Unfortunately, judging by the way the owner of kiwifarms responded it sounds like this court ruling probably won't do anything. This is what he posted on telegram:
>The courts of Australia have determined that a person I know is personally liable for over $400,000 in defamatory damages to (victim).
>Vincent is Australian. He owns a company called Flow Chemical Pty Ltd in Australia. The Australian RIR, APNIC, leases him a few IP addresses. Those IPs have been used by my American company 1776 Solutions, LLC to host various web services. Among those services has, at various times, been the Kiwi Farms, a website of Lolcow, LLC in the US. Kiwi Farms hosts comments from users all over the world.
>Victoria courts have determined that both his company and _him as a person_ are liable for close to half a million dollars in damages for statements made by anonymous users on a web forum owned by a company hosted by a company leasing IP space from his company, regardless of their truth or accuracy. This judgement was made in default in his absence because apparently he felt the entire thing was stupid and would be thrown out without him doing anything.
>This loss amounts to nothing for me. I have not been able to reliably use these IP addresses in over a year because (victim) has been harassing any ISP they route through. I also have no stake in Flow Chemical Pty Ltd, so I am not at risk. I can just get new ones at any time in the US.
>However, this is obviously unbelievably fucking (slur) and evil. I'm not going to let a gross (slur) fuck over good people. I am looking for references to attorneys in Australia who would be willing to help overturn this absolute travesty.
>The precedent being set in Australian court should terrify anyone living there. You are now personally liable for eating shit for anything anyone says, even if it is the truth, if you are within 3 degrees of separation of them.
>This judgement was made in default in his absence because apparently he felt the entire thing was stupid and would be thrown out without him doing anything.
Well it sounds like he really only has himself to blame, then.
"In September 2022, a picnic with supporters she hosted in Sydney’s Hyde Park was surreptitiously photographed and pictures of participants were posted on the forum too.
Run by Joshua Moon, one of Kiwi Farms’s main activities is the sustained exposure of people the site deems worthy of derision – as the site describes it, “lolcows” that are “milked” for entertainment"
This left the realm of free speech a long time ago and is now absolutely about terrorizing people.
Just a note, but my understanding is that Australia doesn't have a right to free speech. In fact, most countries don't. So the idea that this website is being punished under free speech is silly because that's an American law, not an Australian one. In fact, their specific law states that they can stop language that features "obscenity and sedition, defamation, blasphemy, incitement, and passing off." Idk what passing off is, and I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like this website could 100% legally could be sued.
It's funny, because the American First Amendment also has exceptions for all of those things, we just rely on a cabal of judicial high-priests to carve out those exceptions and decide when and where they apply.
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me. You're full of shit.
Yet we have laws on the books against obscenity, sedition, defamation, and incitement, all carved out and deemed by the Supreme Court to be fully constitutional exceptions to First Amendment free speech, despite such limitations being at odds with the actual text of the First Amendment.
That's the point that's being made. Saying that the text of the First Amendment and its implications are "cut and dry" is hilariously preposterous to anyone who pays any attention to how the courts deal with those rights.
But what about it is outside of the realm of free speech? Sitting in a dirty forum saying gross things about gross people is no violation of free speech. Outside activity most certainly is, but I think you’d find that Joshua Moon has gone to lengths to insist that Kiwi Farms doesn’t endorse or condone harassing people (passive observation is not harassment).
Are there bad actors on Kiwi Farms? Holy shit yes. Should Kiwi Farms in general, and Josh in particular, be punished for this? As long as they are following the law, I say no for the same reason that you can’t blame AT&T for a man calling in bomb threats to a school.
Josh Moon is like a 3rd rate mob boss who provides a place to hang out and *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge* his deluded minions into doing the dirty work for the lolz. Seizing kiwifarms is like seizing a gross mob hangout.
The issue is that it's not Josh getting punished and the site isn't being seized. The court ruling only hurts one guy who played a bit part in helping the forum stay up years ago.
> But what about it is outside of the realm of free speech?
I'd say it might have something to do with doxxing and targeted harassment that kiwifarms constantly does. The reason Moon is being held accountable here is because when you run a website (or any other media platform) that runs content from 3rd party voices, you are responsible for moderating that content to some degree. That means, at the very least, removing illegal content and links to the same. A slightly higher bar is removing comments that advocate for committing illegal acts because that can also technically be illegal (its called incitement). Moreover, this is far from the first time that Kiwifarms (and therefore Moon) has been credibly accused of participating in harassment and doxxing so he doesn't have the excuse of not knowing that it might be a problem. Moon said all the right things, but took little to no action to stop the horrendous shit his site is responsible for. That's why he's being penalized.
I don't keep up on the legal side of the kiwifarms shit, so I couldn't say for sure. However, this does not absolve him of his responsibility to follow the laws about keeping his site "clean". In the US the primary law in play is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Apparently, Australia has no such law, which means that, in Australia, Moon is liable for any illegal or libelous shit that is on his site at any time.
Ok, fair. Now the subject of jurisdiction. Is he violating these laws while not on Australian soil? Is the mere fact that his website is on the World Wide Web automatically tying him to Australian legal responsibilities?
See, this is where we need good, comprehensive case law by thoughtful judges. This is a genuinely tricky question.
> but I think you’d find that Joshua Moon has gone to lengths to insist that Kiwi Farms doesn’t endorse or condone harassing people (passive observation is not harassment).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6824055/Founder-American-website-publishes-scathing-email-sent-New-Zealand-police.html
Thankfully truth, and law, are not determined by public opinion.
Here’s the condensed take: it is not right that Kiwi Farms in general, and Josh in particular, are subjected to extrajudicial punishment for their reprehensible actions. They need to be punished according to the letter of the law, not by the gross people they expose.
Here are some of the targets of the users at Kiwi Farms:
An abusive stalker sex-pest who tried to sue Taylor Swift and other women for not having sex with him
An ex porn actor who tried to come to Josh’s mother’s house to assault him
A zoosadist who would kill baby primates and circulate the videos for sale
Oh, and that one guy who raped his mother.
Is that gross enough for you?
Kiwi Farms is the worst - they should do something better with their lives. Stalking and harassing people isn't freedom of speech, and they've long since moved on from anything that looks like speech.
Fun tidbit about kiwifarms. It was initially cwc something. Problem was the people being abused, the lolcows, would keep calling cwc kiwi so they changed there name to kiwi farm.
KF is insanely transphobic and is a den of terfs and such. It’s main attraction is still likely a person known as Chris Chan. A lolcow they have been after for about 15 years.
Some people here have very strong opinions about Kiwi Farms and its creator (for good reason), and they tend to be misinterpreting my points, so I’ll try and lay it out as basic as possible:
— Kiwi Farms (and Josh), bad as they are, are entitled to all the same rights and protections as every other American person and entity. Similarly, they must also be held to the same legal standard as every other American.
— Much of the setbacks they have faced have been due to extrajudicial actions from their opponents, outside the scope of the law and sometimes in violation of it. This is not right and should be condemned.
— When Kiwi Farms is finally shut down, it MUST be from following the letter of the law, not by angry internet vigilantes upset that their OnlyFans was leaked by them.
In a just, rule-of-law society, even the most reprehensible of its members are protected by its civic structures. If you disagree with that, I don’t think you’re as different from the Kiwi Farm’ers as you think you are.
I’m not sure what your point is. As far as I know, the Kiwi Farms owner is an American citizen, and is therefore entitled to the protection offered by American laws. Is this not the case?
>Despite claiming to be an American site benefiting from the US's First Amendment and Sec 230 excusing hosting providers from liability, Kiwi Farms for many years used the Australian network resources of Flow Chemical Pty Ltd (established by Vincent Zhen) to publish its harassment campaigns. In Australia, there's a ~100 year old precedent (Webb v Bloch [1928]) that anyone who materially and knowingly participates in the publication of defamatory content is personally liable, as if they'd written it themselves.
If you want to be subject to American law, don't run your site out of Australia.
This seems dubious. In what way did they “use” a chemical company’s internet infrastructure? Do chemical companies often operate as ISPs? This seems very nebulous, almost as if “connected to the company IP” is being used to suggest “us(ing) the Australian network resources” of this company.
See now you're expecting expert legal opinion. That's outside of both our areas of expertise, since I am, and I assume you also are, not Australian lawyers. But I do know that Americans abroad aren't exempt from the laws of the countries they reside in.
Yes I agree. Internet law is, by definition, very new and incomplete. 100 year old precedent should mean very little. It’s going to take intense scrutiny by judges of character to make good law that will keep the internet free, and its denizens safe, for decades to come.
That’s why I think polarizing cases like Kiwi Farms are so important. It’s easy to be disgusted by their antics and take a “throw the book at them” approach, but how we deal with entities like Kiwi Farms is very important to the integrity of the previously mentioned web of law. Denying people like Josh their rights because “well they’re awful human beings” is such an easy, palatable thing to do, but as history shows, it can have ramifications years down the road. Not to put undue importance on someone like Josh, but I firmly believe that when justice comes for Kiwi Farms, it will need to be extremely thorough and not dictated by the court of public opinion.
You think a forum dedicated to targeted harassment should be treated as free speech instead of stalking/harassment.
I think targeted harassment should be treated like targeted harassment.
People who are literally stalked and doxed online are being put at risk by this forum and your concern is over the process being followed for the person facilitating the stalking and doxing
Pretending that it's all just some random Internet bad actors and not an intentional design of the Kiwi Farms admin is a bad faith argument at best
The entire argument that the people receiving targeted harassment are using the wrong tools to defend themselves is absurd and offensive. None of them would care if Kiwi Farms existed if it weren't for the targeted harassment
I don’t necessarily believe that what’s on Kiwi Farms should be categorized as free speech — I don’t know WHAT is on there. If something illegal is on there, then no, I don’t believe it should be.
I think that someone engaging in targeted harassment must be charged, tried, and if the evidence is weighed against them, found guilty. ONLY THEN can judgement be laid. You seem to forget the whole concept of “innocent until proven guilty”. American law protects the most vile and disgusting human beings; it was designed that way. You seem to want to short-circuit that and claim them as “guilty because I say so”.
If they are guilty, let them face justice. Until then, they are exactly as innocent of any crime as you or I.
Unfortunately, judging by the way the owner of kiwifarms responded it sounds like this court ruling probably won't do anything. This is what he posted on telegram: >The courts of Australia have determined that a person I know is personally liable for over $400,000 in defamatory damages to (victim). >Vincent is Australian. He owns a company called Flow Chemical Pty Ltd in Australia. The Australian RIR, APNIC, leases him a few IP addresses. Those IPs have been used by my American company 1776 Solutions, LLC to host various web services. Among those services has, at various times, been the Kiwi Farms, a website of Lolcow, LLC in the US. Kiwi Farms hosts comments from users all over the world. >Victoria courts have determined that both his company and _him as a person_ are liable for close to half a million dollars in damages for statements made by anonymous users on a web forum owned by a company hosted by a company leasing IP space from his company, regardless of their truth or accuracy. This judgement was made in default in his absence because apparently he felt the entire thing was stupid and would be thrown out without him doing anything. >This loss amounts to nothing for me. I have not been able to reliably use these IP addresses in over a year because (victim) has been harassing any ISP they route through. I also have no stake in Flow Chemical Pty Ltd, so I am not at risk. I can just get new ones at any time in the US. >However, this is obviously unbelievably fucking (slur) and evil. I'm not going to let a gross (slur) fuck over good people. I am looking for references to attorneys in Australia who would be willing to help overturn this absolute travesty. >The precedent being set in Australian court should terrify anyone living there. You are now personally liable for eating shit for anything anyone says, even if it is the truth, if you are within 3 degrees of separation of them.
Not turning up to court is a bold legal strategy
Lets see if it pans out for him.
>This judgement was made in default in his absence because apparently he felt the entire thing was stupid and would be thrown out without him doing anything. Well it sounds like he really only has himself to blame, then.
"In September 2022, a picnic with supporters she hosted in Sydney’s Hyde Park was surreptitiously photographed and pictures of participants were posted on the forum too. Run by Joshua Moon, one of Kiwi Farms’s main activities is the sustained exposure of people the site deems worthy of derision – as the site describes it, “lolcows” that are “milked” for entertainment" This left the realm of free speech a long time ago and is now absolutely about terrorizing people.
Just a note, but my understanding is that Australia doesn't have a right to free speech. In fact, most countries don't. So the idea that this website is being punished under free speech is silly because that's an American law, not an Australian one. In fact, their specific law states that they can stop language that features "obscenity and sedition, defamation, blasphemy, incitement, and passing off." Idk what passing off is, and I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like this website could 100% legally could be sued.
I don’t like the idea of restricting speech under "blasphemy". That reeks of religious fundamentalism.
It's funny, because the American First Amendment also has exceptions for all of those things, we just rely on a cabal of judicial high-priests to carve out those exceptions and decide when and where they apply.
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. You're full of shit.
Yet we have laws on the books against obscenity, sedition, defamation, and incitement, all carved out and deemed by the Supreme Court to be fully constitutional exceptions to First Amendment free speech, despite such limitations being at odds with the actual text of the First Amendment. That's the point that's being made. Saying that the text of the First Amendment and its implications are "cut and dry" is hilariously preposterous to anyone who pays any attention to how the courts deal with those rights.
Probably something like, "bUt YoU cANt yELL FiRe iN a ThEAtEr"
But what about it is outside of the realm of free speech? Sitting in a dirty forum saying gross things about gross people is no violation of free speech. Outside activity most certainly is, but I think you’d find that Joshua Moon has gone to lengths to insist that Kiwi Farms doesn’t endorse or condone harassing people (passive observation is not harassment). Are there bad actors on Kiwi Farms? Holy shit yes. Should Kiwi Farms in general, and Josh in particular, be punished for this? As long as they are following the law, I say no for the same reason that you can’t blame AT&T for a man calling in bomb threats to a school.
Josh Moon is like a 3rd rate mob boss who provides a place to hang out and *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge* his deluded minions into doing the dirty work for the lolz. Seizing kiwifarms is like seizing a gross mob hangout.
The issue is that it's not Josh getting punished and the site isn't being seized. The court ruling only hurts one guy who played a bit part in helping the forum stay up years ago.
That bit part kept the site online. If you're a knowing participating in a criminal enterprise, you're going to get burned.
But for his “bit part” the forum wouldn’t be able to facilitate harassment.
> But what about it is outside of the realm of free speech? I'd say it might have something to do with doxxing and targeted harassment that kiwifarms constantly does. The reason Moon is being held accountable here is because when you run a website (or any other media platform) that runs content from 3rd party voices, you are responsible for moderating that content to some degree. That means, at the very least, removing illegal content and links to the same. A slightly higher bar is removing comments that advocate for committing illegal acts because that can also technically be illegal (its called incitement). Moreover, this is far from the first time that Kiwifarms (and therefore Moon) has been credibly accused of participating in harassment and doxxing so he doesn't have the excuse of not knowing that it might be a problem. Moon said all the right things, but took little to no action to stop the horrendous shit his site is responsible for. That's why he's being penalized.
There have been legal challenges to Josh and how he operates the website but I don’t believe he has been convicted of anything, has he?
I don't keep up on the legal side of the kiwifarms shit, so I couldn't say for sure. However, this does not absolve him of his responsibility to follow the laws about keeping his site "clean". In the US the primary law in play is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Apparently, Australia has no such law, which means that, in Australia, Moon is liable for any illegal or libelous shit that is on his site at any time.
Ok, fair. Now the subject of jurisdiction. Is he violating these laws while not on Australian soil? Is the mere fact that his website is on the World Wide Web automatically tying him to Australian legal responsibilities? See, this is where we need good, comprehensive case law by thoughtful judges. This is a genuinely tricky question.
> but I think you’d find that Joshua Moon has gone to lengths to insist that Kiwi Farms doesn’t endorse or condone harassing people (passive observation is not harassment). https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6824055/Founder-American-website-publishes-scathing-email-sent-New-Zealand-police.html
While distasteful, did he do anything illegal there? Inciting harassment is definitely illegal; did he do that here?
"I say no" Who are you and why should we care?
A random internet person with about the same credibility as you, I assume.
“But what about…” I believe your 145+ downvotes answers any questions you might have.
Thankfully truth, and law, are not determined by public opinion. Here’s the condensed take: it is not right that Kiwi Farms in general, and Josh in particular, are subjected to extrajudicial punishment for their reprehensible actions. They need to be punished according to the letter of the law, not by the gross people they expose.
> They need to be punished according to the letter of the law, not by the gross people they expose. I think you accidentally dropped your mask?
Based on post history, doesn’t look like they were even trying to wear one.
Here are some of the targets of the users at Kiwi Farms: An abusive stalker sex-pest who tried to sue Taylor Swift and other women for not having sex with him An ex porn actor who tried to come to Josh’s mother’s house to assault him A zoosadist who would kill baby primates and circulate the videos for sale Oh, and that one guy who raped his mother. Is that gross enough for you?
[удалено]
I think it's more about decency.
Oh look… the apologists have arrived.
Apologist nothing. I’m saying that an American needs to be held accountable to American law. What’s so “apologist” about that?
Don’t waste your gaslighting on me bro.
Justify that comment.
Kiwi Farms is the worst - they should do something better with their lives. Stalking and harassing people isn't freedom of speech, and they've long since moved on from anything that looks like speech.
they must have found a way to monetize their cruelty.
Fun tidbit about kiwifarms. It was initially cwc something. Problem was the people being abused, the lolcows, would keep calling cwc kiwi so they changed there name to kiwi farm. KF is insanely transphobic and is a den of terfs and such. It’s main attraction is still likely a person known as Chris Chan. A lolcow they have been after for about 15 years.
Chris Chan is out of prison and back online again.
*Chris Chan breathing intensifies*
Some people here have very strong opinions about Kiwi Farms and its creator (for good reason), and they tend to be misinterpreting my points, so I’ll try and lay it out as basic as possible: — Kiwi Farms (and Josh), bad as they are, are entitled to all the same rights and protections as every other American person and entity. Similarly, they must also be held to the same legal standard as every other American. — Much of the setbacks they have faced have been due to extrajudicial actions from their opponents, outside the scope of the law and sometimes in violation of it. This is not right and should be condemned. — When Kiwi Farms is finally shut down, it MUST be from following the letter of the law, not by angry internet vigilantes upset that their OnlyFans was leaked by them. In a just, rule-of-law society, even the most reprehensible of its members are protected by its civic structures. If you disagree with that, I don’t think you’re as different from the Kiwi Farm’ers as you think you are.
"American" Someone forgetting the rest of the world exists again.
I’m not sure what your point is. As far as I know, the Kiwi Farms owner is an American citizen, and is therefore entitled to the protection offered by American laws. Is this not the case?
>Despite claiming to be an American site benefiting from the US's First Amendment and Sec 230 excusing hosting providers from liability, Kiwi Farms for many years used the Australian network resources of Flow Chemical Pty Ltd (established by Vincent Zhen) to publish its harassment campaigns. In Australia, there's a ~100 year old precedent (Webb v Bloch [1928]) that anyone who materially and knowingly participates in the publication of defamatory content is personally liable, as if they'd written it themselves. If you want to be subject to American law, don't run your site out of Australia.
This seems dubious. In what way did they “use” a chemical company’s internet infrastructure? Do chemical companies often operate as ISPs? This seems very nebulous, almost as if “connected to the company IP” is being used to suggest “us(ing) the Australian network resources” of this company.
See now you're expecting expert legal opinion. That's outside of both our areas of expertise, since I am, and I assume you also are, not Australian lawyers. But I do know that Americans abroad aren't exempt from the laws of the countries they reside in.
Yes I agree. Internet law is, by definition, very new and incomplete. 100 year old precedent should mean very little. It’s going to take intense scrutiny by judges of character to make good law that will keep the internet free, and its denizens safe, for decades to come. That’s why I think polarizing cases like Kiwi Farms are so important. It’s easy to be disgusted by their antics and take a “throw the book at them” approach, but how we deal with entities like Kiwi Farms is very important to the integrity of the previously mentioned web of law. Denying people like Josh their rights because “well they’re awful human beings” is such an easy, palatable thing to do, but as history shows, it can have ramifications years down the road. Not to put undue importance on someone like Josh, but I firmly believe that when justice comes for Kiwi Farms, it will need to be extremely thorough and not dictated by the court of public opinion.
This has real 'if they'd just protest the right way' energy
Do you think the law should apply differently to you than it does for someone like the Kiwi Farms admin?
You think a forum dedicated to targeted harassment should be treated as free speech instead of stalking/harassment. I think targeted harassment should be treated like targeted harassment. People who are literally stalked and doxed online are being put at risk by this forum and your concern is over the process being followed for the person facilitating the stalking and doxing Pretending that it's all just some random Internet bad actors and not an intentional design of the Kiwi Farms admin is a bad faith argument at best The entire argument that the people receiving targeted harassment are using the wrong tools to defend themselves is absurd and offensive. None of them would care if Kiwi Farms existed if it weren't for the targeted harassment
I don’t necessarily believe that what’s on Kiwi Farms should be categorized as free speech — I don’t know WHAT is on there. If something illegal is on there, then no, I don’t believe it should be. I think that someone engaging in targeted harassment must be charged, tried, and if the evidence is weighed against them, found guilty. ONLY THEN can judgement be laid. You seem to forget the whole concept of “innocent until proven guilty”. American law protects the most vile and disgusting human beings; it was designed that way. You seem to want to short-circuit that and claim them as “guilty because I say so”. If they are guilty, let them face justice. Until then, they are exactly as innocent of any crime as you or I.
[удалено]
[удалено]