Interestingly, if you replace “incite internet mobs after them.” with “start a campaign to remove him from cons and get him blacklisted from the VA industry,” you get the exact pro-Vic argument people have been making. One is significantly more damaging than the other, though.
Those numbers sound bad, but if you went through them one by one (as they’ll do in court) I strongly doubt many of them will rise above “well that was awkward.” That’s the problem the defendants now face - it’s not one instance that has to be harassment/assault, it’s all of them
-
-
No he’ll have to prove 100/100. 10/100 still equals defamation and is still chargeable. 99/100 is still defamation. Like I said, it’s not a criminal case.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Got to be REAL careful about defining assault here. In Texas it demands penetration of something. So then let’s go to harassment. Well, that requires notification that the advances were unwanted - at the moment, not after. This is not easy stuff.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.