73
YouTuber ordered to pay "King of Kong" Billy Mitchell $230,000 over defamation claims
(www.techspot.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2025
73 points (98.7% liked)
Gaming
4376 readers
337 users here now
!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.
Our Rules:
1. Keep it civil.
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.
2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.
I should not need to explain this one.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.
Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Logo uses joystick by liftarn
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Jeez dude. Again, further down.
There’s no “Reddit attitude” here, if anything, the stupidness of people commenting without reading an article in it’s entirety is what’s boiling over from that cesspool. I think someone protests too much…..
Again, I read the entire article. Karl or the pope or whoever else can go on whatever crusade they want, it is not the judge's place to stop that. If on that crusade they say lies or libel or whatever, apply the law on them, be my guest. But don't do it because they were on a crusade. Don't let that influence the decision, because that is not against the law in itself.
I don't give 2 fucks if Karl or Mitchell is right or wrong, I'm only talking about the judge and how fucked up the justice system is by leaving the final decision in the hands of admittedly fallible people.
When the judge, the authority that has final say on the matter, mentions they considered something that is not forbidden in their decision, it sours my view of it and the justice system.
Even if the final legal document does not contain that as part of the reason for the sentence, I can't avoid thinking that the judge's mindset was pointing towards that (that being "I'll take this guy down a peg because he thinks himself as some big defender of justice, when I'm the only one that can do that")
They did decide because of the defamation. Anything about the decision being about anything else is purely in your head.
And fuck the judge for showing some character and insulting them I guess? They’re potentially wasting your tax money and wasting courts precious time and you want to allow this apparently? Shit take dude.
You just want some stooge to parrot corp speak? Jesus Christ, what the hell does that have to do with the article?
If you read it, than you’re just a troll bloviating.
Chill man, I didn't insult anyone, I just said I don't trust judges from personal experience, and that phrase reminded me of that.
And no, I don't want judges to show character. I want them to be impartial. When a judge fucks up a case of yours because they are stupid/have an agenda, you will understand the sentiment.
Corp speak, wtf?