Your honor,
I am posting on the behalf of
@IncompleteRiver as he is unable to respond presently.
We’ve heard a lot in this case about satire, free speech, and sensitivity. But at its heart, this case is simple: Unseatedduke1, a respected judge turned plaintiff, was defamed and libeled by The Radish, a satire publication turned defendant.
The defense claims their article was satire. Yes, they included a disclaimer; but disclaimers do not absolve you from responsibility when your words are demonstrably false and cause harm. A reasonable person reading the article would believe that the plaintiff supported “big media” – a stance he explicitly rejected in his own words. The defendant took those words, twisted them, and published them against the plaintiff, without permission or even a basic attempt at journalistic integrity.
The defense claims satire is protected speech. While we certainly support free speech, satire is not a shield for defamation. There is a line between humor and harm, and the defendant crossed it. Their actions were deliberate, malicious, and damaging to the judge's career and reputation. The defense argues that satire justifies these actions. But satire doesn't give anyone a free pass to spread lies and harm reputations. The line between satire and defamation is clear: when the intent is to mislead or damage, it crosses that line.
Let's examine the evidence:
- The Radish's own words: The "Judge Unseatedduke1 Joins Fight Against Big Media" article misrepresented the plaintiff's stance on who should post in #news, falsely attributing support for positions he never endorsed. This was not innocent commentary; it was a deliberate attempt to paint him in a specific light, regardless of the truth.
- The refusal to retract: Despite receiving a cease and desist letter from the plaintiff requesting the removal of this harmful misinformation, the defendant refused to take responsibility for their actions. Instead, they doubled down, launching further attacks and fabrications that only exacerbated the damage.
- The unauthorized use of copyrighted material: The defendant blatantly copied and pasted one of the plaintiff's messages without permission, directly violating his copyright. This is not simply a matter of quoting someone; it is stealing someone's creative work for their own gain.
- The "Massive Protest" fabrication: The defendant falsely claimed there were massive protests outside the courthouse against the plaintiff, twisting events to make him appear unpopular and vulnerable. This was not journalism; it was propaganda designed to incite anger and discredit him in the public eye.
- The fabricated quotes in "New Management": The defendant went so far as to invent entirely made-up quotes, attributing them to both the both the plaintiff and his legal counsel. These blatant fabrications were designed to portray the plaintiff and his legal team as authoritarian figures, silencing any dissent against their supposed agenda.
While the defendant claims to be a satire outlet, their actions speak volumes. After being confronted with their initial falsehoods and given the opportunity to rectify the situation with the Cease & Desist letter, the defendant responded not with remorse or accountability, but with a wave of further attacks designed to silence plaintiff and damage his reputation beyond repair.
Think about it: after receiving a cease and desist letter requesting the removal of the false article, what did the defendant do? They published another article falsely claiming there was a protest against him, complete with fabricated details and blatant lies. Then they published a third article mocking the plaintiff's efforts to seek justice, further blurring the line between satire and malicious defamation.
This wasn't accidental. This wasn't a simple misunderstanding. These were calculated actions intended to intimidate, harass, and silence a judge who dared to stand up for himself against their falsehoods.
In the case of xLayzur & Krix v. Politico [2023] FCR 62, it was established that the publication of false statements constitutes defamation and libel, even when disguised as reporting on public interest disclosures. The court ruled that journalistic freedom and expression of political communication does not extend to publishing false information that damages an individual's reputation. We extend this precedent to the defendant, whose publications of false statements have defamed and libeled the plaintiff when reported as news. The Federal Court’s decisions are binding in the district court under section 18.b of the Constitution “The Federal Court of Redmont is the appellate court for the District Court of Redmont.”
The defendant states that they are a “news reporting” company. False statements, regardless of political communication or news reporting status, can be sued for libel “these are specific, false claims about specific actions and results, the court believes that it is not protected by these Constitutional rights… the Freedom of Political Communication and the Freedom of Press and Media cannot protect you when making direct, specific, defamatory statements” (see
Lawsuit: Adjourned - xLayzur & Krix v. Politico [2023] FCR 62). The defendant has made direct, specific, defamatory statements against the plaintiff and thus falls under the holding of [2023] FCR 62.
The defense argues there is no evidence of damage. But consider this: the plaintiff had to defend his reputation by taking legal action – an expense he wouldn’t have incurred if not for the defendant's reckless actions. He has been subjected to public ridicule and harassment, all because the defendant chose to prioritize clickbait over the truth. When someone intentionally publishes false information that harms another person's standing in their community, especially a judge whose impartiality is paramount, they must be held responsible. The plaintiff did not ask to be libeled and defamed. He was targeted by the defendant and they kept doubling down on their attacks. He deserves to be treated with respect, just as any citizen deserves to have their reputation protected from malicious attacks.
We therefore ask that the defendant be held accountable for their actions. Kindly award the plaintiff the damages he requested in his prayer for relief:
- A public retraction and apology, clearly stating that the statements made were false and without basis.
- The Defendant removes all copies of the aforementioned article from public domain.
- Legal fees of $5,000 dollars.
- The Plaintiff seeks 11,000 dollars in compensatory damages for the defendant's misuse of the plaintiff's intellectual property.
Thank you.
