No. A tweet says the judge ruled she had to delete the stuff. But the court records aren’t public yet and it wasn’t a criminal court. He could have just filed a restraining order and the judge decided to pull down all that info from the web.
As someone who’s seen the way that women (and sometimes men) react to voice actors in the otome gaming community, none of this surprises me in the least.
#restorekaelthas
3 Likes
You missed the part where she presented her evidence against him in court and it was judged baseless, and she was also ordered to delete the defamatory Twitter account.
1 Like
that’s not what it says. read it again. he says “I refuted her baseless accusations under oath” and then it says “the judge ruled that she had obsessively stalked me”. It does not say “the judge agreed with me that her accusations were baseless”. The judge did not make a finding as to the factual nature of her claims, as far as we can tell from this tweet.
5 Likes
In a court of law you are innocent until proven guilty, saying that he is guilty before that is proven is the wrong way to look at this. What this shows is she did present her evidence as well as her cross examination and the judge found she was obsessively stalking him, his family and his professional associates. This is why presumption of innocence is the bases for US law as well a a human right. He is not there to prove he didn’t do anything, because that is presuming guilt, she is there to prove he did something and from what we’ve seen after a court case with them is that she was stalking him.
4 Likes
You’re legally allowed to speak the truth or to present factual information to the public, even if it damages someone’s reputation.
So if a judge forced someone to take down their account, then that to me reflects negatively on the truthful of statements or “evidence” presented.
2 Likes
no, she’s there to defend herself against his claim that she is stalking him. her evidence pertaining to her original accusations is not relevant – stalking him would be illegal even if he’s guilty.
edit: he filed for an order of protection. THAT is what the hearing was about. it had nothing to do with whether she was telling the truth or not. hence my original example about the arsonist and the megaphone. she isn’t being accused of libel or slander, so whether she’s telling the truth or not is irrelevant to THESE proceedings.
3 Likes
I’ve been reading his wife’s twitter as well so I might be remembering some info from there, but from what I understand, her accusations have been deemed false and that’s why she was forced to take down the Twitter account.
yep. lets see dude try to argue against that. you can get a restraining order easy as pie. he hasn’t tried to sue her for slander though. i wonder why that is.
1 Like
that may be true, but there’s nothing in this twitter post to indicate that’s what happened.
some of these people have been arguing with me for literally hours about how i shouldn’t read into things that weren’t actually said. then do the same thing ad nauseam, again… for hours.
2 Likes
A chance for Blizzard to show its quality.
Paparazzi lobby has made it difficult to counter-sue for damages for defaming statements. The standard of proof for a counter-suit from a “public personality” against a private person is insanely high according to our current common law interpretations. Forcing someone to retract down their statements, which in the paparazzi business is a huge hit to their revenue and credibility, is usually an admission that the defaming statements are as close to verifiably false as they could be.
2 Likes
a single person who is private citizen =/= paparazzi. you do understand the difference, yes?
that’s fine, but it doesn’t change what i said: the twitter image is describing the results of a filing for an order of protection. the factual nature (or not) of the other party’s claims is irrelevant. the judge reviewed the pattern of behavior and found that it amounted to harassment.
i have no idea if the guy did what he’s accused of. i don’t know who he is. but there are a lot of people who don’t know how courts work reading a lot into this twitter post that just isn’t there, because it leads to the conclusion they want (“judge says cancel culture bad”)
1 Like
The point is that the standard of proof for Quinton Flynn, a public personality, to receive damages for defamation from a private person is higher than what most of us would consider reasonable threshold - not being awarded damages is not proof of anything one way or the other.
However, the judge infringing upon what would otherwise be a first amendment right to free speech if the statement was true is a reflection of the judge’s opinion on the truthfulness of the facts.
2 Likes
If you honestly think that is “hate filled” you probably shouldn’t leave your bedroom. The world is too scary a place for you.
1 Like
No, that’s what I’m trying to point out here. You’re not allowed to harass somebody because “free speech” even if your words aren’t libel/slander. “Technically nothing I said is a lie” isn’t a defense if you’re following somebody around screaming at them, leaving notes on their car, etc.
This is why I learned not to jump to conclusions.
I guess I did not elaborate that enough. I did not say this was THE trail, I said after a court case where she presented her evidence and cross examined him, she was found guilty of stalking and forced to take the twitter account. What this shows is after appearing in front of a judge she was forced to delete a twitter account.
Of course it’s not proving he did not do anything, but when you are presuming innocence you must obviously presume innocents. What this does is cast more doubt on her claims.
1 Like