Misgendering someone (Liz Fong-Jones pronouns, as documented on her own sites, are she/her) does tend to undermine the credibility that this is a legitimate grievance. Surely given the length at which the author writes on her, they would be aware of this, so it can only be assumed to be a deliberate transphobic act.
The defamation case mentioned in Australia appears not to have been responded to (see https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSC/2023...), but the judge in the case was satisfied that she was actually defamed and doxxed on the site, that she had been harassed as a result of that doxxing, and that the plaintiff had been informed in advance and had done nothing.
It seems legitimate that courts in that case should be able to take such things down.
Hello - I am the author of this article. Yes, my choice of pronoun was deliberate. I will allow you to determine why.
In regards to the litigation, your interpretation is wrong. The main reason why the default was granted is that LFJ lied in the affidavits to the court. It was stated under penalty of perjury that the IPs were absolutely necessary for the site to be able to stay up.
The site is still up and you may access it on the normal Internet with a normal browser. No IPs from Flow Chemical are in use. Therefore, LFJ's claims that the IPs were necessary are a lie.
The other claim significant to the litigation is that I am unserviceable. That the need to sue Vincent was that there is no way to sue me. I am currently involved in two, soon three, separate ongoing civil litigations in the United States. My attorney's address can be found by a link present on every single page of the Kiwi Farms. Simply put, LFJ lied that there is no way to service me.
Perhaps, if my website was Australian, it would be within the Court's jurisdiction to object to its contents and order it removed. Fortunately, it is American.
In your article you state that kiwifarms has rules against harassment:
>If I ask Google Gemini to describe the Kiwi Farms in a sentence, it tells me “a controversial web forum known for its users' online harassment and stalking campaigns against various individuals and communities”, despite the Kiwi Farms having explicit and enforced rules against contacting people off-site (i.e. harassment).
Why weren't these rules enforced against users such as "Not Based and Redpilled" when he hacked the game developer of Yandere Simulator? You were aware of it and described it as a violation of federal law. In fact, the only user who was punished was someone who criticized the hack: https://archive.is/dr0MR#10%
Well of course they do. The whole point of the argument is that LFJ is so hellbent on trying to take Josh's site down in any and all ways possible, every single day, continually for years, and people are letting them get away with it. They both have axes to grind with each other.
If you had swarms of people that wished you dead and did everything they could to mess with you for years and years, you'd get angry at people too. You may not agree with his conduct but I think he is still fighting a good fight nonetheless. It's not like he has fled the country for no good reason.
If he just wanted kiwifarms to be a gossip forum he could have banned doxxing.
He doesn't allow doxxing out of a commitment to free speech. The forum doesn't actually have that much free speech. If you criticize him you will get banned pretty fast.
There isn't much transparency either. Banned users aren't marked as being banned. And bans are often done without public notification. So unlike most forums, you can't tell if someone has been banned.
It is an article about censorship. If someone in the USSR were writing an article about censorship, it would be in line with the articles themes to criticize the government. To make explicit the things being censored. It's the same here.
How is it anti-censorship to deliberately refer to someone incorrectly?
If you call a pelican a seagull, I'm not censoring you if I tell you that it's actually a pelican. And if you continue to call it a pelican because you have a problem with seagulls and think they suck, I'm also not censoring you if I point out you're being a jerk. Free speech goes both ways!
This is more like a seagull that wants everyone to call it a pelican on the dubious basis that it claims to have a 'pelican identity', despite not actually being a pelican.
There's nothing wrong with rejecting that demand and continuing to refer to it as a seagull, is there?
Im impressed by your psychic ability to read a person’s chromosomes just by looking at their face, cause if I saw them out of context I’d assume they were female.
>It seems legitimate that courts in that case should be able to take such things down.
The Kiwi Farms posts that supposedly defamed Fong-Jones were made by American users and the man sued in Australia had absolutely no connection to them other than leasing IPs to Joshua Moon's company. It's absolutely not legitimate. The only reason the man in Australia was sued is because Fong-Jones would not win a lawsuit against Joshua or the users of the site.
Joshua specifically talks about the legitimacy of the lawsuit in the article:
"In affidavits supplied to Australian court, Liz Fong-Jones has promised under penalty of perjury that these IP addresses are critical to the Kiwi Farms’s operations, uptime, and (most importantly) ability to deliver mean posts about him to the world-wide Internet.
We have not used these IP addresses in a year, and only used them publicly for less than a year. How critical these IP addresses are can be easily determined by the fact that the Kiwi Farms remains available to the world-wide Internet, and that we do not use any Flow Chemical IP addresses in doing
You've posted that link at least six times here and I'm guessing it's you spamming it over on Substack. People have pointed out the problems they have with that source, repeatedly. I would reiterate that most of your examples of alleged malfeasance are from a decade ago and that none of what's been said is illegal in the United States. You can dislike Josh all you want but it does not make him deserving of tortious interference in his affairs.
Some of the examples are rather recent, and there's no evidence of the site's behavior changing. The point is that the site has allowed harassment, contrary to what the owner claims.
How have the complaints against him been tortious interference? As far as I am aware, they have been factual.
Revenge porn has gotten the forum dropped by some providers.
One of the complaints Liz fong jones had about the forum was that her social security number was being shared on there: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/09/03/kiwifar...
I think that has gotten kiwifarms dropped by other providers, since it apparently this came up in her leaked emails complaining about the forum.
The defamation case mentioned in Australia appears not to have been responded to (see https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSC/2023...), but the judge in the case was satisfied that she was actually defamed and doxxed on the site, that she had been harassed as a result of that doxxing, and that the plaintiff had been informed in advance and had done nothing.
It seems legitimate that courts in that case should be able to take such things down.