Yesterday, we told you about the blue-checked twerp who suggested that Ben Shapiro had blood on his hands following a shooting at a mosque in Quebec City:
'Go f**k yourself!' Ben Shapiro brutally DROPS blue-check blaming him and other Rightists for mosque shooting https://t.co/7RLEyXSQEk
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) April 17, 2018
Here’s what Nathan Bernard wrote:
All these islamophobic pieces of shit have blood on their hands now. Alexandre Bissonnette, who killed six people at a mosque in Quebec City frequently checked Twitter feeds of @benshapiro @cernovich @prisonplanet. Sickening pic.twitter.com/VLvmCCG4TY
— Nathan Bernard (@nathanTbernard) April 16, 2018
We covered Nathan Bernard’s obnoxious and inflammatory tweet. Because covering tweets is kind of our jam. And apparently, according to Nathan, that makes Twitchy guilty of … libel?
Hey @PolitiBunny, why didn't you contact me for comment here? This is extremely easy to prove as reckless libel. Really horrible, irresponsible and damaging journalism on your part. I'll be moving forward with all necessary actions, legal and otherwise. Good luck! @benshapiro https://t.co/F1AJA3Va8T
— Nathan Bernard (@nathanTbernard) April 18, 2018
Thanks, Nathan, but you can keep the luck. You’re the one who’s gonna need it.
You do realize that @TwitchyTeam is going to make a thread about this comment too, don't you?
— AgainstTrumpDude (@TheAmishDude) April 18, 2018
Oh hell yeah. We can’t wait to hear how posting an unaltered tweet in context constitutes “reckless libel.”
Show us on the doll where you felt you were abused pic.twitter.com/QEp5qklK5n
— G (@TCC_Grouchy) April 18, 2018
“It’s horrible, irresponsible, and damaging journalism” to post your tweets and the responses to those tweets? https://t.co/6bwhK3qXN9
— Some chick named Heather (@hboulware) April 18, 2018
Recommended
— Amy Curtis (@RantyAmyCurtis) April 18, 2018
Dude, do you even reality? Words, transmitted voluntarily by you in a public forum, are not libelous when repeated.
— Mike Letalien/Coach Crash (@Coach_Crash) April 18, 2018
So, copying and publishing your public tweets is somehow "reckless libel?" Maybe you're just not ready for the adult internet, yet. Go post pictures on Instagram.
— William Keane (@largebill68) April 18, 2018
Look up the requirements for libel. Then sit there and think about just how stupid you look. https://t.co/8GHkrdMCHd
— Post Mortem Bovine Tattooist (@AllanKirkhart) April 18, 2018
So just to clarify, YOU on a public forum basically call @benshapiro an accessory to a crime, but @TwitchyTeam and @PolitiBunny bout to get wrekt? Dafuq you smokin? Also why ain't you sharin'? pic.twitter.com/XEOwTSL4gj
— Rick Robinson (@RowdyRick73) April 18, 2018
What a joke. You can’t libel someone with their own words. That is what his tweet is. What he actually said ?
— Stacey (@ScotsFyre) April 18, 2018
What’s libelous, your tweet or her quoting YOUR tweet?
— The Dank Knight ? (@capeandcowell) April 18, 2018
It's "reckless libel" to publish someone's tweets? Huh.
*files lawsuit*
*nailed with Rule 11 sanctions* https://t.co/QKeDrLUIkb— Mo Mo (@molratty) April 18, 2018
Make sure you and your attorney have a SLAPP/Rule 11 fund. https://t.co/ExNKSL6qqf
— (((≠))) (@ThomasHCrown) April 18, 2018
Someone ought to slapp some sense into Nathan.
https://twitter.com/TheOpulentAmish/status/986635892889563136
"Excuse me, care to comment on your comment?"
No comment.
— Federalist Musket?? (@Patriot_Musket) April 18, 2018
https://twitter.com/TheOpulentAmish/status/986637207225036800
— Geoff “The Big Kahuna” Hall (@Skip1706) April 18, 2018
Ha! For what it’s worth, Jackie Chiles wouldn’t touch Bernard’s B.S. beef with a ten-foot pole. Maybe this guy?
https://twitter.com/TheOpulentAmish/status/986663593247588353
Snort.
the article ended with 'nuff said' so I guess there was no more room?
— Phil Braun (@playazball) April 18, 2018
While this may be the case it unfortunately does not change the libelous nature of the story. I agree it is important to see all sides of the story though, Phil. Hopefully @PolitiBunny has a thoughtful answer here.
— Nathan Bernard (@nathanTbernard) April 18, 2018
We’ve got nothing to answer for, thanks. Too bad the same can’t be said for you, Nathan.
The guy who said Ben Shapiro and others had blood on their hands because a killer visited their pages online is talking about "horrible, irresponsible, damaging journalism" when his own words were used in said piece?
What a sad, desperate, unintelligent sewer dweller. https://t.co/Zik4jKOvgY
— Kimberly Ross (@SouthernKeeks) April 18, 2018
You blamed him for mass murder. You should perhaps dial it back a few notches, sport.
— Mark “learn 2 code” C ?? (@UntraceableMC) April 18, 2018
No kidding.
https://twitter.com/OhioCoastie/status/986687328671490048
What a time to be alive.
I can't wait for Trump to sue every major news organization for "reckless libel" because they published his tweets. This is gonna be great. https://t.co/QKeDrLUIkb
— Mo Mo (@molratty) April 18, 2018
Editor’s note: This post has been updated with additional tweets.
***
Update:
Popehat offers free advice to the dolt who wants to sue Twitchy for 'reckless libel' https://t.co/UK7IaFdmZi
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) April 18, 2018
Join the conversation as a VIP Member