I'll reiterate my hypothesis that this entire "legal action" was as phony as the original event, and is more evidence good old BH--err, I mean "AJ"--is controlled opposition.
The intent is to chill discussion of SH or any other hoax, so that the gullible think, "Oh man, better not post that to r/conspiracy. It'd take forever to pay off a $kajillion from my job at GameStop!"
Could AJ be said to have intentionally inflicted distress when his claim was that the child said to have been brutally murdered did not actually die? Takes some pretty perverse reasoning to make that claim, and no real judge or jury would buy it.
I'll reiterate my hypothesis that this entire "legal action" was as phony as the original event, and is more evidence good old BH--err, I mean "AJ"--is controlled opposition.
The intent is to chill discussion of SH or any other hoax, so that the gullible think, "Oh man, better not post that to r/conspiracy. It'd take forever to pay off a $kajillion from my job at GameStop!"
For reference, any such legal action would have failed to satisfy element #1 in: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress as a Cause of Action in Connecticut.
Could AJ be said to have intentionally inflicted distress when his claim was that the child said to have been brutally murdered did not actually die? Takes some pretty perverse reasoning to make that claim, and no real judge or jury would buy it.
LOL, great comment