2018-07-18 - Stephane "Unixmad" Portha: "court order-related removal from Google Search" -

Status
Not open for further replies.

Francis

Not actually hi-technical
kiwifarms.net
I get that the pedophilia jokes/accusations could possibly be viewed as libel (if they don’t have substantial proof to back them up) and would therefore be illegal. But calling someone an asshole or a twat is perfectly legal. What, are people trying to ban name-calling now?
A quick search tells me that if he wanted to sue for defamation/libel, the delay to initiate the lawsuit is only three months. I'm a bit lost in the legalese, but I think he's not arguing that Null should delete the posts or that they are illegal, but that Google shouldn't show them is search results because these accusations are related to his personal life and have created and could create a considerable amount of prejudice to Stéphane and his company as they are accessible without an account and appeared on the first page of results. It's more about right to privacy and not be indexed by Google than accusing users of libel. And apparently Google told him to fuck off when he asked them.

It seems to be the same legal basis as how you can ask Facebook to not show your profile in search results, for example. The misrepresentation, exaggerations, detailing of accusations against him and outright lies only being an emotional cherry on top to convince the judge that her involvement is needed. Judge that probably had no idea what the fuck any of this was about, with her only infos being skewed in favor of Stéphane. A good chunk of the suit is pretty much explaining to her that she has jurisdiction over that, that Google can easily do it and that it's urgent to take action because Google showing these results perpetuates an attack on the reputation of Stéphane, his family and company. But attack on reputation is apparently a very murky legal territory, and they couldn't sue for defamation, so they went with the privacy angle (which is iffy considering he's a public figure and the accusations were mostly related to his work, which Google seems to have understood as they told him to fuck off)

(But again I don't know shit about Law, this all comes from google searches, articles, and an introductory course to Law years ago which helps me vaguely decipher legalese).
 
Last edited:

Coccxys

kiwifarms.net
So this is pretty good example of the Streisand effect carried out in a very similar way then? Since most hadn't heard of the dead thread (only 2 pages long) but have now (and probably read it). A law suit trying to have something removed is basically how the Streisand effect got its name.
 

Ginger Piglet

Fictional Manhunt Survivor
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
A quick search tells me that if he wanted to sue for defamation/libel, the delay to initiate the lawsuit is only three months. I'm a bit lost in the legalese, but I think he's not arguing that Null should delete the posts or that they are illegal, but that Google shouldn't show them is search results because these accusations are related to his personal life and have created and could create a considerable amount of prejudice to Stéphane and his company as they are accessible without an account and appeared on the first page of results. It's more about right to privacy and not be indexed by Google than accusing users of libel. And apparently Google told him to fuck off when he asked them.

It seems to be the same legal basis as how you can ask Facebook to not show your profile in search results, for example. The misrepresentation, exaggerations, detailing of accusations against him and outright lies only being an emotional cherry on top to convince the judge that her involvement is needed. Judge that probably had no idea what the fuck any of this was about, with her only infos being skewed in favor of Stéphane. A good chunk of the suit is pretty much explaining to her that she has jurisdiction over that, that Google can easily do it and that it's urgent to take action because Google showing these results perpetuates an attack on the reputation of Stéphane, his family and company. But attack on reputation is apparently a very murky legal territory, and they couldn't sue for defamation, so they went with the privacy angle (which is iffy considering he's a public figure and the accusations were mostly related to his work, which Google seems to have understood as they told him to fuck off)

(But again I don't know shit about Law, this all comes from google searches, articles, and an introductory course to Law years ago which helps me vaguely decipher legalese).
I spent a year at the Sorbonne many moons ago. I can tell that the lawyer who put this together is a bit of a pompous taunt because he repeats, again and again, how this thread is an affront to Unixmad's human dignity.

Also lol @ translating "gigantic twat" as "giant cretin."
 

Xetzyr

kiwifarms.net
I think he's doing all this on purpose. It's like some Zoe Quinn level self-victimization bullshit. I mean HE posted a screen cap to HIS Photobucket account that had file names insinuating that he's a pedophile? I can't imagine he's actually that stupid. He seems like the type to want to try and draw attention to himself to use as a means of self-promotion. Given the details of the lolsuit he definitely knows what he's doing, he's not an idiot like Maddox where his own lawyer is now raping him.

This guy is an outright sleaze ridden frog looking to try and capitalize off cutting himself.
 

Big Bad Brat

(Cricket and Ride's bitch.)
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Alright, so I sat through the entire document. I skimmed through it so I might have missed some bullshit lawyer detail but from what I have seen they do not have the law on their side and they will probably lose this because of the angle they have taken.
  1. They do not reference any tangible law to try and turn the thread into something among the lines of "they are doing something illegal shut them down!".
  2. They instead try to play the "dignity" card which in all honesty has close to little value in a court of law by itself.
  3. They also base their case on the urgency factor. They are trying to basically bullshit their way through by saying that urgency case require exceptional intervention and that the judge can order google to remove a page given the same urgency factor. Of course, because they stand on no real legal ground with no real laws backing their case up, this is the kind of point you read and tell to yourself "Yeah this guy basically says this every case alright".
  4. The biggest and most flawed point of this whole thing is that the 5th section of the document tries to demonstrate the competence of the court in Paris. In short, they are taking a weird approach to try and justify that the court in question is able to judge this case on french grounds. They basically imply that the thread has content advertised to a french public and that as a result it is the judge's duty in the court of Paris to accept to judge this case. The justification for this is that Stephane is french so as a result the content is advertised to a french public. If everyone involved has some kind of brain they will see that the majority of the content posted here is in English and given the aversion of the French population towards speaking/reading english, it cannot possibly be targeted towards them.
So that means that this case will probably not even start. If it does it will be on american grounds and we all know who wins these cases. Good job lol.
 
Last edited:

Spider Jerusalem

kiwifarms.net
I think he's doing all this on purpose. It's like some Zoe Quinn level self-victimization bullshit. I mean HE posted a screen cap to HIS Photobucket account that had file names insinuating that he's a pedophile? I can't imagine he's actually that stupid. He seems like the type to want to try and draw attention to himself to use as a means of self-promotion. Given the details of the lolsuit he definitely knows what he's doing, he's not an idiot like Maddox where his own lawyer is now raping him.

This guy is an outright sleaze ridden frog looking to try and capitalize off cutting himself.
He’s always had this kind of reputation around GraalOnline, honestly. It’s written into the Graal TOS that anything that you upload to a server instantly becomes the property of GraalOnline.

Some graphic artists I know from back then made tons of content for the server we worked on, and saw no money whatsoever. It’s all just a big scam.
 

mindlessobserver

kiwifarms.net
This sounds like an application of the eurotwats new right to be forgotten laws. I don't trust anything they do to be altruistic though. It smacks of an in for them to be a be able to censor internet content they don't like. It also seems as if this whole thing was done improperly. For starters Null was never contacted about this which they should have done first. Guess they assumed we would never read the filings since we are idiot Americans who don't know French, or at least people who do. Love how they try and claim null is some black hat internet bogey man hiding behind shell corporations hosted on a volcanic island lair.

Be curious to see if they try and range ban across all of the Google domains. I would counter sue at that point since the general principle of some court in France telling a US based company what it can and cannot say on its platforms smacks me as a bridge too far. May be up to Google though since they are not telling lolcow llc to take it off the internet. In which case null would have to sue Google. Really big windmill to charge at.
 

Ginger Piglet

Fictional Manhunt Survivor
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Okay, so I've translated paragraphs 1-49 of their application. As expected, it is their attempt to use the EU's right to be forgotten laws. French law is "monist" in that respect so any new Euro-regulation becomes immediately in force in French law without having to be gold plated by their government.

The rest of the application is sperging about the applicable law. He goes into an awful lot of detail about this. I suspect he probably has precedent application in respect of this.

I also note there's a second application trying to get censored from Google Ripoff Report. I'll translate that later; I can only take so much French legal autism before feeling queasy.
 

Attachments

AnOminous

do you see what happens
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
I also note there's a second application trying to get censored from Google Ripoff Report. I'll translate that later; I can only take so much French legal autism before feeling queasy.
Ripoff Report is its own thing. I think they're trying to do the same thing to their Google results that they did to ours. Ripoff Report, unlike we who don't give a shit, actively evades bans like this, as their business model is leaving up negative "reviews" of various businesses and then extorting money from the targets to remove them.
 

Manly-Chicken

Laughs at Tards
kiwifarms.net
This paragraph gave me a chuckle.

Edit
Considering what others have said about his politics this seems like a calculated decision to make a statement. I don't think he is actually interested in winning of getting money so much as vilifying the internet for his own motives. Also, considering that he's a conman & a potential sexual predator it's not surprising he wants the "right to be forgotten" so his potential victims would be none the wiser.
Violent posts are definitely a problem here.
Just last week one of my posts went up to a little girl on the street and punched her in the stomach for no reason.
 

repentance

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Okay, so I've translated paragraphs 1-49 of their application. As expected, it is their attempt to use the EU's right to be forgotten laws. French law is "monist" in that respect so any new Euro-regulation becomes immediately in force in French law without having to be gold plated by their government.

The rest of the application is sperging about the applicable law. He goes into an awful lot of detail about this. I suspect he probably has precedent application in respect of this.

I also note there's a second application trying to get censored from Google Ripoff Report. I'll translate that later; I can only take so much French legal autism before feeling queasy.
Oh, that's interesting. Duffy v Google had its origins in stuff published on Ripoff Report. Google fought that and lost (although the plaintiff pretty much destroyed her own reputation in the process of bringing the action).

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SASC/2015/170.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

We are on the Brave BAT program. Consider using Brave as your Browser. It's like Chrome but doesn't tell Google what you masturbate to.

BTC: 1EiZnCKCb6Dc4biuto2gJyivwgPRM2YMEQ
BTC+SW: bc1qwv5fzv9u6arksw6ytf79gfvce078vprtc0m55s
ETH: 0xc1071c60ae27c8cc3c834e11289205f8f9c78ca5
LTC: LcDkAj4XxtoPWP5ucw75JadMcDfurwupet
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino