Rumor: Team Con planning to sue BreatheHeavy?

[Onyxgirl17]

4 minutes ago, KatieKat said:

Wait I’m confused — they are supposedly planning to sue everyone who has ever written on BH?

Probably not. 

[Body ache]

[jordeezy river red]

 

[jordeezy river red]

But also this...

 

[jordeezy river red]

So it has been considered "unconstitutional" for a public figure to block u on Social Media BUT it's allowed for a social media to ban you. Weird laws. I would think online presence is covered by the Freedom To Assemble. 

[CindyTheTVisLeaking]

9 minutes ago, Body ache said:

for you to shut the ph uck up 

[ObsessedBritFan1]

lol any lawyer to do this would be stupid and would be jeopardizing their license. Only the corrupt ones will take up this case for initial payments because they assume most naysayers won't point out their bull****. As soon as you mention you will report them to their law society board for failing to provide any evidence to attest to any of their claims, they'll jump ship and you'll never hear from them again. 

So if anyone gets a letter .... just claim, without any FACTUAL evidence, you will report them to the law society board for poor business practices. Trust me, you'll never hear from them again.

[BUWYGF]

Empty words, they can go fu*k themselves

[Brat]

Us in trial 

[mangotango]

32 minutes ago, jordeezy said:

So it has been considered "unconstitutional" for a public figure to block u on Social Media BUT it's allowed for a social media to ban you. Weird laws. I would think online presence is covered by the Freedom To Assemble. 

Not so weird if you understand the basis: free speech is protected but refers to the government not being able to restrict that (with some exceptions) and not make it so you cannot have your voice heard by them. Blocking constituents would hinder their ability to exercise their free speech directed at the government. While social media companies are private entities with no obligation to allow you to speak freely on their platforms. 

[jordeezy river red]

1 minute ago, mangotango said:

Not so weird if you understand the basis: free speech is protected but refers to the government not being able to restrict that (with some exceptions) and not make it so you cannot have your voice heard by them. Blocking constituents would hinder their ability to exercise their free speech directed at the government. While social media companies are private entities with no obligation to allow you to speak freely on their platforms. 

So wouldn't people discussing the movement then have the ability to do so since it is publicly available info from the CA courts? They couldn't just shut websites down for discussing it. 

[SlayOut]

11 minutes ago, Brat said:

Us in trial 

I’ll just reply to lawyer questions with emotes!

Lawyer: SlayOut, did you call Jamie Lynn “Jamie Louynn”?

Me: nnnnnnnnnn 

[mangotango]

2 minutes ago, jordeezy said:

So wouldn't people discussing the movement then have the ability to do so since it is publicly available info from the CA courts? They couldn't just shut websites down for discussing it. 

Yes, I don't think they have any grounds to sue on regarding people simply talking about it. Most likely it would be bs lawsuits related to trademark/copyright infringements and the like. Maybe they could try to stretch it to defamation. Either or, such lawsuits are likely to be more or less bogus and not lead to anything. The problem is more the insane costs that can come with having to hire legal counsel to defend oneself. 

[Alexanda]

Catch me if u can

[jordeezy river red]

8 minutes ago, mangotango said:

Not so weird if you understand the basis: free speech is protected but refers to the government not being able to restrict that (with some exceptions) and not make it so you cannot have your voice heard by them. Blocking constituents would hinder their ability to exercise their free speech directed at the government. While social media companies are private entities with no obligation to allow you to speak freely on their platforms. 

This is also the same argument the government will use one day to take away internet access from people..."oh, you have freedom of speech but internet access isn't a right so we will ask all service providers to ban you". It's dangerous. 

[DollyParton]

1 hour ago, KatieKat said:

Wait I’m confused — they are supposedly planning to sue everyone who has ever written on BH?

But i always used the word ‘allegedly’  im innocent 

[Alexanda]

1 hour ago, SkyNet said:

No problem, we'll make gofundme to pay for lawyers

Yup, international money is coming 

[Britneylandia]

We literally don’t care lol. If they think they are going to stop us they are SO wrong!

We won’t stop until Britney is completely free and everyone involved in this horror gets what they deserve! 
 

FREE BRITNEY!!!

[mangotango]

1 minute ago, jordeezy said:

This is also the same argument the government will use one day to take away internet access from people..."oh, you have freedom of speech but internet access isn't a right so we will ask all service providers to ban you". It's dangerous. 

Which is why some human rights organizations and other organizations are advocating to make access to internet a part of human rights, because internet has become such an integral part in society. 

But still, a right to have access to internet does not necessarily mean a right to all platforms. Though I agree the power big tech companies have really  needs to be looked at, not just for who/how they can choose to exclude, but also things like right to repair. 

[Applejack]

y'all know LFB don't have a twitter account anymore, only IG