atmos driver
Registered
I am not a lawyer and all I know about the law is based on what I've read in the media and on legal websites/journals, not personal experience. As for your question, that depends on what you mean with "a patently criminal organization". Are they an official registered "organization", or are they just loose individuals that appear to act in concert, like an organization would? Can their structure as an organization be proven, or is it implied?
Next, are they already found to be a "patently criminal" organization? What is their track record, legally? Is there a history of lolsuits, convictions and prosecutions in which they were proven to be "patently criminal"? Or are they just rumoured be engaged in crime, but is the law simply late to catch up with what they're actually doing? Is the purpose of the lolsuit to show the court of what they did, or to remind the court of what they were already caught doing?
Next, can a criminal organization have other crimes committed against it, as in "censorship-oriented cybercriminal activities" specifically? It should go without saying that criminals routinely commit crimes against other criminals in the criminal underworld, which is why the criminal underworld is itself a problem as it tends to increase the amount of crime and law-breaking.
If an "organization" is acting in a "patently criminal" way, or is perceived to be doing so, then people who are either victims or bystanders of that organization might decide to undertake various activities against that organization, aimed at stopping them from committing more crimes. Part of that campaign might include denying that criminal organization a public presence, which isn't cybercriminal in and of itself, but might violate inalienable rights, because even criminals and perceived criminals have a right to claim their innocence in a public forum.
However, even in righteously resisting a patently criminal organization, their opponents aren't allowed to break the law themselves in doing so. If their opponents resort to breaking the law in resisting that organization, they themselves are effectively in the process of bringing about a new criminal organization of their own.
With regards to KF itself, the questions I would ask myself would be 1) was the #DropKiwiFarms campaign absolutely necessary? 2) Wasn't there another way for #DropKiwiFarms to achieve their aims, that did not involve committing cybercrimes? and 3) Were the cybercrimes committed by #DropKiwiFarms against KF proportional to what they aimed to achieve? (Whatever that was, deplatforming KF, avenging trans people, etc) My personal answer to all these questions is NO. You don't get to openly blackmail entire ISPs with DDoS attacks just because you want to target one single website that you've already hacked with the aim of causing a user data-leak - which is what the poz.hiv hack during #DropKiwiFarms was supposed to do. #DropKiwiFarms were openly blackmailing ISPs, openly tweeting out 48 hour ultimatums to them, openly threatening to show up at their offices to attack their workers going into work, openly threatening to doxx and beat up KF users, openly calling for someone to murder Null, etc. Furthermore, both Caraballo and LFJ are privileged enough to have taken KF to court themselves, or to fund someone else's lolsuit against KF, if they felt they had a case against the site. Caraballo never did, because he's a far left anarchist who believes in accosting SCOTUS and "be gay do crimes". LFJ did sue Flow Chemical in Australia, but he had to resort to such forum shopping and libel tourism to sneak his way through the legal system and get a default judgement. LFJ knew that he did not have a case against KF in the US itself where hate speech is protected and Null can personally disavow whatever individual Kiwis are posting under Section 230. #DropKiwiFarms just want to use their own brand of thuggery against what they claim are thugs. That is not the way of a lawful system.
I hope that answers your question. I know I posed even more questions in return, but I'm just trying to show you what a fair and balanced view of both sides would look like in this case. Both Kiwis and TRAs think their own cause is righteous and that rules only stand in the way of that cause.
I've never seen a person get in trouble for hacking a pedophile or related website and then making a big public deal about it. Then again, they were never sued by the pedophiles to my knowledge.
I think the difference btw the pedophile sites and kiwifarms is the pedophile people are more worried about jail time. Not that kiwis aren't. I don't really see Josh showing up to any court hearing in person. Not because of vigilantism, but he probably doesn't want to be held criminally accountable for his actions. And where safe harbor laws don't apply. His website wasn't build to be a generic gossip site. It was built to be the "chris chan wiki forums". A place to stalk, harass, and wish harm upon an autistic, non-public-figure that 4chan found funny. I don't think it would be that difficult for Chris-Chan and a handful of other people to put Null and others behind bars if they had gathered evidence. But that's just my opinion and it may not be popular here.
Last edited: