The context that this was a mutual slanging match is certainly relevant to how seriously the people exposed to the allegedly defamatory speech would take it. So is the fact that Nick is a retard who is not taken seriously by anyone sensible these days.
If only there was some sort of way to prevent people from posting on your videos or chat. Like a blocking tool of some sort. Oh well. Guess you gotta call them a pedophile.
Oh you mean that stream where he calls him a child molester and dares him to sue him?
I'm pretty sure the normies you're claiming will definitely agree with you would not consider sitting around shirtless with jizz dripping down your face while drinking and talking about all the gay Balldo sex you have is some kind of wholesome, normal work-a-day Sixpack Joe activity they approve of.
What the fuck is going on in your head that you think the contents of Nick's livestreams will somehow be irrelevant to a defamation lawsuit about his livestreams? Do you have brain tumors?
I'd actually imagine a normie would hear "This guy makes a living talking at people on YouTube" and think to themselves "Get a real fucking job".
Sure, you can. But Monty didn't have to, because Nick didn't even make the attempt. If Nick blocked his account and he kept coming back with another then your argument would still be just as retarded, but this aspect of it would at least hold water.
Funny, because Nick sure seems to think that the content of his other streams is relevant given that a large part of his defense is that the general content of his streams aren't something that a casual observer would take seriously and would view as simple comedy.
That depends. Nick made it clear he wants to go over Monty’s history in Discovery and a good counter to that would be to do the same at the appropriate time. I don’t think most of his livestreams will be introduced into evidence, but the spiciest ones? Especially one where he says words like “Nigger” and “Faggot”? If I was Montagraph’s lawyer, I’d try to get that in.
Disagree.
No goal post moving here. I'm just pointing out how utterly irrelevant your point of "People can ban-evade" is given the fact that no ban occurred in the first place. You set up the goal posts, and then ran head-first into them.
You're wrong, and this is probably a good example of why you have such piss-poor takes. You say you haven't paid attention to Rackets in a while so you aren't up to date but he has banned multiple people based on his own personal hurt fee-fees.
You're joking right? Please try that in court, you colossal retard. I need to see that play out.
I feel like we laughed at this but never pointed out the real problem with this. I get the feeling that the judge doesn’t like Nick or Monty. And now Monty goes out and not only accuses the defence of two federal crimes and a tort(18 U.S. Code § 1962, conspiracy, 18 U.S. Code § 249) but also announces to the Judge that he will be wasting everyone’s resources and time for stuff (RICO) completely unrelated to the suit (the judge will likely have to adjudicate any eventual problems with discovery). However much Nick fucked up with his defamation, Monty’s doing a great job at making it seem like he’s doing this for an improper purpose.
As we always say, it's never RICO. This is about the dumbest thing Monty could do to sabotage one of the rare Internet defamation cases that previously had a chance.
Most people don't ban evade, and even if they do it would help build the same narrative of harassment that you're suggesting will convince the jury that Nick doesn't deserve a monetary punishment for calling Monty a pedophile.