I'm whatever about O'Keefe himself, but fuck Twitter.
James O'Keefe III vs Twitter (2021) -
- Thread starter pearlslam
- Start date
I like PV for a lot of reasons but O'Keefe could easily descend into lolcow territory imho. He just seems the type. He likes the attention a little too much.
The recurring sequence of "uneducated or otherwise stupid assertion", people laying out exactly why the assertion was stupid, followed by "I was merely pretending to be stupid." Politically-inclined users and left-wing users are the most frequent perpetrators of this because presumably doing any kind of research is ableist.
And if it happens, it happens. If there's a cow and there's a lolsuit that gets Twitter and Jack fucked, everyone wins.
While I know it is more Gunt centered: The Corn will not be denied.
I've not seen that happen.
I've never pretended to be retarded, people here just have trouble accepting that not everyone wants to gas the kikes.
I don't trust anything the grifter says and Canadian law is different than American law.
Techpriest just hasn't found a proper seasoning to go with it.
Last edited:
Those are some mighty big words on your end, I can almost feel the hairs from your neck reach through your post and threaten to throttle everyone here with pseudo intellectual garbage.
DragoonSierra
kiwifarms.net
I personally am disappointed the Dhillon group got involved in this. What did they see in this suit?
These cases are all incredible stretches. Considering PV's history of filing then promptly withdrawing lawsuits when the defendants hire real attorneys this seems like a shakedown attempt or publicity stunt to milk their donors.
EDIT: There is also a question of jurisdiction.
O'Keefe and PV are domiciled in New York and are completely diverse from the defendants (as in, none of the plaintiffs resides in the same state as any of the defendants) and the Twitter suit makes the unhelpfully vague request of damages to be determined at trial.
I don't know if or how the defendants could do this without waiving any claims that the statements are not defamatory, but if the damages exceed $75,000 then itmust can be removed from New York to federal courts under diversity jurisdiction - if the plaintiffs are completely diverse from the defendants AND damages exceed that threshold the case must be moved to federal court without exception can be moved to federal court if either party requests it; there is no way to prevent this removal if it is requested and those two requirements are satisfied. This is worse news for O'Keefe/PV because admission to the State Bar of New York does not automatically equate to admission to the 2nd Circuit (federal courts for NY/CT/VT). They could have to not only re-plead their case from scratch but do it with a different legal team altogether. The defendants would be in the same boat but a weirdo activist group is likely to have a harder time coming up with that kind of money quickly.
Also what is it with the Supreme Court in NYC and lolsuits? I'm pretty sure this is the same court that heard the Maddox case.
EDIT EDIT: The Twitter terms of service may force the Twitter suit to be moved to California regardless of merit:
The reference to "any dispute" could be construed to mean just that - even suits which have nothing to do with the plaintiffs' use of Twitter like this defamation tort are potentially subject to it if O'Keefe/PV ever made an account there. I think James' lawyers really jumped the gun in how they approached this suit. Either that or they weren't going to turn down a huge retainer, one of the two.
EDIT X3: AnOminous corrected me on diversity jurisdiction, it is not mandatory but there if either party moves to remove it to federal court then the request must be granted without the other's consent. Please forgive my autism.
O'Keefe/PV is claiming actual malice which is an intentionally high bar. In short it means the defendant(s) has/have to have knowingly lied or acted with reckless disregard. For perspective Rolling Stone was not found to have acted with actual malice in running an article that they publicly admitted should have been flagged and rejected by their own internal reviews (the infamous "Rape on Campus" story). What did them in was a decision to republish after staff raised serious, specific doubts. Back to O'Keefe/PV it does not help that the tweet is by someone who claims to know insiders but does not work there rather than Twitter or someone in his/her capacity as Twitter staff. Twitter could easily claim that the claim is entirely false or that the staff member was lying. There is also a legal concept here called vicarious liability - there is a threshold below which Twitter cannot be held responsible for the actions of a staff member, even if the staff member was acting in his/her official capacity. What I'm saying is that there are a lot of ways for Twitter to challenge this claim and possibly win without getting too far into the details.
O'Keefe and PV are also stuck claiming defamation per quod. Certain accusations like criminal activity are presumed to cause damage to reputation; this is called defamation per se. With defamation per quod there is no such presumption meaning he has to prove actual malice and damage to reputation. This would be tough because a huge part of PV's work is sting videos where their staff.... get into areas using fake identities so that subjects will let their guard down. I am skeptical that someone whose day job revolves around that could show damages from an accusation of using sock accounts. Ditto showing damages for "misinformation" considering their MO.
O'Keefe and PV are also stuck claiming defamation per quod. Certain accusations like criminal activity are presumed to cause damage to reputation; this is called defamation per se. With defamation per quod there is no such presumption meaning he has to prove actual malice and damage to reputation. This would be tough because a huge part of PV's work is sting videos where their staff.... get into areas using fake identities so that subjects will let their guard down. I am skeptical that someone whose day job revolves around that could show damages from an accusation of using sock accounts. Ditto showing damages for "misinformation" considering their MO.
EDIT: There is also a question of jurisdiction.
O'Keefe and PV are domiciled in New York and are completely diverse from the defendants (as in, none of the plaintiffs resides in the same state as any of the defendants) and the Twitter suit makes the unhelpfully vague request of damages to be determined at trial.
I don't know if or how the defendants could do this without waiving any claims that the statements are not defamatory, but if the damages exceed $75,000 then it
Also what is it with the Supreme Court in NYC and lolsuits? I'm pretty sure this is the same court that heard the Maddox case.
EDIT EDIT: The Twitter terms of service may force the Twitter suit to be moved to California regardless of merit:
The reference to "any dispute" could be construed to mean just that - even suits which have nothing to do with the plaintiffs' use of Twitter like this defamation tort are potentially subject to it if O'Keefe/PV ever made an account there. I think James' lawyers really jumped the gun in how they approached this suit. Either that or they weren't going to turn down a huge retainer, one of the two.
EDIT X3: AnOminous corrected me on diversity jurisdiction, it is not mandatory but there if either party moves to remove it to federal court then the request must be granted without the other's consent. Please forgive my autism.
Last edited:
SmokeyMcRunFast
kiwifarms.net
PV is a shitty org that sometimes does good work. Much like how CNN sometimes reports the news. An org can be shitty and lolcow material and still occasionally break a story
I for one will be making popcorn because where ever this suit goes we win.
I for one will be making popcorn because where ever this suit goes we win.
I'm doing my best to not make a blue crayon joke, but it's really hard.
Sammich
kiwifarms.net
How often do these people end up getting a twitter suspension overturned? I know Fatrick Tomlinson did but it took him months and months.
O'Keefe is a grifting scumbag, but he can still get wronged. I don't have a single clue about legal stuff, outside of doing or expecting the exact opposite of what that goofy bitch Nick Rekiata says.
O'Keefe is a grifting scumbag, but he can still get wronged. I don't have a single clue about legal stuff, outside of doing or expecting the exact opposite of what that goofy bitch Nick Rekiata says.
That isn't true. It might seem like it because in almost all cases defendants actually do this, but state courts are courts of general jurisdiction that can hear any claims that come before them, even those based on federal law or that would be subject to removal for diversity jurisdiction. A defendant who wishes to remove under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 must file a notice of removal and pay the $402 filing fee.
Once a defendant does this, removal is mandatory. The plaintiff can't weasel out of it by amending the complaint, for instance, to reduce the claim to below the diversity jurisdiction threshold of $75,000.
The defendant must do this in a timely manner, which generally means before anything of substance has occurred in the case. They don't get to wait and then decide things aren't going their way and get another roll of the dice.
However, the fact that diversity jurisdiction is available does not divest the state court of its own jurisdiction. It merely makes removal to federal court available to a diverse defendant who files the required notice and filing fee.
gibs bue bery
Similar threads
Vic's lawsuit against Funimation, VAs, and others, for over a million dollars.
- Sticky
General Discussion Thread
