DISCUSSION TOPIC

Should An Attorney Seek To Surpress Opposing Viewpoints?

Lucy Craig's lolwyer Thomas Giuffra wants to shut down opposing viewpoints and has a team of low level idiots sending legal demands to everyone -and almost everyone is capitulating (not us, we will NEVER shut down). Should counsel be aggressively stifling free speech on a matter of public interest?

PUBLIC DISCUSSION

Comments & replies

No account is required. Comment anonymously, or sign in with a pseudonymous account if you want to manage your comments later. Comments are user speech, not editorial findings.

Anonymous2026-10-14 23:30 UTC #3479

I hope young men start to question the liberal brainwashing they've endured for past 20 years.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous2026-10-15 00:14 UTC #3482

What brainwashing?

Mainly liberal men here are using logic and reason to question the narrative that she was raped.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

Anonymous2026-10-18 20:34 UTC #4051

The problem is, liberal and conservative have drifted so far apart, becoming caricatures, to the point that liberals groom kids into gangbangs and experimenting recklessly, and conservatives protect the criminals amoungst themselves. A free thinking person can choose to adaot to facts rather than pick red or blue and follow blindly. I politicians werent such cunts, taking advantage of this tendancy to polarisation, conservatives would accept abortion, andl iberals would accept that immigration control is important. I am hoping Trump and epstein and puton and musk will be enough to caise republicans and democrats to become more centrist (you can see im just killing time until we are drip fed new information), thanks to the admins for the new resources and getting some more technical details

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 3

Anonymous2026-10-18 20:39 UTC #4052

We have submitted over 20 public records requests to various entities.

Waiting on the responses. Of course when we recieve something we will immediately publish it, without censorship (or without further redactions if we receive redacted material).

Anonymous2026-10-13 13:25 UTC #3149

It’s criminal to use her name. You are in contempt of court as you are putting her life in danger. You will be reported to the judge.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous2026-10-25 04:31 UTC #4388

So worth it

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous2026-10-25 00:38 UTC #4384

Hi Lucy Craig

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous2026-10-19 00:11 UTC #4058

If Lucy Craig doesn't like it, then Lucy H. Craig can eat 7 more cocks.

Lucy_Craig_meme_video.mp4

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous2026-10-14 18:09 UTC #3375

If you look in the mirror and say her name three times, she will appear and snort all your Ket

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

Anonymous2026-10-14 18:18 UTC #3378

Lucy Lucy Lucy

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous2026-10-13 17:32 UTC #3208

Can we all agree that naming the accused is unfair?

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

Anonymous2026-10-14 23:28 UTC #3478

People have a right in this country to face their accuser. If the men's names are out there then the woman's name should be out there too!

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

@janedoe12026-10-13 15:26 UTC #3177

There is not even an order permitting her to proceed as "Jane Doe" that restricts any participant from releasing or saying her name, let alone an order that can touch on a non-party, non-jurisdictional individual who has not had any opportunity to oppose such an order.

Stop falling for the narrative and learn the law, rules and policies before electing to share incorrect information / misinformation.

Anonymous2026-10-13 11:54 UTC #3124

By the site calling Doe’s attorney

A “lolwyer”

This site exposes

Its creators bias.

They say it’s about free-speech,

But that lie is just a cover.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous2026-10-13 17:33 UTC #3209

Was that your first clue? Now, go read her statement

Anonymous2026-10-11 18:45 UTC #2541

Hope all you men start to get it. The Dems are not your friends. This is a ploy for Hochul and James to score points with the public. The 7 boys here are the sacrifice. Give them what they deserve. Vote all these fckrs out this November.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous2026-10-12 04:48 UTC #2754

Dont protect paedos just because Jane Doe wants more buck for her bang

Anonymous2026-10-11 07:35 UTC #2401

If any attorney doesnt want the other side told, they should stfu until the case begins.

Anonymous2026-10-10 22:54 UTC #2272

Has his team sent a "demand" to you?

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

@janedoe12026-10-11 13:51 UTC #2472

Yes. A DMCA, of which we immediately ignored. We are not subject to United States jurisdiction, will never capitulation to censorship, or one side surpressing the other. Her lolwyer can snort key off our decks for all we care, we will not be deleting any comment, content, or material, even if we do not agree with it on an individual level. He could take the opportunity to say whatever he wants in the comments and it will not be censored. But, this site exists because he has his minions serving legal demands to platforms that cave to public pressure.

We stand on principle of free speech. The answer to speech we do not like is more speech, not censorship.

↳ Reply to @janedoe1 · Level 2

Anonymous2026-10-12 23:10 UTC #2972

They cave to LIBERAL pressure

↳ Reply to @janedoe1 · Level 2

Anonymous2026-10-11 16:44 UTC #2520

Fuck yeah! I love your stance on this. The one sided onslaught in the news is actually offensive and amounts to a type of hatw speech against men, and of ciurse people are frustrated or offended, but as a man society seeks to shame you at every turn.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous2026-10-11 11:04 UTC #2432

The blogger knows one of the boys which is why this biased site was created

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

@janedoe12026-10-11 13:48 UTC #2471

Completely unconnected to any party. I do not know any of the parties, their attorneys, the prosecutors, the judges, the officials or faculty, or any single individual remotely related to this incident. I just support all sides being heard and no one side getting a louder microphone because they have a report brigade.

↳ Reply to @janedoe1 · Level 3

Anonymous2026-10-13 12:00 UTC #3125

Nah,

You have an opinion.

Thats why you started this site.

Otherwise you would attach a nickname to the frat bros, like you have lolwyer and Big James……. But of course, you haven’t.

You’re just as lowly as the lawyer.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 4

Anonymous2026-10-19 00:17 UTC #4059

Bullshit. Free speech is a matter of principle for most of us. So those who want to censor the name "Lucy Craig" can suck my cock from the back :P

Our webmaster, I imagine, stands on similar libertarian grounds.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 5

@janedoe12026-10-19 00:43 UTC #4062

Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.

So it is that the Constitution protects coarse expression as well as refined, and vulgarity no less than elegance.

-Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966), Justice Potter Stewart — Dissenting Opinion (1966)

↳ Reply to @janedoe1 · Level 3

Anonymous2026-10-12 00:08 UTC #2682

Why have you started this site with a biased standpoint then? You want all sides to be heard....your side is at its highest volume

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 4

Anonymous2026-10-19 00:20 UTC #4060

No one's stopping anyone from posting their view, dimwit. Those who are pro-loosey will be mocked, but never muzzled.

Anonymous2026-10-10 14:52 UTC #1876

The responsible thing would have been to 1) not assume guilt, 2) hide the names of the accused, and 3) give a balanced reflection of the facts. Ethical reporting means giving both sides, which woukd have kept this shitshow under control, but tgat doesnt sell newspapers

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous2026-10-11 03:22 UTC #2348

Why is it her fault the media has done what they’ve done with the names? She didnt do that.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

Anonymous2026-10-19 00:25 UTC #4061

The firecrotch slut knew what she was doing. Lucy Craig wanted vengeance for her hurt feels. She thought she could commit slander from behind a veil of anonymity. By outing her, we're deterring future vindictive sluts from similar defamatory behavior.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

Anonymous2026-10-12 23:13 UTC #2973

Its her fault she's changing her story and filing suit and subsequentlyattemptingto destroy lives. Which Dem politician went looking to reopen this case? They did it to try and win an election this November. Its despicable

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 2

Anonymous2026-10-11 04:00 UTC #2349

Who said it was her fault? You inferred that because you are so biased, your reading level has regressed (or maybe your reading challenges are the source of your bias?)

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

Anonymous2026-10-11 00:15 UTC #2297

Yeah fuck NYT

Anonymous2026-10-09 23:36 UTC #1611

He's never heard of the Streisand Effect: the more he tries to stiffle speech, the more people will speak out.

↳ Reply to Anonymous · Level 1

@janedoe12026-10-11 13:53 UTC #2473

Exactly. Speech is free, censorship is expensive.