He says after incessantly tweeting about Kirsche for months and @-ing her sponsors.
View attachment 98349
View attachment 98350
(
A)
View attachment 98352
Interesting timing to want to shut up, Bint.
View attachment 98355
(
A)
Lol dude doesn't even want to be used as a witness.
Realistically, the main problem is that in the case of libel and defamation, Kirsche will have a problem because of her being a public figure.
What is the difference between private and public person defamation? Learn the classifications of each and how to file.
www.bdblaw.com
Now, in the regard, generally defamation lawsuit can work on public figures if the defamatory claim becomes more specific and centered on actions.
FOR EXAMPLE:
“Proctor is a Nazi” is a very general and ambiguous claim
“Proctor asked his followers to harass this jew vtuber” Now that is very specific and can be called defamatory, is something that if you are going to say you need to have proof of it.
With that in mind, I don't think Valens saying “Kirsche is Nazi” itself could be accepted as a defamatory claim by a court, because of Kirsche public figure status allowing people to say shitty ambiguous things about them.
On the other hand, Valens did this:
"Kirsche, has sent her following after me" - Acussation of Kirsche of a direct action, no ambigous characterizations like " Kirsche is a nazi"
in what moment Kirsche said "Go to Ana Valens and harass her"? - no evidence of Kirsche doing that - A lie
Also she @ the sponsors with the lie, intent to directly harm Kirsche in an economic sense?
Now that is an accusation of a very specific action. Valens provides zero evidence of Kirsche asking her followers to harass the Fall Guys weirdo,
MORE IMPORTANTLY, Valens @ the sponsors with that lie. It could be claimed that Valens wanted to cause economic damage with that action and fuck with Kirsches economic contracts. Could be considered tortious interference?? Perhaps because of the lie and the direct messaging to the sponsors, but is not that clear either because at the time I'm writing this both of the sponsors Valens messaged with that tweets are still with Kirsche.
Honestly, I don't know the jurisprudence regarding the situation where someone tries to fuck with your sponsorship contract with lies, but fails, if that is still actionable in a civil lawsuit. That something that I hope Kirsche legal team is smart enough to try to investigate. Valens should pray that Gamersupps doesn't drop Kirsche because of those tweets tagging them with the lie of Kirsche asking her followers to harass.
Crime Boss in that regard is complicated because no Valens or Bint contact them or @ on Twitter (or at least there is no evidence of it). I mention this because part of what a public figure doing defamation lawsuit needs to do is
“outline both the reasons why they believe the defendant acted with actual malice, and the exact ways in which they suffered economic harm” and prove a connection, that Valens directly try to contact Crime Boss devs to make them drop Kirsche.
It is with Crime Boss that Kirsche suffered some form of economic harm, but because in a court the devs could claim they were acting on their own reacting to public information, it makes the case kind of hard for the foxu.
Honestly, I think Kirsche did right in the sense of making clear that if these continue it could end in legal actions, but at THIS TIME I see the future of any legal action that could be taken with what happened now uncertain. Now if Valens continues doing shit like telling the lie of “Kirsche, has sent her following after me” while tagging her sponsors and such a sponsor that was @ by Valens drops Kirsche then foxu would have a stronger claim.
