2026-01-07 04:28:43

There's a crucial distinction worth making: suppressing someone's ability to speak is fundamentally different from pursuing legal remedy when false statements cause real damage. When defamatory content spreads and causes harm, seeking restitution through the courts isn't about silencing discourse—it's about accountability for lies already circulating. That's precisely why I'm taking legal action against those spreading false claims about me. The line between censorship and justice matters.

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

21 Likes

Reward
21
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GasBankrupter

· 7h ago

Hey, this logic... Legal remedies vs. review, you really need to distinguish clearly. Not all "being sued" is about suppressing speech.

View OriginalReply0

GhostChainLoyalist

· 01-08 23:13

Hey, wait a minute. This logic seems a bit like trying to play the legal card. It feels somewhat justifiable but doesn't fully convince me...

View OriginalReply0

AllInAlice

· 01-08 04:42

Oh yeah, you're right. Rumor-mongering and defending rights are indeed two different things. If you're wrongfully accused, you have to stand your ground. Don't let those lies spread in vain.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidationSurvivor

· 01-07 04:56

Hey, I feel like this logic is a bit convoluted... Freedom of speech and legal responsibility definitely need to be discussed separately, but the real question is who gets to define what constitutes "false statements," right?

View OriginalReply0

SellLowExpert

· 01-07 04:52

This logic is flawless; defamation and freedom of speech cannot be confused. Holding someone accountable for lies does not equal silencing voices; these two are entirely different in nature.

View OriginalReply0

GamefiEscapeArtist