Information icon.svg Our policy on articles on living people is under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

Talk:Emil Kirkegaard

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Bounty and Bo Winegard drama

[1] well this is just odd. Also [2], screenshot of the letter that was sent. John66 (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the bounty thing should be put back on the article, its funny. John66 (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

that bounty part certainly should be added ye. EK (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Smith again

Per the last discussion it was made very clear not to put material ruled by the UK high court as not factually accurate into the article. so this page is protected again, because a banned troll came back for the umpteenth time to dump problematic stuff on the page. Discuss. EK (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I have received an email from Smith in the last hour, he tells me he is being impersonated here, and these accounts are not him. His lawyers have told him to not post online and this is someone else trying to stir things up. I am not sure what to make of it, both have claimed to have won the lawsuit and each has their defenders claiming victory on Twitter. The anti-fascists seem to support Smith and the white nationalists support Kirkegaard.
The court ruled that "pedophile" and "pedophile apologist" were opinions but defamatory. In one of his comments, Emil Kirkegaard wrote "There is another potential reason why it is a good idea to legalize child porn. Some studies show that the availability of porn has reduced rape rates. Since child porn is a subset of porn, one could expect the same thing to happen with it. The causal theory is that when people have access to porn, they jack off to that instead and thus are less horny, and so less likely to rape. This reasoning applies just as well to child porn" [3]. That is a very dangerous talk actually putting in writing he thinks there are good reasons child porn should be made legal. Kirkegaard is a very strange individual he is not a pedophile but he does want to legalize child porn. I have not seen anyone else hold that position. John66 (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The main point is that anonymous users putting opinions which were ruled to be defamatory into the article is deeply problematic. The lawsuit was won by Smith in the sense that he doesn't have to pay out, he's not getting punishment. But it was also won by Kirkegaard in the sense that the allegations were clearly stated as baseless. It's a matter of what was gained from the exercise by each side.
As for the argument that certain illegal pornography should be made legal, ye thats certainly something he wrote once but in context it was part of an academic dispute and wasn't express advocacy. There are a lot of people who actively promote this view to the extent that among European Liberals its pretty mainstream now, I wouldn't say its anything unusual.
I agree that there are two clear sides of the story playing out on twitter, but I'm neither a whitenat or an anti fascist so I haven't bothered getting involved in that interesting dispute. EK (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The judge in the preliminary trial was not deciding if my comments caused serious harm - "For the avoidance of doubt, I am not deciding the question of serious harm under s 1 of the Defamation Act 2013." The preliminary trial was to determine if my comments were statement of fact or opinion. The judge rejected Kirkegaard's argument my comments were statements of fact and accepted my argument they're opinions, primarily on the basis of the hyperlinks/urls in my comments - I was relying on to form an opinion. The judge also criticised Kirkegaard for taking my comments out of context by ignoring the hyperlinks, "It is artificial for the Claimant to take a single sentence out of context". The summary judgement on the 2 June 2020 would have determined the question of serious harm and determined if my opinions were honestly held or defamation. Kirkegaard discontinued the lawsuit on 22 May (10 or 11 days) before the summary judgement knowing the judge would have almost certainly ruled my comments did not cause him serious harm as they were honest opinions which provides a legal defence to defamation. Flight (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
There are indeed some people (including SJWs) who have made tweets about Kirkegaard losing the lawsuit. I'm not aware though of any WN's/alt-right people tweeting about it because its embarrassing for them - it's obviously a humiliating defeat for Kirkegaard (losing the preliminary trail with the judge criticising him for taking my comments out of context, conceding my comments did not cause him serious harm by discontinuing before summary judgement, winning no damages and having to pay my legal fees) so him and his followers prefer to brush it under the carpet. Flight (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

"Moderate racist"

Isn't that like saying one "is a little bit pregnant?" Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Kirkegaard v. Smith

I think it is notable to mention on the page given the fact the lawsuit is over and its now public knowledge he was the losing party. Kirkegaard discontinued the lawsuit on 22 May 2020. Flight (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)