One More (Failed) Attempt to Deplatform the Sites by Harassing and Threatening Webhosts
Webhosts are not authors. Webhosts are service providers. Just as you wouldn't report an ISP (utilities) for someone saying something about you, trying to attack or blackmail webhosts is a really low blow. After a while you get put in their blacklist, as they know better; they do not wish to bother wasting any time on you.
Some time ago my webhost relayed to us something it had received (it's just part of the procedure; they follow the protocol). It said this: (with my response in-line)
To whom it may concern,https://techrights.org/n/2024/01/29/My_Husband_s_Reply_to_Our_Webhost_After_False_Accusations_Perju.shtml
It really does not matter what I may have or may not have done. Autism does not make me mentally ill, and his claims are complete fabrications and he repeatedly used doctored evidence.
Nope, never. So the person the post deals with (and the post seems to have struck a nerve) is trying to take down the whole Web site. Put another way, writing about bogus claims and ridiculous attempts to take a site down results in the same perpetrator trying to do so yet again. It doesn't work that way.
So what's the latest bogus angle?
*The UK Government:*https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/copyright-notice-digital-images-photographs-and-the-internet/copyright-notice-digital-images-photographs-and-the-internet
I want to take a photo of a copyright work and use it
If someone takes a photo, copyright can exist in that photo. If someone takes a photo of a work protected by copyright, and the work forms an essential part of the image, using that photo on the web is likely to be an infringement of copyright. In other words, people are allowed to take a photo of a room of paintings, provided the inclusion of such paintings in the photo was merely incidental (e.g. they formed inessential background). However, you would need to be careful about copyright infringement if taking photos of specific paintings.*
Is there any way I can be completely safe when I use an image from the internet?
The vast majority of images on the internet are likely to be protected by copyright, so it is only safe to use it if you have specific permission to do so through a licence; or your particular use is specifically permitted in the terms and conditions of the website supplying the image and this is the copyright owner’s website or another website which has the copyright owner’s permission to allow other people to use an image; or if you have established that copyright has expired; or if you are using the image in a way which is covered by a permitted act/exception to copyright (see above). The use of licensed images is usually much safer than using unlicensed images which offer no protection against infringement.
Classic appeal to authority, "The UK Government".
The above does not in any way apply here because of a variety of different reasons, including Fair Use and right to self-defence. That aside, take a load of this spin:
As a copyright holder of the images, I can revoke permission at any time and Roy Schestowitz does not have a license from me to reproduce those images. I have reached out to both Classmates and LinkedIn and those images are no longer available anywhere on the web except for your clients website.
Those are screenshots of the sites, not copies of images, which were voluntarily uploaded there. It's essential to connect the abuses of the same person going by different names/identities.
Even the person then acknowledges that it is a very weak "claim":
Regardless of the copyright claim though, the human rights lawsuits are moving forward. Your organization should have replied to me about the image usage.
No, they should not. Also, there are no lawsuits. Those are merely applications. Nobody even bothers replying to them. There's a good reason why.
I am also filing a privacy complaint with the UK's Information Commissioner’s Office, your organization should not have shared that e-mail with your client.
Nope, they merely follow protocols. If you make bogus complaints about a site, that site is then being notified so that it can properly respond.
What we're seeing here is a person who abuses the system in Canada at Canadian taxpayers' expense trying to do the same in the UK, at British taxpayers' expense. The authorities here aren't keen to go along with it. They made that clear too.
I am a victim of abuse and he is not. You essentially doxxed an abuse victim, one who is an actual paralegal and is litigating against you because of your lack of action.
No, the abuse always came from:
Miss [Name Redacted]
Who, as [Name Redacted] [Name Redacted], spent over a decade attacking many people, including my cohost, his family, myself, and my family.
[Name Redacted] was already banned from IRC well over a decade ago. [Name Redacted] kept breaking rules. Being autistic does not make it OK to act this badly.
Seeing that the webhost isn't paying attention to the serial abuse, [Name Redacted] already tried to open "cases" and scare (or blackmail) the webhost:
On Sat, Nov 4, 2023 at 4:50 PM [Name Redacted] <[Name Redacted]@gmail.com> wrote:> To whom it may concern, > > [redacted]] > > I sent your organization the legal pleadings out of courtesy, so that you > can do something about the human rights violations quickly and avoid the > hassle of a legal battle. > > The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) will send you a copy of the > pleadings as well. Also, they consider e-mail to be "served". It does your > organization no good to pretend to not have received anything. > > More articles have appeared online: > > https://news.tuxmachines.org/n/2023/11/04/Toxic_People_in_the_Community_Are_Often_Connected_to_Microsoft_.shtml > > https://techrights.org/n/2023/11/04/The_People_Who_Try_to_Deplatform_Techrights_Are_Simply_Not_Sane.shtml > > This will also be part of the lawsuit and any future articles will be too. > > [Name Redacted]
This was almost a year ago and of course nothing happened. The webhost isn't Canadian, isn't your employer etc.
This is clear and overt misuse of process for harassment's sake.
Now, let's take stock of what we've just shown. A person who was repeatedly banned from IRC is trying to come back to IRC, does more abusive things, gets banned.
Then, when the site explains the ban there's an attempt to open complaints in some other continent, under the guise of "discrimination".
My wife, who published the article, opened a police case (second police case) against [Name Redacted]. The high-level police officer assured her that writing this is perfectly lawful and does not violate any law.
My wife was subjected to cybercrimes by [Name Redacted] and is permitted to write about the abuse she suffered. She is also constantly being harassed by [Name Redacted].
If needed, I shall get officials in touch with the relevant police officer, who has a very negative view of [Name Redacted].
Were cybercrimes committed? Yes, even as recently as months ago.
[Name Redacted] has a long history of abusing authorities and [Name Redacted] previously filed a complaint to the webhost using a sockpuppet account, which is not legal. Online harassment by [Name Redacted] goes at least 14 years back (we have evidence), was arrested for harassment before, and it seems like even months ago [Name Redacted] was engaging in DoS attacks on people in our IRC channels, according to them. That would not be unprecedented either. In short, reasonable webhosts will not entertain this ongoing "harassment by process".
Also, to be clear, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) does not apply to the webhost, THERE IS NO LAWSUIT (another drug-induced psychosis?), and this is part of misuse by [Name Redacted] of the free-of-charge Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO). In effect, that in itself is a mechanism of harassment.
Previously [Name Redacted] admitted to them that drug use caused false statements/allegations. [Name Redacted] is unfit and is trying to terrorise every perceived "enemy", as was done for over a decade already.
Folks can safely disregard these false claims. There are about 3 cases in British police against [Name Redacted] and quite a bit of history across the pond too.
[Name Redacted]Anyway, suffice to say, the webhost doesn't see the need to waste time on this nonsense:
Dear Customer,Many thanks for resolving the issue(s) related to this abuse complaint and letting us know.
Abuse report #26385 has now been closed successfully.
Kind regards,
It only took hours.
Opening more such reports will most likely result in getting oneself in the "immediate binlist". Using sockpuppet accounts to open reports (giving a false impression of plurality) may only results in more police cases being opened against [Name Redacted], maybe even in Canada. If one can bother making international phonecalls...
[Name Redacted] has been collaborating with people who phone my employer, phone my wife's employer, and send menacing communications. Being autistic is not an excuse for this kind of behaviour and one needn't be "transphobic" to assert such behaviour is utterly despicable.
Techrights wishes to cover tech issues and not be dragged down by low-lives, whose modus operandi we can probably explain in a whole book.
Last week we published about 180 pages and maybe this week we can do even more. These Monday articles are only about 0.5% of what we publish. We don't want to spend much time on it. We have better things to do. █