Current Events > Andrew Tate files a bumptious defamation lawsuit again twitter users

(+) Yeah! (+)

For calling him a rapist and human trafficker. Does anyone want a quick crash course on why this is, what we call in the biz, a LOLSuit?

Becaue this is a textbook SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Againt Public Participation) designed just to terrorize and silence.

https://x.com/CrayonMurders/status/1902830785406865557

Has he thought about not being a human trafficking rapist?

so you can't call things for what they are now??

Reminder that Kanye ye West was hanging out with this fucker and his brother recently

HighSeraph posted...

Has he thought about not being a human trafficking rapist?

Nah, that's too hard for these shitheads.

LightSnake posted...

Does anyone want a quick crash course on why this is, what we call in the biz, a LOLSuit?

Sure.

I really hate that Romania caved to Trump and let the Tates back in America.

The discovery phase for this should be hilarious.

Andrew Tate? You mean that creepy rapist who literally fled to a different country because it was easier to traffick minors?

Solar_Crimson posted...

I really hate that Romania caved to Trump and let the Tates back in America.

In an insane broken clock moment the Florida AG/DeSantis are railing hard against them which is good at least

DrizztLink posted...

Sure.

The US really holds freedom of speech highly and we have some of the most defendantfriendly libel laws in the world. Defamation is a high stance and requires a few things for liability:

1. A false statement of fact
2. Published to a third party
3. That caused damages.

Now, we're talking about a public figure, so there's an extra layer added. If someone is a public figure (which can be anyone from politicians to high level swimmers, or just people in the news) then the person saying the defamatory statement must prove the person saying it knew it was false or had a high probability of knowledge. Like, even if it's false, you're allowed to have opinions as long as the opinion is based on publicly disclosed fact. And opinions can never be defamation, hence why you can't sue someone for calling you a racist (but you might if they call you an "open" racist, or say they've done a secret investigation that proves it and don't disclose those results)

In this case, not only is Tate a rapist human trafficker, his argument is "But I've neve been convicted" which isn't required. It's why OJ can't sue you for calling him a murderer. And why Kyle Rittenhouse can't either. Their opinion is presumably based in publicly known facts and words from Tate himself. So setting aside if the statement is false, Tate would have a bitch of a ttime proving any damages, because....he's publicly known as a rapist criminal. He himself says so. These people didn't break any big stories, so there's no damages here he can claim.

We don't have a federal ANTI-SLAPP yet, but some states allow for what's called an Anti-SLAPP motion: a motion that says "you just want to punish me for free speech." California and Texas have the best in the country there, IMO. When that's filed, everything stops and the court determines if it's a SLAPP. If it is, you end up paying some heavy fines and your opponent's legal fees. Even in other states, courts will order people who do this to pay damages and fines.

If I'm a betting man, Tate will end up paying their fees here. His case is meritless. A textbook SLAPP.

Thank you, but:

LightSnake posted...

We don't have a federal ANTI-SLAPP yet

I wouldn't exactly hold my breath on that.

Unfortuntely, neither would I. It's been a push of people for years to little avail.

If you want an example of a case that might actually be Actual Malice (a term for when defamation of a public figure occurs. It means you say something knowing it's false, not that you don't like someone), a Republican congressman said the other day he did a secret investigation that proved Mahmoud Khalil was a bigot who deserved deportation

Pretty sure there's a little thing called Freedom of Speech/Expression that should prevent that from going through. I can't see them winning in any way shape or form, and they are going to lose a crap ton of money in the process.

Ivany2008 posted...

Pretty sure there's a little thing called Freedom of Speech/Expression that should prevent that from going through.

Poor people don't have constitutional rights.

DrizztLink posted...

Poor people don't have constitutional rights.

Earnestly, you'll find a number of attorneys who'd do this case for free and make up the fees on the sanctions. I would.

Solar_Crimson posted...

I really hate that Romania caved to Trump and let the Tates back in America.

They have already left again, for some reason.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgw0w7147vo

So Tate is opening himself up to discovery among several people in a case where they called him a rapist and sex trafficker? Is he sure that's the right move?

LightSnake posted...

Bumptious

I've read so many books and I've never seen that word. The English language is fascinating.

UnholyMudcrab posted...

They have already left again, for some reason.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgw0w7147vo

American pressure will give them a Not Guilty sentence.

bumptious

A_Good_Boy posted...

So Tate is opening himself up to discovery among several people in a case where they called him a rapist and sex trafficker? Is he sure that's the right move?

They didn't think it through. It's just an intimidation technique that would be dropped

lol, I've not seen the word "bumptious" for about ten years, there's something disorienting about it being applied to Andrew Tate.

But, he is one