Joshua Conner Moon - Kiwi Farms Null and lawfaring

[The Gays From LA]

I've been thinking about this a lot ever since Null expressed an interest in using legal means to get his website back online. I don't know if Null is seriously considering suing LFJ. It will be trivial for LFJ to frame his involvement in #DropKiwiFarms as a form of protected free speech activity.

Doesn't Null understand that if LFJ wasn't heading #DropKiwiFarms, it would've been some other troon? Plenty of smart, capable and well-connected troons hate KF and would volunteer to head such a campaign. Alejandra Caraballo is a rich troon making three figures a year too. If Liz steps down to avoid a lolsuit, he's just hand #DropKiwiFarms over to Alejandra or some other troon. Even if Null was somehow able to get an injunction issue barring LFJ from... whatever (writing abuse reports to ISPs?)... what about the rest of the gang? They'll just pick up where Liz Fong-Jones left off.

The only reason I can see for Null wanting to sue LFJ is so that he can win in the court of public opinion by proving that LFJ was engaged in a ex parte cybercriminal conspiracy with the hackers carrying out the DDoS attacks and the poz.hov attack - that LFJ got Cloudflare to deny DDoS protection because there was a prior cybercriminal conspiracy amongst Liz and the gang to get KF DDoSed and subject to other cybercrimes once Cloudflare caved in.

But those of us who were following #DropKiwiFarms don't need any evidence for that theory. As many said at the time, denying a site Cloudflare protection is like ordering the fire-department not rush to someone's house on fire, just because you hate their politics and think they deserve to burn down.

We already know that was there was a cybercriminal conspiracy to attack KF the moment they were bare on the internet, because of all the circumstantial evidence we found on Twitter from #DKF themselves. They openly admitted being in touch with the hackers over Signal, and posted tweets showing they had insider knowledge of the nature of the attacks.

Lastly, what if Null performs discovery on LFJ over the course of his lolsuit, only to discover that Liz and other #DKF participants had been secretly been doxxing Kiwis and Null himself over e-mails and DMs? All those doxx are then inadvertently made public through discovery. Doesn't Null think LFJ has already laid such a trap for him? ("If you perform discovery on me, you will end up doxxing all your users")

If Null wants to lawfare, the only way I can see down this path is if he sues European ISPs and backbones for not upholding net neutrality laws. AFAICT the US doesn't have net neutrality laws, so he can't sue any American ISPs or backbones. ISPs and backbones in the US are allowed to drop anyone for any reason or no stated reason.

Net neutrality in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The EU on the other hand does have net neutrality laws on the books (I know this because I remember I myself had sent the BEREC Guidelines on Net Neutrality to Null). However, my impression is that Null doesn't want to sue in the EU because he's trying to avoid the impression of having EU forum contact. My impression is that Null wants to make it seem as if KF is "just passing through" European ISPs, and since it's just passing through, they should to be neutral with regards to its content as long as it appears to be prima facie in accordance with American law in absence of a court order arguing otherwise.

So the question becomes: does net neutrality mean that an American website should be allowed to pass through European ISPs or backbones, when its content complies to American law but *might* be in conflict with EU speech laws? Is an ISP or an internet backbone overstepping the limits of its discretionary authority when it tries to play content cop and determine on its own what kind of content allowed to pass through their systems? Is "potentially actionable (but yet to be determined)" sufficient reason for an EU ISP or backbone to block an American site from passing through its systems?

I find the latter argument more defensible, because most American websites passing through EU systems have some content or aspect of the site that might be in conflict with EU law, but are still allowed to pass through.

 

[delphi]

The only reason I can see for Null wanting to sue LFJ is so that he can win in the court of public opinion by proving that LFJ was engaged in a ex parte cybercriminal conspiracy with the hackers carrying out the DDoS attacks and the poz.hov attack - that LFJ got Cloudflare to deny DDoS protection because there was a prior cybercriminal conspiracy amongst Liz and the gang to get KF DDoSed and subject to other cybercrimes once Cloudflare caved in.

Null doesn't give a damn about the court of public opinion. His concern is with establishing that there is a conspiracy to keep KF offline and that criminal means have been used to achieve that.

 

[Boobie Bomb]

I've been thinking about this a lot ever since Null expressed an interest in using legal means to get his website back online. I don't know if Null is seriously considering suing LFJ. It will be trivial for LFJ to frame his involvement in #DropKiwiFarms as a form of protected free speech activity.

Doesn't Null understand that if LFJ wasn't heading #DropKiwiFarms, it would've been some other troon? Plenty of smart, capable and well-connected troons hate KF and would volunteer to head such a campaign. Alejandra Caraballo is a rich troon making three figures a year too. If Liz steps down to avoid a lolsuit, he's just hand #DropKiwiFarms over to Alejandra or some other troon. Even if Null was somehow able to get an injunction issue barring LFJ from... whatever (writing abuse reports to ISPs?)... what about the rest of the gang? They'll just pick up where Liz Fong-Jones left off.

The only reason I can see for Null wanting to sue LFJ is so that he can win in the court of public opinion by proving that LFJ was engaged in a ex parte cybercriminal conspiracy with the hackers carrying out the DDoS attacks and the poz.hov attack - that LFJ got Cloudflare to deny DDoS protection because there was a prior cybercriminal conspiracy amongst Liz and the gang to get KF DDoSed and subject to other cybercrimes once Cloudflare caved in.

But those of us who were following #DropKiwiFarms don't need any evidence for that theory. As many said at the time, denying a site Cloudflare protection is like ordering the fire-department not rush to someone's house on fire, just because you hate their politics and think they deserve to burn down.

We already know that was there was a cybercriminal conspiracy to attack KF the moment they were bare on the internet, because of all the circumstantial evidence we found on Twitter from #DKF themselves. They openly admitted being in touch with the hackers over Signal, and posted tweets showing they had insider knowledge of the nature of the attacks.

Lastly, what if Null performs discovery on LFJ over the course of his lolsuit, only to discover that Liz and other #DKF participants had been secretly been doxxing Kiwis and Null himself over e-mails and DMs? All those doxx are then inadvertently made public through discovery. Doesn't Null think LFJ has already laid such a trap for him? ("If you perform discovery on me, you will end up doxxing all your users")

If Null wants to lawfare, the only way I can see down this path is if he sues European ISPs and backbones for not upholding net neutrality laws. AFAICT the US doesn't have net neutrality laws, so he can't sue any American ISPs or backbones. ISPs and backbones in the US are allowed to drop anyone for any reason or no stated reason.

Net neutrality in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The EU on the other hand does have net neutrality laws on the books (I know this because I remember I myself had sent the BEREC Guidelines on Net Neutrality to Null). However, my impression is that Null doesn't want to sue in the EU because he's trying to avoid the impression of having EU forum contact. My impression is that Null wants to make it seem as if KF is "just passing through" European ISPs, and since it's just passing through, they should to be neutral with regards to its content as long as it appears to be prima facie in accordance with American law in absence of a court order arguing otherwise.

So the question becomes: does net neutrality mean that an American website should be allowed to pass through European ISPs or backbones, when its content complies to American law but *might* be in conflict with EU speech laws? Is an ISP or an internet backbone overstepping the limits of its discretionary authority when it tries to play content cop and determine on its own what kind of content allowed to pass through their systems? Is "potentially actionable (but yet to be determined)" sufficient reason for an EU ISP or backbone to block an American site from passing through its systems?

I find the latter argument more defensible, because most American websites passing through EU systems have some content or aspect of the site that might be in conflict with EU law, but are still allowed to pass through.

If Null from KiwiFarms plans to sue Liz Fong-Jones, or the infamous Lizard Woman (LFJ), for her alleged attempts to employ hackers to sabotage his website and wishes to take legal action against American sites for bowing down to her, he should realize that the concept of Net Neutrality is no longer intact. However, here's a funny twist: why not sue European sites, where Net Neutrality still thrives? Well, hold your horses, because in order to do that, he'd have to disclose his actual country of residence. Since he claims to live in America and not Europe, that plan isn't going to fly.

And hey, speaking of challenges, even if the Lizard Woman is defeated, another challenger might just step up to the plate—cue Alejandra Caraballo! Given her wealth, she could financially cripple KiwiFarms and Null, reducing them to a humble existence in a homeless shelter. Ouch! Talk about a knockout blow and a big OOF moment for them! Remember, folks, the internet is full of surprises and unexpected twists.

 

[onionfarts]

I've been thinking about this a lot ever since Null expressed an interest in using legal means to get his website back online. I don't know if Null is seriously considering suing LFJ. It will be trivial for LFJ to frame his involvement in #DropKiwiFarms as a form of protected free speech activity.

Doesn't Null understand that if LFJ wasn't heading #DropKiwiFarms, it would've been some other troon? Plenty of smart, capable and well-connected troons hate KF and would volunteer to head such a campaign. Alejandra Caraballo is a rich troon making three figures a year too. If Liz steps down to avoid a lolsuit, he's just hand #DropKiwiFarms over to Alejandra or some other troon. Even if Null was somehow able to get an injunction issue barring LFJ from... whatever (writing abuse reports to ISPs?)... what about the rest of the gang? They'll just pick up where Liz Fong-Jones left off.

The only reason I can see for Null wanting to sue LFJ is so that he can win in the court of public opinion by proving that LFJ was engaged in a ex parte cybercriminal conspiracy with the hackers carrying out the DDoS attacks and the poz.hov attack - that LFJ got Cloudflare to deny DDoS protection because there was a prior cybercriminal conspiracy amongst Liz and the gang to get KF DDoSed and subject to other cybercrimes once Cloudflare caved in.

But those of us who were following #DropKiwiFarms don't need any evidence for that theory. As many said at the time, denying a site Cloudflare protection is like ordering the fire-department not rush to someone's house on fire, just because you hate their politics and think they deserve to burn down.

We already know that was there was a cybercriminal conspiracy to attack KF the moment they were bare on the internet, because of all the circumstantial evidence we found on Twitter from #DKF themselves. They openly admitted being in touch with the hackers over Signal, and posted tweets showing they had insider knowledge of the nature of the attacks.

Lastly, what if Null performs discovery on LFJ over the course of his lolsuit, only to discover that Liz and other #DKF participants had been secretly been doxxing Kiwis and Null himself over e-mails and DMs? All those doxx are then inadvertently made public through discovery. Doesn't Null think LFJ has already laid such a trap for him? ("If you perform discovery on me, you will end up doxxing all your users")

If Null wants to lawfare, the only way I can see down this path is if he sues European ISPs and backbones for not upholding net neutrality laws. AFAICT the US doesn't have net neutrality laws, so he can't sue any American ISPs or backbones. ISPs and backbones in the US are allowed to drop anyone for any reason or no stated reason.

Net neutrality in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The EU on the other hand does have net neutrality laws on the books (I know this because I remember I myself had sent the BEREC Guidelines on Net Neutrality to Null). However, my impression is that Null doesn't want to sue in the EU because he's trying to avoid the impression of having EU forum contact. My impression is that Null wants to make it seem as if KF is "just passing through" European ISPs, and since it's just passing through, they should to be neutral with regards to its content as long as it appears to be prima facie in accordance with American law in absence of a court order arguing otherwise.

So the question becomes: does net neutrality mean that an American website should be allowed to pass through European ISPs or backbones, when its content complies to American law but *might* be in conflict with EU speech laws? Is an ISP or an internet backbone overstepping the limits of its discretionary authority when it tries to play content cop and determine on its own what kind of content allowed to pass through their systems? Is "potentially actionable (but yet to be determined)" sufficient reason for an EU ISP or backbone to block an American site from passing through its systems?

I find the latter argument more defensible, because most American websites passing through EU systems have some content or aspect of the site that might be in conflict with EU law, but are still allowed to pass through.

Tl;dr

If Null from KiwiFarms plans to sue Liz Fong-Jones, or the infamous Lizard Woman (LFJ), for her alleged attempts to employ hackers to sabotage his website and wishes to take legal action against American sites for bowing down to her, he should realize that the concept of Net Neutrality is no longer intact. However, here's a funny twist: why not sue European sites, where Net Neutrality still thrives? Well, hold your horses, because in order to do that, he'd have to disclose his actual country of residence. Since he claims to live in America and not Europe, that plan isn't going to fly.

And hey, speaking of challenges, even if the Lizard Woman is defeated, another challenger might just step up to the plate—cue Alejandra Caraballo! Given her wealth, she could financially cripple KiwiFarms and Null, reducing them to a humble existence in a homeless shelter. Ouch! Talk about a knockout blow and a big OOF moment for them! Remember, folks, the internet is full of surprises and unexpected twists.

It's not a "Woman".

 

[Boobie Bomb]

Tl;dr

It's not a "Woman".

I know but the clown wants to act like one so why not make fun of them in a jokingly sarcastic manner

 

[delphi]

Since he claims to live in America and not Europe, that plan isn't going to fly.

Null claims to have left the US years ago. It's somewhat irrelevant, though, as Lolcow LLC is an American entity.

 

[Boobie Bomb]

Null claims to have left the US years ago. It's somewhat irrelevant, though, as Lolcow LLC is an American entity.

Yup

 

[The Gays From LA]

why not sue European sites, where Net Neutrality still thrives? Well, hold your horses, because in order to do that, he'd have to disclose his actual country of residence. Since he claims to live in America and not Europe, that plan isn't going to fly.

It's not about suing European websites, it's about whether he has a better chance restoring his access by suing EU ISPs and backbones due to the EU having net neutrality laws on the books. This is all speculative of course because Null hasn't yet stated whom he plans to sue. He has hinted at wanting to sue Liz, but like I said, Liz has money, Liz knows other troons with money (Alejandra, Chelsea Manning, etc), Liz can tap into a large community that hates KF and will donate generously to his defense fund, and if Null sues Liz in the US Liz can easily frame everything as protected free speech. Even if Liz did retire from #DropKiwiFarms as a result of a lolsuit, some other obsessed troon would step in to take his place and continue the campaign. Suing Liz might send out a message to TRAs not to mess with him, but it does absolutely nothing to restore access, which is presumably his ultimate goal.

Null claims to have left the US years ago. It's somewhat irrelevant, though, as Lolcow LLC is an American entity.

Exactly. Assuming that Null tried to sue EU ISPs and backbones, he would be doing so as the American company "Lolcow LLC" and not as Null the private individual living wherever. Null's own present whereabouts are pretty irrelevant when he's suing another business as an American business. The question would then be whether ISPs and backbones are violating net neutrality when they block a website absent a court order, doing so simply on the basis of a massive letter writing campaign or a group of TRAs mass reporting a website. Is the presumption of wrongdoing sufficient for an ISP to play content cop and resort to the extraordinary measure of blocking a website, even going as far as to block it from transiting an internet backbone?

 

[Cat Administrator]

It's not about suing European websites, it's about whether he has a better chance restoring his access by suing EU ISPs and backbones due to the EU having net neutrality laws on the books. This is all speculative of course because Null hasn't yet stated whom he plans to sue. He has hinted at wanting to sue Liz, but like I said, Liz has money, Liz knows other troons with money (Alejandra, Chelsea Manning, etc), Liz can tap into a large community that hates KF and will donate generously to his defense fund, and if Null sues Liz in the US Liz can easily frame everything as protected free speech. Even if Liz did retire from #DropKiwiFarms as a result of a lolsuit, some other obsessed troon would step in to take his place and continue the campaign. Suing Liz might send out a message to TRAs not to mess with him, but it does absolutely nothing to restore access, which is presumably his ultimate goal.



Exactly. Assuming that Null tried to sue EU ISPs and backbones, he would be doing so as the American company "Lolcow LLC" and not as Null the private individual living wherever. Null's own present whereabouts are pretty irrelevant when he's suing another business as an American business. The question would then be whether ISPs and backbones are violating net neutrality when they block a website absent a court order, doing so simply on the basis of a massive letter writing campaign or a group of TRAs mass reporting a website. Is the presumption of wrongdoing sufficient for an ISP to play content cop and resort to the extraordinary measure of blocking a website, even going as far as to block it from transiting an internet backbone?

Null can't use net neutrality because most if not all EU countries have laws criminalizing "hate speech". Any EU ISP that Null tries to sue can easily bring up his racist rants in addition to snake woman's campaign that Kiwifarms kills people. Basically from their perspective hosting KF would be against the law.

 

[Boobie Bomb]

Null can't use net neutrality because most if not all EU countries have laws criminalizing "hate speech". Any EU ISP that Null tries to sue can easily bring up his racist rants in addition to snake woman's campaign that Kiwifarms kills people. Basically from their perspective hosting KF would be against the law.

Well, isn't it just hilarious how Null, the epitome of rationality and self-awareness, decided to sue a lizard for removing his precious website? I mean, it's not like he has a history of being a complete clown or anything. And let's not forget his absolute certainty in winning lawsuits, despite conveniently ignoring the fact that his site may have violated EU hate speech laws with those charming racist rants. Such a beacon of logic and integrity, that Null!

 

[Firegirl26]

I want to brush up on some knowledge people have tried to sue the KiwiFarms and yet none of them succeeded so far have I known. In fact, there was one woman who tries to six or seven times sue the farms, Melanie Scott I think it was. That may be one of the advantages Joshua thinks he has.

 

[Cat Administrator]

I want to brush up on some knowledge people have tried to sue the KiwiFarms and yet none of them succeeded so far have I known. In fact, there was one woman who tries to six or seven times sue the farms, Melanie Scott I think it was. That may be one of the advantages Joshua thinks he has.

Yeah I took a look at that in more detail. The cases were thrown out because in each one of those cases it was thrown out because of procedural errors. Simply put the plaintiffs tried to represent themselves. He who acts as his own attorney has a fool for a client. Null didn't win because of any superior legal strategy.

 

[The Gays From LA]

Null can't use net neutrality because most if not all EU countries have laws criminalizing "hate speech". Any EU ISP that Null tries to sue can easily bring up his racist rants in addition to snake woman's campaign that Kiwifarms kills people. Basically from their perspective hosting KF would be against the law.

OK, let me play devil's advocate for a moment and try to counter this argument:

1) Hate speech is illegal in the EU, but not in the US. This is a fundamental and irreconcilable difference between the two legal regimes, where they're unlikely to ever meet each other in the middle. The US has taken various legal steps to prevent the encroachment of censorious EU speech laws onto American judicial territory (see f.e. the adoption of the SPEECH Act under Obama to prevent "libel tourism" verdicts from being enforced in the US). KF is an American website with a predominantly American audience and a secondary worldwide audience. Do EU ISPs or backbones have a right to unilaterally force an American website to comply to censorious EU speech laws, just for that website to be able to traverse the EU part of the internet? Because I am pretty sure that the New York Times, Fox News, The Atlantic, etc have speech or content on their mainstream websites that would be considered actionable or at least legally questionable in much of Europe, but I don't see any EU backbones blocking those mainstream American websites from traversing their systems. Same with pornography: there are many countries around the world (including muslim majority countries like Turkey) that have banned all pornography, but I don't see any EU backbones blocking EU pornsites from exiting their systems to stream porn into countries where these backbones know that content is forbidden and criminalized.

2) When an EU ISP or backbone agrees to do business with an American entity, they can logically foresee that an American website is going to comply to American speech laws and that its context is therefore going to be in conflict with EU speech laws. Conflict of law issues are extremely complex and are not something that ISPs should be deciding on their own.

3) There's also a more abstract argument with regards to the ultimate purpose of net neutrality laws, that I can't quite articulate right now, but I want to make a start towards articulating it, because I think it's important:

It starts with the question of: "What kind of website is likely to invoke net neutrality to protect itself against arbitrary censorship from ISPs or backbones?". In other words, who was the intended legal subject meant to be protected by net neutrality laws when those laws were conceived?

The average European mainstream website presumably doesn't ever need to invoke net neutrality, because it's legal status is self-evident to ISPs and backbones. There's no point in having net neutrality laws if every website out there is self-evidently mainstream and legally uncontested. CNN or the BBC is probably not going to need to invoke net neutrality. Even Fox News, an American website that routinely posts content that would be considered actionable speech in many parts of Europe, is probably not gonna have to resort to invoking net neutrality to be able to reach European audiences.

Net neutrality exists because the law anticipated that there are and will be many cases where the legal status of a website is indeterminate or disputed, and where this disputed status might be weaponized by ISPs or backbones to censor a website, because it's simply easier for them to just block a website. Net neutrality effectively obliges ISPs and backbones to put their customers, the websites, before themselves.

Without net neutrality, you're essentially asking every website to prove to ISPs and backbones - who are not qualified to judge this - that it's legal and should be allowed to traverse the internet. Due to the complexity of the internet, oftentimes websites themselves aren't entirely sure their website is legal everywhere all the time. Null said that he has consulted with many lawyers all over the world about his website, so you can't really claim that Null is acting in bad faith when Null insists that AFAHC his website is legal.

Net neutrality is thus a kind of "emergency law" that is likely to be invoked by a controversial website in distress, only after the website has already been censored or cut off. Such a website would invoke net neutrality ex post as a means of restoring access. The legal need for net neutrality thus acknowledges that there are websites that exist in a legal gray area that nevertheless deserve legal protection from the whims of ISPs and backbones as well as those the general public. Net neutrality obliges ISPs to prioritize their paying customers, the websites, over some kind of assumed obligation towards external parties - which ISPs and backbones also have, but not at the expense of their primary obligations.

The indeterminate status of websites is the result of the increased Balkanization of the internet and the fact that data on the internet has to traverse increasingly conflicting or contradictory speech regimes. Conflict law is a matter of law and not something that ISPs or backbones should take into their own hands and make arbitrary, haphazard decisions about. If they do, such decisions are likely benefit (and absolve) themselves first at the expense of their customers. If net neutrality isn't being used to prevent ISPs and backbones from taking matters into their own hands and deciding which websites to censor for their own benefit - because they have decided, for whatever reason, that a certain website is too much to handle - then what is the purpose of net neutrality? Net neutrality needs to step in and protect controversial websites exactly where the threat of censorship is the most imminent and ISP/backbones the most reluctant to step up to the task and fulfill their obligations. Net neutrality is necessary because we know that it's always easier to just censor first and ask no questions later.

 

[Boobie Bomb]

OK, let me play devil's advocate for a moment and try to counter this argument:

1) Hate speech is illegal in the EU, but not in the US. This is a fundamental and irreconcilable difference between the two legal regimes, where they're unlikely to ever meet each other in the middle. The US has taken various legal steps to prevent the encroachment of censorious EU speech laws onto American judicial territory (see f.e. the adoption of the SPEECH Act under Obama to prevent "libel tourism" verdicts from being enforced in the US). KF is an American website with a predominantly American audience and a secondary worldwide audience. Do EU ISPs or backbones have a right to unilaterally force an American website to comply to censorious EU speech laws, just for that website to be able to traverse the EU part of the internet? Because I am pretty sure that the New York Times, Fox News, The Atlantic, etc have speech or content on their mainstream websites that would be considered actionable or at least legally questionable in much of Europe, but I don't see any EU backbones blocking those mainstream American websites from traversing their systems. Same with pornography: there are many countries around the world (including muslim majority countries like Turkey) that have banned all pornography, but I don't see any EU backbones blocking EU pornsites from exiting their systems to stream porn into countries where these backbones know that content is forbidden and criminalized.

2) When an EU ISP or backbone agrees to do business with an American entity, they can logically foresee that an American website is going to comply to American speech laws and that its context is therefore going to be in conflict with EU speech laws. Conflict of law issues are extremely complex and are not something that ISPs should be deciding on their own.

3) There's also a more abstract argument with regards to the ultimate purpose of net neutrality laws, that I can't quite articulate right now, but I want to make a start towards articulating it, because I think it's important:

It starts with the question of: "What kind of website is likely to invoke net neutrality to protect itself against arbitrary censorship from ISPs or backbones?". In other words, who was the intended legal subject meant to be protected by net neutrality laws when those laws were conceived?

The average European mainstream website presumably doesn't ever need to invoke net neutrality, because it's legal status is self-evident to ISPs and backbones. There's no point in having net neutrality laws if every website out there is self-evidently mainstream and legally uncontested. CNN or the BBC is probably not going to need to invoke net neutrality. Even Fox News, an American website that routinely posts content that would be considered actionable speech in many parts of Europe, is probably not gonna have to resort to invoking net neutrality to be able to reach European audiences.

Net neutrality exists because the law anticipated that there are and will be many cases where the legal status of a website is indeterminate or disputed, and where this disputed status might be weaponized by ISPs or backbones to censor a website, because it's simply easier for them to just block a website. Net neutrality effectively obliges ISPs and backbones to put their customers, the websites, before themselves.

Without net neutrality, you're essentially asking every website to prove to ISPs and backbones - who are not qualified to judge this - that it's legal and should be allowed to traverse the internet. Due to the complexity of the internet, oftentimes websites themselves aren't entirely sure their website is legal everywhere all the time. Null said that he has consulted with many lawyers all over the world about his website, so you can't really claim that Null is acting in bad faith when Null insists that AFAHC his website is legal.

Net neutrality is thus a kind of "emergency law" that is likely to be invoked by a controversial website in distress, only after the website has already been censored or cut off. Such a website would invoke net neutrality ex post as a means of restoring access. The legal need for net neutrality thus acknowledges that there are websites that exist in a legal gray area that nevertheless deserve legal protection from the whims of ISPs and backbones as well as those the general public. Net neutrality obliges ISPs to prioritize their paying customers, the websites, over some kind of assumed obligation towards external parties - which ISPs and backbones also have, but not at the expense of their primary obligations.

The indeterminate status of websites is the result of the increased Balkanization of the internet and the fact that data on the internet has to traverse increasingly conflicting or contradictory speech regimes. Conflict law is a matter of law and not something that ISPs or backbones should take into their own hands and make arbitrary, haphazard decisions about. If they do, such decisions are likely benefit (and absolve) themselves first at the expense of their customers. If net neutrality isn't being used to prevent ISPs and backbones from taking matters into their own hands and deciding which websites to censor for their own benefit - because they have decided, for whatever reason, that a certain website is too much to handle - then what is the purpose of net neutrality? Net neutrality needs to step in and protect controversial websites exactly where the threat of censorship is the most imminent and ISP/backbones the most reluctant to step up to the task and fulfill their obligations. Net neutrality is necessary because we know that it's always easier to just censor first and ask no questions later.

Okay but given this is Null I can’t see him go through with the lawsuit with Lizard man plus the odds of him winning will be flushed down the toilet

 

[The Gays From LA]

Future Kiwi lawyer will make Net Neutrality laws a reality in the US:

 

[ShitbombAnon]

I want to brush up on some knowledge people have tried to sue the KiwiFarms and yet none of them succeeded so far have I known. In fact, there was one woman who tries to six or seven times sue the farms, Melanie Scott I think it was. That may be one of the advantages Joshua thinks he has.

agreed but honestly, they need to start using the OnionFarms' Null megathread as a source because of how detailed it is.