Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wincenworks" data-source="post: 9176043" data-attributes="member: 7038835">And that's kind of the point.If someone who has extensive military experience says and  article 15s means someone is a criminal, there's a good argument to be made that you know that's nonsense.  Obviously if the person was a lawyer in the military this goes 10,000%.If a life long civilian stated that Justin was a criminal because he was discharged at PV1 and their explanation is the military would only do that if they were covering up that he was a serial criminal because (cut to long rant about corruption, citing conspiracy theories etc) then they can be considered to hold that as a legitimate opinion... not because it makes sense, but because well it's part and package of that individual.This is how we get weirdos insisting that random politicians are part of a weird occult cabal that drinks the blood of tortured children... because that's just their opinion man.  The idea is to ensure people aren't held to absurd levels of accountability, to know things that they had no experience with, etc.Which is also why defamation suits can easily run into massive money generators for lawyers, as they spend billable hour after billable hour reading everything vaguely related and search databases for if there's ever a precedent for a similar situation... and if so was that appealed or overturned in a later case etc.  Hence we got increasing interest in Anti-SLAPP measures (official and unofficial).All of which is to say it was a really stupid idea for Justin to go in for a defamation case based on this in the first place... given that it would expose so much about him, and raise so much scrutiny about about why someone might believe he is (bad thing).  That he's been now accused of perjury due to denying a thing there's a certified record of is just the cherry on top.Regardless of what he hoped to achieve from a legal perspective - his own actions have done way more potential long term harm to his reputation than anything Tenkar could have put on YouTube... and his lawyer certainly did not help with that.</blockquote>

Verification