Thank you, BurnsLootsMurders. I never saw that and it is a seriously incredible video that makes a brilliant point. Carpe Donktum being targetted only serves to reinforce his point. I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
So I listened to his interview last week on InfoWars and apparently their initial suit was copyright infringement. However, they failed to prove that right out of the gate when they didn't respond to his appeal of the DMCA. So now they're apparently going after both him and GEOTUS Trump (who is also on the suit) for a breach of civil liberties iirc. AKA they have no case at all and are just trying to create yet another narrative they can try to smear our great POTUS with.
When he manages to extract a monetary judgment, the piranhas are gonna be on YouTube and Google.
The main issue with 1st amendment cases is that it is usually impossible to show financial damages. In this case it looks like they are going to set a precedent for establishing the legal value of a Twitter account.
This is a critical piece of holding back censorship. Currently, it entails zero financial risk for Google, Facebook, or Twitter to shut down your account for no reason.
I watched that. It's a good summary and they basically have no case. The parents sold the rights to the video to a media company. So that pretty much nullifies the civil liberties claim. That means it's a copyright case, which is likely to be dismissed because CarpeDonktump previously requested them to file a copyright claim and they neglected.
The more interesting thing is whether Carpedonktump can then sue Twitter for banning him over copyright violation when no copyright claim was made. But Twitter probably has one of those "we can ban you wherever we want" clauses. He may be able to sue the parents for a false DCMA claim.
If retweeting a viral video or a clip of it in a journalistic or satire sense is a violation of civil rights, then the parents themselves violated their childrens' rights in the original video.
I personally would not have used a video of children without their parents' permission, but that's a matter of good manners, not law.
I may be a bit biased because I know one of the parents and I wouldn't want images of my child used for a political statement. But parents must also be held responsible for the worldwide exposure they subject their children to, minors who did not consent to be filmed or be made a public spectacle. As guardians of their childrens' rights, they sent a clear message about how they valued their privacy by promoting the video and appearing in multiple interviews.
This is amazing! What was the original meme that he got hit for? Is it viewable, or can someone describe it? I must be able to remember it...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tPdRkAB4azk
Damn that black kid can jog! Smoked the white kid!
Thank you, BurnsLootsMurders. I never saw that and it is a seriously incredible video that makes a brilliant point. Carpe Donktum being targetted only serves to reinforce his point. I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
It was the video of the white baby chasing after the black toddler,, lol!
FYI Carpe has started a legal defense fund: https://fundly.com/carpedonktum-legal-defense-fund
This is video he being sued for
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tPdRkAB4azk
lol what does the suit allege? He hurt their feelings?
The messaging was too effective reeeee
Pretty much! Kek
So I listened to his interview last week on InfoWars and apparently their initial suit was copyright infringement. However, they failed to prove that right out of the gate when they didn't respond to his appeal of the DMCA. So now they're apparently going after both him and GEOTUS Trump (who is also on the suit) for a breach of civil liberties iirc. AKA they have no case at all and are just trying to create yet another narrative they can try to smear our great POTUS with.
Carpe Donktum was on The Alex Jones Show Friday Sep 18 and discussed the meme and the lawsuit:
Full appearance here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyIHDoljRm4
also: no 'p' at the end of his name (re: typo in title).
Nice! Thanks for the link fren, would have never known about this
We will codify our right to meme into law! Etched in stone, take note NWO!
Satire is protected free speech. See all the lawsuits brought against Flynt and Mad Magazine back in the day.
When he manages to extract a monetary judgment, the piranhas are gonna be on YouTube and Google.
The main issue with 1st amendment cases is that it is usually impossible to show financial damages. In this case it looks like they are going to set a precedent for establishing the legal value of a Twitter account.
This is a critical piece of holding back censorship. Currently, it entails zero financial risk for Google, Facebook, or Twitter to shut down your account for no reason.
Which meme was this?
The two toddlers.
The hugging toddlers.
This is going to be a landmark case in memes. What timeline is this?
it might be the dankest of all timelines
The best one!
Viva Frei did a thing about this. He's a litigator/youtuber: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOwcsELnSK0
I watched that. It's a good summary and they basically have no case. The parents sold the rights to the video to a media company. So that pretty much nullifies the civil liberties claim. That means it's a copyright case, which is likely to be dismissed because CarpeDonktump previously requested them to file a copyright claim and they neglected.
The more interesting thing is whether Carpedonktump can then sue Twitter for banning him over copyright violation when no copyright claim was made. But Twitter probably has one of those "we can ban you wherever we want" clauses. He may be able to sue the parents for a false DCMA claim.
stifling dissent with lawsuits is s.o.p. for the left, hope he bankrupts tha bastards!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rntm3yDAQuM
Fools. Carpe is going to eat them for lunch and chase it down with a glass of their tears.
If retweeting a viral video or a clip of it in a journalistic or satire sense is a violation of civil rights, then the parents themselves violated their childrens' rights in the original video.
I personally would not have used a video of children without their parents' permission, but that's a matter of good manners, not law.
I may be a bit biased because I know one of the parents and I wouldn't want images of my child used for a political statement. But parents must also be held responsible for the worldwide exposure they subject their children to, minors who did not consent to be filmed or be made a public spectacle. As guardians of their childrens' rights, they sent a clear message about how they valued their privacy by promoting the video and appearing in multiple interviews.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle now.
Hahahahaha super polite but scorched earth none the less. Carpe Donktum is a legend.
Coleman? Hell yeah.
https://www.athletespeakers.com/storage/celebrities/1532533518_ronnie-coleman.jpg
DUDE SWEET
Carpe will own them
SUEEEEEEEEE
Damn, get rekt.
Ron Coleman ain’t no joke.
This is how the retards intimidate. Soros' pockets are deep. FUCK GEORGE SOROS!
Carpe, we love you pede
Such a phenomenal example of how fake news actually works .......
ahahahahah
How come he doesn’t post here