where art is being reposted or reused.    The important thing is not to alert everyone, but to alert the artists.    

You cannot make an accusation of theft on behalf of someone else unless you are their authorized agent--you can even face legal penalties (misrepresentation, defamation of character, slander/libel, terms vary) for making such a public accusation.    Harassment is also a possible charge.  So don’t do it.  That way lies trouble.

That is why we here at Art-Defense stick to provable, observable facts in our posts.  “This account appears to be using your work.”  Not stealing it, not misusing it, just that they appear to be using the named artists’ work.   That is something we can back up in any court in the land:  here’s the video, here’s the instagram post, here is what gave us reason to believe it was created by someone else. This is what gives us reason to believe it is being monetized (or not.)   If the artist gave permission, all well and good. If not, it is in their hands, not ours.  

Now, we have researched how to issue a DMCA Takedown Notice on Patreon.  

https://patreon.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/208377833-How-do-I-send-a-DMCA-takedown-notice-

CAUTION:  they state clearly that they will publish your name, address, phone number, and email address.  Understandably, many artists will hesitate to make themselves vulnerable in that way.

We recommend that you get someone to act as your agent.   It could be a law firm (and if you have questions about this, definitely talk to an attorney, because nobody in the Art-Defense Project is an attorney), though we believe that anyone could serve as your agent.  (Art-Defense does not provide agents, sorry.)  Several artists could possibly go in together under one agent.   According to our reading of that policy, the agent could use their contact information at that point, and it would still be valid.

Good luck.

[supplylaw-blog]

When Is an Online Review Defamation?

A business is built on its reputation. You'll want to know, when is an online review defamatory, and what damages are available for defamation?

If you need legal advice from an Ottawa Civil Litigation Lawyer, book your free legal consultation with Supply Law today.

*Disclaimer: this guide is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice nor create a solicitor-client relationship between the author and reader. As with all legal matters, a lawyer should be properly retained and consulted where legal advice may reasonably be considered necessary. 

This blog post will cover the basics of defamation, including:

  1. What is defamation? 2. Who can be liable for defamation? 3. What are the defenses to defamation? 4. How much are the damages for defamation? 5. Is there a legal way to get defamatory comments removed?   Ready? Here we go!

1. What is Defamation?

  There are 3 elements the plaintiff needs to prove in an action for defamation: A. the words were defamatory B. the words, in fact, referred to the Plaintiff, and C. the words were published. While apparently simple, these necessary components have (unsurprisingly) generated a substantial amount of litigation.

A. Defamatory Words

The courts will determine whether words are defamatory on an objective standard. The court will ask whether the words, in the eyes of a "reasonable person", would tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation amongst others. The reasonable person is a fictional character that the courts created. The court presumes its reasonable person is ordinary, fair minded, lacking special knowledge, and not unusually suspicious or naïve. The ultimate question is whether, in the mind of this fictional person, the words would cause others to view the plaintiff with feelings such as hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike, or disesteem, with the result that their reputation is harmed. Defamatory words can involve an attack on a person’s professional reputation, appearance, morals, or anything else that would objectively tend to lower how people feel about another individual.  

Note: What Is the Difference Between Libel and Slander?

Libel and slander are forms of defamation. In essence, libel is a defamatory statement in print form, whereas slander is usually spoken but may include other less permanent forms of communication such as sign language. Either may give rise to a claim for defamation. An important distinction is that libel (the written form) is actionable per se, meaning it is presumed damages flow from the defamation, whereas in the case of slander, actual loss must be proven. See damages below. B. Reference to the Plaintiff Defamation is said to be a personal claim, which is why the words need to refer to the plaintiff. This is also why harmful statements made generally towards a group of people are unlikely to be considered defamatory if the group is sufficiently broad. For instance, the words, “all of the property managers in this city are greedy!” would likely not give rise to an action by a management company (even if they operated in the complainant’s city). However, a statement like, “the tenants in this building are a nightmare!” may be actionable, if the statement can be understood as being made against each individual tenant. Again, this analysis will depend on what the reasonable person would think. Where the statement is more general, factors such as the size and composition of the group, and nature of the allegation itself, are relevant. To that point, an individual does not need to be specifically named, and words like “the manager” may be sufficient if recipients understand them as directed at the plaintiff.  

Note: Can Corporations Be Sued for Defamation?

Yes. The fact that defamation is considered a personal claim, doesn't mean only people have reputations capable of being harmed. Artificial entities like corporations or partnerships may equally advance claims for defamation. Similar to real persons, these entities can be defamed (even without being specifically named) as long as the identity of the organization can reasonably be inferred. For instance, a reference to persons controlling the entity like a well-known director or CEO such as Tim Cook may give rise to a claim by Apple. C. The Words Were Published The final requirement for a defamation claim is that the words must be published. “Published” in the case of defamation means the words are conveyed in some recorded form whether that be via newspaper, fax, email, radio, or even via a hand delivered letter. The mode of delivery is not often in dispute. What matters most is that the words were published and conveyed to a single third party other than the plaintiff. To that effect, it has been held that communications like a post card (or fax) that can be easily read by third parties in the course of being delivered, can constitute defamation even though the communication was merely intercepted by the third party. In certain cases, the publication will be deemed to have occurred by statute, such as in the case of a newspaper. However, there is no presumption that internet postings have been published. So, in the case of an online blog post or review, counsel will still have to demonstrate publication has in fact occurred (although in most cases it will be obvious).

2. Who Can Be Found Liable for Defamation?

    Anyone Who Participates in the Publication May be Liable While publication can take the form of a sealed hand delivered letter mailed to a third party, in many circumstances others are necessarily involved in the publication. This is particularly true where the defamatory words are directed to the public at large. At law, anyone who participates in publishing the defamatory words such as a newspaper editor, printer, or vendor, may be liable for defamation. The original author will be primarily responsible for the defamatory words. However, where a third-party publisher has been put on notice that it has published defamatory materials, and that party makes some voluntary choice which results in the defamatory words being conveyed to others, the third party will become liable as well.   When Does a Third Party's Publication Become Voluntary? Voluntary choices can involve publishing the words at the onset, or failing to take some action to remove the defamatory statements. Based on this principle, an internet service provider, blogging platform, chat room operator, and even social media user, may all be considered a publisher of defamatory materials where they have received notice of the defamatory statement and failed to remove it. The reason notice is required is that publishers may not be liable for “innocent disseminations”. Therefore, where the publisher has knowledge the statements are defamatory and publishes the statements anyways (or fails to remove the statements after the fact) they will no longer be considered innocent, as they can now be seen as participating in the publication (and therefore defamation) by choice.

3. What Are the Defenses to Defamation?

  Even where all of the elements of a valid claim for defamation are met, the defendant has several arguments or defenses which they can advance to avoid liability. In general, these defenses stem from the view that allowing unfettered defamation claims would hinder the functioning of democratic society. Defences to defamation include: a) Truth of the Statement – There is no defamation where the Defendant's words are true or substantially true. The defamatory words will be presumed to be false by the courts and the onus rests on the defendant to prove on a balance of probabilities (the civil burden of proof) that the words were, in fact, substantially true. b) Fair Comment - The defence of fair comment is available to any defendant, at any time, and firmly grounded on the right to free speech. There are four elements to this defense. The defendant must show that the defamatory statement: i. Was a matter of public interest (personal and business affairs are not usually public) ii. Was based on facts (the facts must be substantially true and not a rumour) iii. Was recognizable as comment (meaning an expression of opinion), and iv. Was fair at the time of publication (an analysis of whether the comment was fair involves asking if, objectively, any person could honestly express such a comment on the facts). However, despite the defendant being able to prove these elements, the fair comment may still be defamatory where the defendant published the materials with express malice. c) Privilege -  There are a variety of situations where no defamation can be found based on grounds of privilege. These include statements made in parliament and in various aspects of the legal system so that statements published in a statement of claim or contained in a judicial ruling are not actionable in defamation. d) Defamatory Statements of Fact in Media - Journalistic works may be protected where defamatory statements are published in an investigative piece or similar work which serves the public interest. This is true despite the publisher being unable to prove the truth of the defamatory statement in court as a defense. The reason being, is that often journalists will be unable to prove the truth of the statement without revealing a confidential source. Again, even if the publication may be defamatory, the ability of journalist to report on matters of public interest is recognized as a foundation of democracy and Canadian Charter rights. e) Consent to Publication Given by the Plaintiff – no one can bring a claim for defamation if they have consented to the publication being made, either expressly or through being implied from the circumstances surrounding the publication.

Note: What is the Limitations Period for Defamation?

There is a statutory requirement to provide notice prior to initiating legal proceedings in the case of claims against newspaper publications and broadcasters in accordance with Ontario’s Libel and Slander Act. Per the Act, notice must be given within 6 weeks from the time the libel came to the plaintiff’s attention. This is to provide an opportunity for the publisher to correct any defamatory materials, and to resolve the issue without the necessity of legal proceedings. The actual action against a newspaper or radio broadcaster must then be brought within 3 months of the defamatory publication coming to the attention of the plaintiff. This requirement has been held to apply to internet based newspaper and radio publications but not other websites generally. In those situations, where the publisher cannot be characterized as a radio or newspaper publisher or broadcaster, the limitations period should be the standard 2-year time limit from discovery of the claim in accordance with the Limitations Act. though there is some debate here.    

4. How Much Are the Damages for Defamation?

    General Damages In the case of defamation, the court may make an award of general damages for the injuries the plaintiff has suffered such as, loss of dignity, and harm to reputation. These damages are available “at large” meaning the plaintiff can receive compensation beyond the losses they are able to prove. This is due to the difficulty in measuring non-pecuniary losses (damages that are not easily quantifiable, such as pain and suffering) and serve to exonerate the plaintiff’s reputation. In order to determine the amount of damages the court will consider: the conduct of the plaintiff the plaintiff’s position and standing the nature of the defamation the mode and extent of publication the absence or refusal of any retraction or apology made by the defendant, and the defendant's conduct from the time when the defamatory statements were published until the court delivers the verdict (this may include before the action, after the action, and during the trial)

Is there a limit to an award for defamation?

Unlike other claims such as personal injury, there is no ceiling to the amount of damages that may be awarded by the court. If the defendant’s conduct is particularly deplorable, aggravated damages may be awarded in addition to general damages. Aggravated damages have been found appropriate where the defendant attempted to disseminate the defamatory statements as wide as possible (a factor which may often be at play in the case of internet publications) Note, because aggravated damages are intended to provide compensation for emotional injuries, corporations may not claim aggravated damages. In addition to those damages already enumerated, punitive damages may be available where the conduct of the defendant warrants punishment and would serve to deter others from acting similarly. Punitive damages can be quite large and even equal to the general damages award. For instance, in Hill v. Church of Scientology the court awarded $800,000.00 in general damages to the plaintiff along with another $800,000.00 in punitive damages (note: this case was decided in 1995!). However, as the amount of the award will be decided on the facts of each case, it is difficult to measure past awards with the aim of predicting how much the court may award in future cases.

5. Is There a Legal Way to Get Defamatory Comments Removed?

  A Court Ordered Injunction Can Stop the Publication of Defamatory Statements

Generally, an injunction is an order form the court that restrains a defendant from continuing with some conduct. In the case of defamation, this can include an order that the defendant remove defamatory statements (i.e. to cease actively publishing) or prohibit them publishing further statements which harm the plaintiff’s reputation. However, the court will be reluctant to grant an injunction prior to trial except in the clearest cases of defamation. Following a successful defamation claim, the court may also grant a permanent injunction to prevent defamatory statements being made in the future. This remedy is usually available where it is likely the defendant would continue to publish further defamatory statements, and it would be unlikely for the plaintiff to be compensated for their injuries (such as where the defendant has limited assets). Though, as this remedy may have the potential to incidentally interfere with a defendant’s right to exercises free speech, permanent injunctions will not usually be granted. Conclusion Where the grounds for starting a claim for defamation are arguably present, third party liability for publishers provides strong leverage to persuade consumer review websites to remove defamatory comments. Faced with a demand to remove defamatory statements, few publishers will come to the conclusion the benefit of continuing to host defamatory statements outweighs the risk.

If you need legal advice from an Ottawa Civil Litigation lawyer, book your free legal consultation with Supply Law today.

Read the full article

[stopstalkingppl]

@pypisableist

Hey. So I have Statcounter on my blog. This shows me what pages people are looking at on my blog and their IP addresses. A while ago, someone kept searching the word “pee” on my blog over and over- which was admittedly funny at the time. But here’s the deal. Recently, I found out that someone had created a blog to keep tally on (a specific group of) people who say the words “pee your pants.” Your reasoning is that you believe the phrase is ableist- I have no comment on that. That’s not what this post about.

What this post is about is the fact that you created a blog dedicated to routinely monitoring other people’s blogs for a single phrase, screenshotting and archiving their posts, keeping “tallies” on them- all without their consent. And, whether this is intentional or unintentional, you are encouraging others to do the same.

This is stalking.

Here’s what Wikipedia says:

“Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, group, or organization. It may include false accusations, defamation, slander and libel. It may also include monitoring, identity theft, threats, vandalism, solicitation for sex, or gathering information that may be used to threaten, embarrass or harass.”

Here are some examples of cyberstalking from the wikipedia:

False accusations. Many cyberstalkers try to damage the reputation of their victim and turn other people against them. They post false information about them on websites. They may set up their own websites, blogs or user pages for this purpose. They post allegations about the victim to newsgroups, chat rooms, or other sites that allow public contributions such as Wikipedia or Amazon.com.

Attempts to gather information about the victim. Cyberstalkers may approach their victim’s friends, family and work colleagues to obtain personal information. They may advertise for information on the Internet, or hire a private detective.

Monitoring their target’s online activities and attempting to trace their IP address in an effort to gather more information about their victims.

Encouraging others to harass the victim. Many cyberstalkers try to involve third parties in the harassment. They may claim the victim has harmed the stalker or his/her family in some way, or may post the victim’s name and telephone number in order to encourage others to join the pursuit.

False victimization. The cyberstalker will claim that the victim is harassing him or her. Bocij writes that this phenomenon has been noted in a number of well-known cases.

The people you are targeting are TRAUMA SURVIVORS who all have a specific mental illness (DID or OSDD-1). Many of which have been victims of stalking. By actively namedropping and archiving their posts, they are at risk of being stalked and harassed by your followers or anyone who happens to stumble across your blog. You are putting these people in danger.

I would understand if you created a blog to keep checks on pedophiles or nazis, heck I would even understand if you were just vague blogging…but namedropping, monitoring, and archiving MENTALLY ILL trauma survivors who told someone to pee their pants? What the actual fuck?

What you are doing is NOT okay.

If you truly thought pee your pants was ableist, why would you create a blog for the sole purpose of stalking people you think are misinformed instead of messaging these people and talking to them about it? Why would you create a blog for the sole purpose of ridiculing and “tallying” people who use the phrase instead of creating a blog to educate people on why it’s ableist? Was calling out ableism even the purpose of this blog in the first place? Because what it looks like right now is that the purpose of this blog is to stalk, ridicule, and namedrop trauma survivors you don’t like under the excuse that they’re being ableist by telling people to pee their pants.

I’ve already reported this blog for these reasons. I’d encourage everyone else to do the same. I hope the person behind this blog realizes how much panic, distress, and paranoia they are causing others and rethinks their actions.

(Side note: I hope you realize that one of the posts you archived had DID systems literally calling out an endogenic system who harassed/manipulated them into posting their medical history online, then instead of apologizing when they called them out on it, the endogenic system mocked them for “being dumb enough to fall for it.” And you’re calling the DID systems the ableist ones?)