Actually, no. I'm not involved in that scene, but I have friends in it. I don't make a habit of getting involved in the sexual lives of others, but to be frank I know most of the Does and there doesn't seem to be much overlap.
The reality is that Jonmon is deliberately avoiding discussing that part of his personal life. I know this because I got into it with him on the original thread, and told him that I knew for a fact he'd been banned from several fetish events in the area, among other statements.
That statement is not challenged as "defamation", in the lawsuit. In fact it's not even mentioned. Every other statement I made in that comment, however, was.
True, but honestly, I think that last line was implied as a threat: "I'll find every shitty thing you've ever posted on the Internet and tell your mom!"
Admittedly that might be more of a threat to some people than others, but it's a pretty weak one.
Yeah, IANAL but on LJ the discussion has trended towards "How legal is this business in the first place anyway?" He could be violating P.I. licensing laws, he could be made an accessory to any action his clients take on his information depending on the state, he could blow any legitimate court proceedings for any number of reasons... it just seems ill-thought-out.
If you read the full letter, you'll discover what's been happening: Basically he Googled usernames, tried to find a real name, checked public records, and sent letters to the various "Does".
So basically he did your typical journalist/P.I. legwork.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by theta1138.
Re: Johnny Monsarrat or Jonathan Monsarrat?
Yeah, at least until he screws up again.
Re: the Rabbit Hole is Deeper than you Know
Actually, no. I'm not involved in that scene, but I have friends in it. I don't make a habit of getting involved in the sexual lives of others, but to be frank I know most of the Does and there doesn't seem to be much overlap.
The reality is that Jonmon is deliberately avoiding discussing that part of his personal life. I know this because I got into it with him on the original thread, and told him that I knew for a fact he'd been banned from several fetish events in the area, among other statements.
That statement is not challenged as "defamation", in the lawsuit. In fact it's not even mentioned. Every other statement I made in that comment, however, was.
Re: Re: Re: Let me get this straight.....
True, but honestly, I think that last line was implied as a threat: "I'll find every shitty thing you've ever posted on the Internet and tell your mom!"
Admittedly that might be more of a threat to some people than others, but it's a pretty weak one.
Re: Re: Re: Let me get this straight.....
Yeah, IANAL but on LJ the discussion has trended towards "How legal is this business in the first place anyway?" He could be violating P.I. licensing laws, he could be made an accessory to any action his clients take on his information depending on the state, he could blow any legitimate court proceedings for any number of reasons... it just seems ill-thought-out.
Re: Let me get this straight.....
If you read the full letter, you'll discover what's been happening: Basically he Googled usernames, tried to find a real name, checked public records, and sent letters to the various "Does".
So basically he did your typical journalist/P.I. legwork.