Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 10 Out of 200: Showing Public Tweets is Not a Privacy Violation, But This Isn't About Justice, It's About Censorship
This series began 9 days ago and it is one of several series that will run for years to come, illuminating a profound issue that my politicians are already looking into and are keen to tackle at the very core. They recognise there is systematic injustice that benefits affluent foreigners.
In the previous part I showed how a barrister resorted to "copypasta" accusing me of privacy violations that were pure fiction but part of his template [1, 2]. He would later reuse this same template for the Serial Strangler from Microsoft.
Yesterday I also cited this article from last summer (high-profile case): UK High Court Blasts Brett Wilson LLP for Misusing "GDPR" After Failed Efforts to Censor Critics Using 'Libel' Claims
That's the exact same barrister and lawyers. They're "repeat offenders" in this regard. A High Court Judge call them out on it, but we're here to show that they still do the same thing and do so to other people as well. It's time to put a stop to this abuse of process (which is what the Judge deemed it to be last year).
Below are my notes about this practice, as I put them 2 years ago and one year before the above decision:
8. It is exceedingly shocking if not preposterous that in addition to claims of libel (claims from a person whom many people accuse of libelling them for many years) there is a privacy angle being added, more so because a lot of the supposedly damaging information was deliberately broadcasted by the Claimant to everyone who knew him online, perhaps seeking sympathy (not only so-called ‘followers’ could access that; anyone, even without an account, could see that). When people publicly write about something, even something personal like a medical ordeal which they themselves suffer, that ceases to be a secret. Almost every act of journalism relies on material that public figures (such as athletes, celebrities, businesspeople or politicians) write about publicly, including about family members, hurt feelings, and mental if not physical difficulties (sometimes cancer diagnoses). Those observable – and verifiable right from the horse’s mouth – bits of information are very highly relevant to the publications in question because they serve to demonstrate the motivation of hateful attacks. Without being able to demonstrate an attacker’s motivation, who will avail or provide much-needed reporting? There is a wider, much broader interest at stake here. █