These are the current legal documents prepared for Honey Badger Brigade’s lawsuit against the Alberta Comic & Entertainment Expo Inc. Attached is also an invoice for consultation regarding our lawsuit and creation of these initial documents. We will pursue redress in Civil Court based on violations of the Fair Trading act and also argue that the Expo engaged in Injurious Falsehood against our business dealings. We will be serving the Alberta Comic & Entertainment Expo these documents when our review is complete, giving them additional time to respond before petitioning the court.
If you find any typos, errors, oversights in the following document or have questions, please leave a comment in the comment section below. Any and all input is valuable and will be considered carefully.
SCHEDULE “A”
- The Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $50,000 jointly and severally against the Defendants Alberta Comics and Entertainment Expo Inc. and The Mary Sue for injurious falsehood and also against the Defendant Alberta Comics and Entertainment Expo Inc. for breach of contract and against The Mary Sue for inducing breach of contract. These damages include special and general damages including for loss of opportunity, loss of future pecuniary and other benefits and aggravated, punitive and exemplary damages.
- The Plaintiff seeks against the Defendant Alberta Expo International Inc.:
- A Declaration that the Defendant has treated the Plaintiff in a whimsical, arbitrary and discriminatory manner, has denied it freedom of expression and maliciously vilified and falsely maligned the Plaintiff’s views and conduct at the Alberta Expo, 2015; and,
- An order from this Court enjoining this Defendant from denying the Plaintiff the right to participate in all future expositions held under its aegis and restraining it from falsely maligning the Plaintiff and circulating false statements about the Plaintiff in its communications to the public and third parties;
SCHEDULE “B”
- The Plaintiff, Alison Tieman, resides in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. She operates as the Honey Badgers Brigade (hereafter referred to as “HBB”), an informal group of mostly women who write and take part in the gamer and geek culture and in particular, promote the view that women should not be portrayed as victims in such culture in weekly podcasts. The Plaintiff opposes the portrayal of men as abusers of women and as the primary promoters of unequal treatment and discrimination against women. Honey Badgers Brigade was started in or about August, 2013 by Alison Tieman along with Karen Straughan and Hannah Wallen who were also involved in the formation of the group. Tieman sues in her personal capacity and as an identified leader of HBB.
- Alison Tieman is founder of the HBB. Karen Straughan and Hannah Wallen are spokespersons for HBB and are founding hosts.
- The Plaintiff is a comic artist and creator of the Xenospora Web Comic which she had been working on for seven years as of the date of the events described in this Claim.
- Due to the central and prominent role of Alison Tieman in HBB, the Plaintiff pleads that all injuries and wrongs done to or directed against HBB also affected her personally and accordingly, she is entitled to claim for all injuries and damages sustained by HBB as if they were caused directly to her.
- The general purpose of HBB is to inform and communicate to the public its views regarding issues involving gender in culture, to deal with marginalized gender issues and promote discussion between different viewpoints as well as to promote ethical journalism.
- The HBB challenges the portrayal of men as strong and stoic who do not have vulnerabilities and the portrayal of women as weak, passive and vulnerable. HBB opposes the mainstream media’s perception that creates a distorted narrative about men and women and erases from public purview institutional pressures and social treatment that harm both men and women. The Plaintiff opposes the perception that women are passive victims of men and are incapable of asserting themselves.
- The Plaintiff concedes that the views which she promotes are views that are often contrary to the representations made by dominant media sources in the gaming culture establishment.
- The Defendant, The Mary Sue, is a daily internet newsletter which promotes itself as the premier destination for entertainment geeks. It provides coverage of movies, comics and television/movie fandom. The Mary Sue maintains its internet website at themarysue.com and maintains its head office at 1261 Broadway, Suite 508, New York, New York, 10001 U.S.A.
- The Defendant Alberta Comics and Entertainment Expo Inc. (hereafter referred to as “Alberta Expo”), is a corporation duly incorporated pursuant to the laws of the Dominion of Canada. It operates, inter alia, an annual comic and pop culture exposition which takes place in Calgary, Alberta. Starting in 2006, the convention has become the second largest convention of its kind in Canada. During its 2015 exposition, it attracted approximately 97,000 visitors, primarily from across Canada and the United States.
- Some time prior to the event, the Plaintiff became aware that the Defendant Alberta Expo would hold its annual exhibition emphasizing comics, science fiction, horror, fantasy and pop culture between April 16 to 19, 2015 in Calgary, Alberta. The Plaintiff accordingly filed an application to register as an exhibitor at the Expo in order to set up a booth promoting its podcast as well as to sell related products and to benefit her career as an artist and comic book creator through her Xenosphora website. The Plaintiff’s booth was identified by Alberta Expo as BF3821. The acceptance of the Plaintiff’s application constituted a binding contract in law.
- The Plaintiff and other HBB adherents expended considerable time, money and effort to publicize their presence at the exposition to its members, supporters and others in various locations including in the United States and throughout Canada. She incurred expenses including paying the registration fee and purchasing material and other resources necessary to set up the booth in the Big Four Building at the exposition which was being held on the Calgary Stampede grounds over the three and a half day period. Alision Tieman through HBB was able to raise over $9,000 from its dedicated fan base to set up its promotional booth.
- On the first day of the Exposition, Thursday April 17, 2015, the Plaintiff attended a panel discussion on the topic of “Women Into Comics” being held as part of the Expo program. At the panel discussion, in response to a statement made by one of the panelists, Alison Tieman politely asked to speak from the audience and was given permission to do so.
- The Plaintiff spoke briefly. Her comments initiated a discussion involving other panel members. Other members of the audience also interjected with their own viewpoints. The result was a lively exchange involving diverse viewpoints. Alison Tieman raised issues about the way men as well as women were portrayed in comics which struck a note with all the panelists and which also resulted in an interplay of opinions regarding the lack of representation of people of colour in comics. As well, Alison Tieman advanced the view that the version of feminism articulated by some members of the panel was too quick to embrace victimhood for women, portraying them too often as mere “damsels in distress”.
- Throughout the Panel program, Alison Tieman was not violent, threatening or disrespectful. Alison Tieman did nothing that could be interpreted as harassing or disruptive behavior although there was a clear disagreement with some of the views of some of the panel members. Tieman did not engage in any violation of the stated policy of Alberta Expo and did not use abusive language. She did nothing that would in any way create a negative or unsafe environment.
- Following the Panel program, Alison Tieman returned to help manage the HBB booth. A number of people approached the booth who were already fans or were either interested in its art work and the comics and posters on display or simply curious. There was no conflict or confrontation or complaint during this time. No member of the Defendant Alberta Expo’s staff approached the persons attending to the management of the HBB booth to complain or warn the group about any inappropriate behavior.
- On the morning of Friday April 18, 2015, Alison Tieman along with Hannah Wallen and other supporters of HBB, Sage Gerard and Mike Stephenson, took the first shift in operating the booth. Shortly after arriving at the booth, they were approached by a Alberta Expo staff member, Shayne Henkleman, two security guards and another member of the Alberta Expo staff.
- Up to this point, Alberta Expo staff had made no complaint or expressed any concern to the Plaintiff regarding the HBB’s participation in the Alberta Expo. Although there was an apparent concern about complying with fire safety regulations as a result of the back of the exhibit booth extruding six inches and a request for information regarding fire safety compliance, Alison Tiemen complied with both requests immediately and to the apparent satisfaction of Alberta Expo management.
- Notwithstanding the above, and to their utter astonishment, Shayne Henkleman acting for the Defendant Alberta Expo, ordered Alison Tieman and the other persons involved in maintaining the booth to tear it down and remove it, as well as themselves, within ten minutes, from the premises. This demand could not be complied with without causing damage to the booth and its contents.
- Henkleman gave no on-the-record reason for the ejection. However, on condition of privacy, and off the record, Shayne Henkleman stated that the reason for the expulsion was the participation of HBB in the panel discussion during the previous evening. While he described such conduct as harassing, Henkleman gave no particulars of any specific behavior or any explanation why the participation of HBB in the discussion was considered harassment. He did however, indicate that there were multiple complaints on social media about the Plaintiff without giving any details as to who made the complaints or whether any effort was made to determine if the complaints were substantiated.
- Further the Plaintiff was never made aware of or told that an investigation into her conduct had taken place as the Defendant Alberta Expo was required to do pursuant to its contract with the Plaintiff. At no time did the Defendant Alberta Expo ask the HBB for its own account or description of any untoward event that occurred during the panel discussion. Instead, Henkleman repeatedly insisted that the Plaintiff summarily disassemble the booth that took three or four hours to set up so that it would not be visible by the time the doors were opened to the visitors at the Expo.
- The expulsion took place notwithstanding the fact that the Plaintiff and members of the HBB were not given any notice of their eviction and therefore had not brought the required tools or protective covering for the safe removal of art installation components in their booth. The persons who were specifically ejected from the participation with the HBB booth included the Plaintiff and her co-members Hannah Wallen, Karen Straughan, Anna Cherry, Rachel Edwards, Mike Stephenson and Brian Martinez.
- At the time that they were evicted, the Plaintiff and other members of the HBB were told they would be banned for a period of ten years from participating as exhibitors at its future events.
- The conduct authorized by the Defendant Alberta Expo as described above contravened the oral representations as well as written policies and procedures outlined in Alberta Expo’s materials advanced to registrants and in particular, the policies of the Defendant Alberta Expo which specifically applied to its dealings with registrants. These specified that registrants were to be given advanced warnings and requests to cease behavior that was inconsistent with their contractual obligations prior to any further action being taken for any alleged breach.
- On April 18 and April 19, 2015, the Plaintiff, in order to mitigate the damages sustained by her, arranged to establish its presence in a public park, Reader Rock Garden, near the convention grounds, thereby providing an opportunity to many of its fans who had arrived to attend the Expo to meet Alison Tieman and the HBB.
- Although the Plaintiff and others convened there peacefully on the afternoon of both days, on April 19, 2015, security staff at the Expo Convention gathered directly across the street from the HBB gathering and called the Calgary municipal police to attend at the park. The police informed the Plaintiff that Alberta Expo security personnel had called them with concerns that HBB might “crash” the Alberta Expo in protest or otherwise cause trouble. The presence of the police and security guards was intimidating, unnecessary and baseless. It exhibited a clear malicious attempt by the Defendant Alberta Expo to interfere with the ability of the Plaintiff to interact with persons who had come, in one case travelling 36 hours, to attend the Expo in order to be able to interact with the Plaintiff.
- The Plaintiff did not violate any policy or rule that was contained in her contract with the Defendant. The management of Alberta Expo acted throughout willfully and maliciously in response to unsubstantiated allegations of alleged harassment made on social media, especially as a result of the conduct of the co-Defendant, The Mary Sue, as set forth in the paragraph below.
- Alberta Expo failed to investigate the allegations made by The Mary Sue or as a result of its allegations which it knew or ought to have known were false. It gave absolute credence to these patently hostile hearsay statements, most of which were prejudicial in nature. Alberta Expo’s conduct and The Mary Sue’s articles constituted distorted misrepresentations of HBB’s views and actions during the aforesaid Panel discussion. Alberta Expo intentionally repeated these false allegations made against the Plaintiff to the public and media which falsely characterized the Plaintiff’s booth displays and views. Alberta Expo’s acts constituted efforts at censorship based on disagreement with the Plaintiff’s booth displays and transmission of its views and opinions and amounted to efforts at thought control and censorship.
- The Defendant, The Mary Sue published the offending article on or about April 17, 2015 on its website internet magazine written by Jill Pantozzi entitled “[UPDATED] Members of Gamergate Planned to “infiltrate” Alberta Expo to Actively Disrupt Panels, Alberta Expo has Evicted Them” as well as an earlier version that was not updated. The article disparaged the Plaintiff and the participation of the HBB in the Alberta Expo. A number of allegations were made in that article which was broadly circulated on the internet and read by numerous third parties. It knowingly, intentionally and maliciously made the following false allegations regarding the Plaintiff:
- That Honey Badgers Radio (which was understood to refer to the Plaintiff) was affiliated with gamergate(Although in fact the HBB does express support for Gamergate’s stated aim of ethics in journalism);
- That the Plaintiff procured the booth for the Alberta Expo under false pretenses;
- That the conduct of the Plaintiff at the Panel discussion and at the Alberta Expo involved harassment and breached the rules of its contract with Alberta Expo;
- As a result of the publication of the aforesaid allegations by The Mary Sue, which were reprinted and re-tweeted to other third parties and which were directly communicated to the co-Defendant for the purpose of inducing it to breach its contract with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff sustained pecuniary harm in selling the merchandise which was brought to the Alberta Expo booth and its efforts to promote HBB and its products and commercial prospects. The false and disparaging comments published by The Mary Sue also dissuaded persons from engaging in and refusing to have any contact or purchasing merchandise from the Plaintiff.
- The allegations in The Mary Sue article were communicated to the co-Defendant Alberta Expo directly and, through the earlier version of the article, which induced Alberta Expo to breach its contract with the Plaintiff. Alberta Expo accepted the allegations as set forth above as unassailable. The Mary Sue article also resulted in Alberta Expo noting various commentaries that flowed from the publication of The Mary Sue article in social media. These contained further disparaging and negative comments regarding the Plaintiff based upon the false belief that the distorted contents of The Mary Sue article were accurate.
- The Defendant, The Mary Sue, is affiliated with Alberta Expo which also posted a tweet linking it to the aforesaid article and purported to rely on the contents of the article as justification for expelling the Plaintiff from the Expo.
- On or about May 14, 2015, the Plaintiff, for the first time, was given an unsigned written explanation by the Defendant Alberta Expo for its expulsion and ban from the Alberta Expo and its subsequent decision preventing the Plaintiff from being able to participate as exhibitors in the Edmonton Expo and Saskatoon Expo also operated by the Defendant. Alberta Expo gave two reasons for decisions. Although one of those reasons stated that the material on display at the HBB booth was in breach of unspecified Alberta Expo rules and policies, Alberta Expo did not specify in what respect the displays at the booth constituted such a breach. In fact, the displays were totally inoffensive, consistent with the themes of the exposition and its mandate and was not in any respect offensive or inappropriate or in breach of the aforesaid contract.
- With respect to the second reason given in the unsigned May 14, 2015 correspondence from the Defendant Alberta Expo; namely, that the behavior of HBB members at the panel discussion on the evening of April 16, 2015 breached the rules and policies of the Defendant Alberta Expo, the Plaintiff pleads that it had the right to expect and be able to exercise its right to freedom of expression during the panel discussion that took place. The Plaintiff intends to rely on a verbatim tape recording of the panel discussion that at least two of its members attended at the trial of this action in order to establish that its participation from the floor in the panel’s deliberations did not violate its contract with the Defendant, Alberta Expo.
- The Plaintiff’s involvement in gender issues, pop culture and the geek/nerd culture made it logical and legitimate that it would attend the aforesaid panel discussion and seek to participate in it.
- To this date, the Defendant Alberta Expo has still failed to identify any specific item on display at the Plaintiff’s booth that breached the Defendant’s policies nor any specific statement made by members of HBB that was in breach of its policies.
- The Defendant Alberta Expo banned HBB and shut down its booth solely because it disagreed with the Plaintiff’s falsely portrayed views. The Plaintiff will rely at trial on a statement made by the Defendant Alberta Expo that HBB “does not fall in line with [our] mandate” which the Defendant Alberta Expo made public and which the Plaintiff contests. In addition to being motivated by animus against the Plaintiff and the HBB because of its views, its booth displays and its products, Alberta Expo also conducted itself in the manner described herein because of the Plaintiff’s falsely alleged associations with persons and/or groups in the gaming culture, such as gamergate, that the Defendant Alberta Expo considered unsavoury. Such motivation amounted to condemning the Plaintiff because of alleged guilt by association.
- The justification for the expulsion and ban by the Defendant Alberta Expo in its communications to the Plaintiff, Alison Tieman and others, banning the Plaintiff and any associated organizations or persons including other potential exhibitors was unreasonable, without foundation in fact or law and in breach of its contract. These reasons should be discounted entirely by this honourable Court as a ruse to discriminate and censor the Plaintiff and her views.
- The Defendant Alberta Expo’s rules and regulations are replete with boilerplate provisions reflecting unequal bargaining power between the parties and amounted to giving Alberta Expo unfettered discretion in breach of fundamental principles of contract law. Alberta Expo’s reliance on generalized terms was oppressive and abusive. It did not provide meaningful notice of prohibited conduct and should not be treated as legally enforceable terms of the contract.
- The Plaintiff further alleges that the unilateral terms and conditions imposed upon registrants were not subject to amendment or good faith negotiation. The arbitrary interpretation made by the Defendant Alberta Expo of these terms and their harsh enforcement reflected its dominant monopolistic position which left the Plaintiff vulnerable and subject to arbitrary and whimsical abuse.
- The Defendant Alberta Expo also made representations to the Plaintiff that were clearly not the case and breached those representations with respect to both procedural and substantive matters. There was inconsistency with respect to the manner in which the Defendant conducted itself and the obligations that arose from the agreement that it had with the Plaintiff. Such conduct constitutes the imposition of unfair trading practices and is therefore in breach of the Fair Trading Act, R.S.A. 2002.
- The Plaintiff relies on section 4 of the Fair Trading Act, R.S.A. 2000 Ch. F-2 which requires that the contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant be interpreted against the Defendant’s interest. The Fair Trading Act is also relied on as conclusive evidence of community standards with respect to what constitutes fair conduct in a commercial transaction.
- The Plaintiff further relies on Part II of the aforesaid Fair Trading Act and states that the Defendant engaged in an unfair practice in its dealings with the Plaintiff by imposing non-negotiable terms in the agreement with the Plaintiff which were grossly unfair. The Defendant Alberta Expo relied on these terms to breach the terms and policies applicable to the transaction which required the Plaintiff to submit to ambiguous and unspecified conditions and policies and which imposed one-sided obligations on the Plaintiff. These terms did not allow the Plaintiff to question such treatment or defend herself.
- The terms of the imposed conditions and policies in the agreement should not be enforced against the Plaintiff as they were harsh and unconscionable, overly broad and without any limit as to their meaning and effect. Both the conditions of registration imposed on the Plaintiff as well as in its interpretation of those conditions and its subsequent conduct, the Defendant Alberta Expo breached its duty of fair dealing in its performance and enforcement of the contract, interpreted the agreement solely and exclusively with its own perceived and unrestricted interests and views in mind and treated the Plaintiff punitively and disproportionately to any alleged breach.
- To the extent that the Defendant Alberta Expo relies on its agreement with the Plaintiff as justification for its conduct, it is submitted that this Honourable Court should give no force or effect to such reliance as it has also resulted in arbitrary censorship, discrimination and denial of freedom of expression.
- The Plaintiff relies on the doctrine of waiver and estoppel. Alberta Expo by its conduct and its initial communications with the Plaintiff waived any alleged concerns that it later used to justify the expulsion of the Plaintiff from the Alberta Expo convention and its ban from other expositions under its aegis in Edmonton and Saskatchewan and is therefore, estopped in law from such conduct.
- The Plaintiff further relies on the doctrine of detrimental reliance. The Defendant Alberta Expo made misrepresentations to the Plaintiff which the Plaintiff relied on to her detriment but which Alberta Expo intentionally failed to honour, thereby causing the Plaintiff pecuniary and other harm.
- The Defendants, by their conduct as described above, are both jointly and severally liable for the losses and injuries sustained by the Plaintiff.
- As a result of the conduct of both Defendants, the Plaintiff has incurred financial losses and general damages. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the damages caused to the Plaintiff includes distress, embarrassment, loss of opportunity to sell her goods and specific financial losses including the following:
Honey Badger Brigade
- Booth cost $ 650.00
- Electricity $ 250.00
- Parking $ 250.00
- Badges $ 740.00
- Lodgings $1000.00
- Travel $3855.90
- Podium $ 467.00
- Kiosk $ 824.63
- Bagging Supplies $ 159.12
- Shipping $ 69.81
- Misc Supplies $ 264.90
- Lost convention income($675/day) $2360.00
- Lost Patreon income $1800.00
Total: 12691.36$
Xenospora
- Lost pole $ 562.50
- Damaged stretch fabric funnel $ 586.11
- Backdrop cost $ 1503.50
- Stretch shapes $ 387.63
- LEDs $ 1217.63
- iPad Enclosure(till) $ 351.04
- Travel(Sage Gerard) $ 593.10
- Per Diem Alison(75$/day) $ 450.00
- Lost income convention sales* $14000.00
- Lost income sales $ 135.00
* 35 comic books per convention at 20$/book for 10 years, assuming no increase in popularity.
Total: 19786.51$
Alternative Rewards Cost
- Travel(Alt. Rewards) $3996.87
- Lodging(Alt. Rewards) $1350.00
- Food Costs $ 485.30
Total: 5832.17$
Costs specific to HB members and volunteers
- Mike Stephenson $3210.00
- Brian Martinez To Be Updated
- Anna Cherry To Be Updated
- Hannah Wallen To Be Updated
- Karen Strughan To Be Updated
- Sage Gerard To Be Updated
Total: 3210.00$
TOTAL SPECIFIC LOSSES(will be updated): 41520.04$
- Alberta Expo’s conduct as described above has been heinous, arbitrary, wanton, harsh and abusive. It is manifestly inconsistent with a culture of tolerance and principles of freedom of expression which the Defendant Alberta Expo hypocritically espouses. Accordingly, the Plaintiff will seek aggravated, punitive and exemplary damages and the Declarations that would inhibit the Defendant Alberta Expo and enjoin it from similar conduct.
Harry Kopyto is legal activist and advocate with more than forty years experience in representing dissidents and marginalized persons and communities. Mr. Kopyto won the largest human rights award in the history of Canada—a quarter of a milion for discrimination against a black nurse--as well as overturned a section of the Criminal Code (scandalizing the court law) that was used to restrict criticism of the judicial system.
Mr. Kopyto's legal career includes cases that affect women’s rights, prisoners’ rights, the rights of the aged and the handicapped and unions’ rights. He has established legal precedents for gays, minorities, disabled persons, tenants, youth, the elderly, working people, poor people and victims of police brutality.
Mr. Kopyto's legal career includes cases that affect women’s rights, prisoners’ rights, the rights of the aged and the handicapped and unions’ rights. He has established legal precedents for gays, minorities, disabled persons, tenants, youth, the elderly, working people, poor people and victims of police brutality.
Latest posts by Harry Kopyto (see all)
- Calgary Expo Lawyer: “I was uninformed about my client’s name” - June 23, 2016
- Honey Badger Brigade Legal Documents - October 6, 2015
- Legal Draft Calgary Expo Expulsion Honey Badger Brigade July 14th, 2015 - July 14, 2015
by 
20. …to provide an opportunity to many of its fans who had planned to attend the expo…
did you intend “…to meet many…”
You asked for spelling corrections… Karen’s last name is spelled wrong the in parts 1 and 2 of Schedule B, and in the list of Costs Specific to Volunteers.
<❶❷❸.%@^@^@^!^!^!^!^.. ??????????+honeyb+.This is simple with ◕^^◕. horseracingnation ◕^^◕…. “> < Read more info here='' ……..''
Your argument is weakest in paragraph 22: “In fact, the display was totally inoffensive …” This is a highly contestable point. GamerGate is entrenched with harassment and abuse (on both sides). To many, GamerGate posters are offensive because of the perceived culture surrounding the movement and the animosity associated with it.
They meant inoffensive to sane people.
They respond to everything by smearing, I expect that to be the entirety of their defense too, including comparisons with the KKK or comparing displaying the GG logo with displaying a swastika, citing articles form the media blitz.
Or the Calgary Expo can just point to the overwhelmingly negative reaction on social media when word got out that a booth was displaying GamerGate posters. I saw some of the biggest names in comics industry — Mark Waid, Scott Snyder, Dan Slott, Kurt Busiek, etc. — say they would not want to attend a convention that supported GamerGate.
CalEx have only ever indirectly made reference to a single tweet. So there was no overwhelmingly negative reaction UNTIL word got round they were being booted – the reaction was in support of HBB being booted, not to boot them. After the fact, not before.
That’s not true. I watched it unfold on my Twitter page as the news was breaking. Mark Waid, especially, tweeted about how he’d be uncomfortable at a convention taking money from GamerGate and asked his fellow professionals if they’d agree. After he made those tweets, people replied to them to tell him about the ban, which he supported.
And even if most of the negative reaction came out after the ban, how does that change anything? Lots of people spoke out against the idea of GamerGate being at conventions.
Including the day of set-up CalEx had a number of opportunities to check the Stalls and exhibitors (as Expo’s are constantly require to as part of THEIR obligations to public safety) and allegedly did not voice any concerns at any time. Either they were remiss in THEIR duties to secure the place, or they DID NOT see a problem with either the material or the way HBB were presenting or conducting themselves. Again, this entire issue kicked off on Twitterstan because of Racheal’s (iirc) twitter pictures of the stall and posters. No-one attending CalEx itself made any compliant about anything (as far as has been made public).
Didn’t the Honey Badger Brigade report overhearing other people discuss the need to shut their booth down on the first day? I believe the first document referenced that incident, but the updated version seems to have omitted it. But if that story was true, then there were some complaints from people actually at the convention.
Hannah overheard a staff member and unidentified persons saying that they had to shut some booths down while gesturing to our booth. We approached the staff member in question and inquired further and he said we were fine.
Precisely. While this incident was not an “official” complaint, it still serves as an early indication of hostility toward the booth, right?
If CalEx had an issue with HBB they are bound by their own terms to arbitrate, not summarily boot (unless the transgression is particularly egregious). Without there being an “official” complaint there is no complaint – there has to be one for them to be protected under their own terms of service.
And what are the requirements of said complaint? Can a tweet count as an official complaint? Can a conversation with a staff member count?
It’s funny you should ask that (un-ironically) as it’s partly why HBB are pursuing legal action; to get answers to those very same questions.
He did not say we were fine. He denied that the conversation had occurred, and then he said it wasn’t about us, contradicting his claim that it hadn’t occurred by talking about it as if it had.
HBB overheard a general, non-specific conversation between (alleged) staff members that “some booths” needed to be closed whilst gesturing in their general direction. There is NO indication HBB were being specifically singled out (confirmed by HBB going out of their way to find out). CalEx have not been forthcoming with any information about their motivations so until information to the contrary arises the point still stands that no-one in attendance at CalEx made any complaint about HBB.
Taking money from GamerGate? That right there is the mischaracterisation promoted by the defendants and in error. HBB is not affiliated with GamerGate and GamerGate did NOT fund their booth or expenses. HBB may support GamerGate goals but that is an entirely different matter.
“Taking money from GamerGate” was a paraphrase of Mark Waid’s original tweets on the subject. It essentially was a short version for “taking money from groups that support GamerGate.”
This new version of the document contains a line that I can’t help but laugh at. The Honey Badger Brigade is accusing TheMarySue of saying they were “affiliated with gamergate(Although in fact the HBB does express support for Gamergate’s stated aim of ethics in journalism).” It makes me laugh to see this group become so angry at the insinuation of being affiliated with GamerGate. The Honey Badger Brigade readily admits that is supports GamerGate, and proudly displayed GamerGate propaganda at the convention, and regularly talks about GamerGate on its podcast and website. But they’ll threaten to sue anyone who dares suggest they’re affiliated with GamerGate.
The Mary Sue alleging HBB is affiliated with GG damaged HBB not because HBB agree GG is something bad to be affiliated with (if they felt that way, they wouldn’t have had GG related items on their stall), but because:
Publications like the Mary Sue have done everything in their power to paint an incredibly negative picture of GG such that anyone associated with GG is tainted by that perception;
Their readership and following do not question this image, and act out in their outrage (you’ve seen people’s responses to the idea of GG having a stall at conventions, so I assume you understand how an individual or business can be harmed by this sort on reaction);
TMS alleged GG had infiltrated the expo, when in fact HBB were there in a non-GG capacity, to promote HBB and Alison’s work and interact with fans of HBB and Alison’s comic. Not only is that allegation false, it is damaging because it accuses HBB of being there under false pretenses and skews public opinion to be against HBB. In making this allegation, TMS took an obviously tongue-in-cheek and satirical post made by HBB (regarding their being be at the expo) out of context to support the allegation, and to prejudice their readership (including potential customers/ fans etc. of HBB/Alison) against HBB.
My read of that point (and perhaps it could be made clearer, if my understanding is not far off), is that TMS invoked the negative public and media perception of GG to declare HBB guilty, to support HBB’s expulsion from the expo.
Regardless what GG is or how affiliated HBB are with GG, there’s no denying the media and opponents of GG will punish businesses and organisations for any (perceived or real) association with it.
Paragraph 28 states that The Mary Sue “knowingly, intentionally and maliciously” made the false allegation that the Honey Badger Brigade was affiliated to GamerGate. That is not a false allegation. Regardless of how slanted the story was presented, regardless of the blog’s agenda, it did not lie on this point. The Honey Badger Brigade’s association with GamerGate is an indisputable fact. Association may have been a better word than affiliation, but the difference is minor.
I also think it will be hard for the Honey Badger Brigade to prove that The Mary Sue “knowingly, intentionally and maliciously” made the false allegations “that the Plaintiff procured the booth for the Alberta Expo under false pretenses” and “that the conduct of the Plaintiff at the Panel discussion and at the Alberta Expo involved harassment and breached the rules of its contract with Alberta Expo.” With the information available at the time, both of these scenarios were quite likely. The booth was only linked to the webcomic, and there were reports that the group violated the anti-harassment policy.
And even this biased story included several links to videos of the Honey Badger Brigade telling their story in their own words. Don’t get me wrong, it was an unbalanced reporting job. But legally, I believe it meets the bare minimum requirements to avoid the standard of knowingly and intentionally spreading false allegations.
You’re out of your depth here, m8. Better stop trolling with your full name on display.
I stand by everything I say. This is my real face and this is my real name. I’m not trying to troll — I’m trying to stay on topic and provide level-headed responses to my argument that this lawsuit will fail.
The distinction is very important – #GamerGate has raised funds for specific charities and projects so it was important to specify that the HBB being at the Expo was not in any way funded by GG. It is also relevant to point out that #GamerGate unites a VERY wide and diverse community focused on 2 main areas of concern 1. Ethics in Gaming Journalism and 2 . Resisting politically motivated attempts to ENFORCE a particular narrative in gaming (aka “SJW interference” for short). #GamerGate puts consumer interest first and that is where it should be seeing that it is the consumer that pays the wages and bills. Even though comic art alone isn’t gaming strictly speaking the two areas are nevertheless very closely related and such graphic artists are often employed by game manufacturers as well as providing the gaming world with the inspiration for many titles. #GamerGate is not a negative unless you are siding with the arrogant bossy know it all’s that want to have Stalinist like control on gaming or are a part of corrupt media that also wants a stranglehold on the narrative to enable them to get away with anything with impunity. Which are you by the way Dallin?
The Mary Sue article never said the Honey Badger Brigade was funded by GamerGate. It very clearly said the group used its own crowdfunding campaign. The article did refer to the Honey Badger Brigade as “members of GamerGate” and a “GamerGate affiliated group.” For the purpose of this lawsuit, neither of those statements are an intentional, malicious lie.
Except that #GamerGate is not a group and therefore you cannot have members. #GamerGate is a hashtag for the purposes of coalescing consensus and support for ideas. There is no rules or “membership” conditions – anyone can post to the hashtag. I will say though that #GamerGate has been overall a very positive phenomena because again overall the consensus has been built around very positive goals ie championing the rights and reasonable expectations of consumers and resisting attempts to impose SJW agendas on the gaming community.
And how is that an intentional and malicious false allegation? The way you talk about GamerGate, you’d think the Honey Badger Brigade would be thrilled to be linked to such a noble movement.
You are switching topics – I did not address that in my response but while we are on the topic since “affiliation” describes an official connection to a group or organisation the HB were not affiliated with #GamerGate for reasons I have already clearly explained. For the record – I don’t speak for the HB but personally speaking I am proud that I have supported the hashtag as a means to effectively campaign for ethics in gaming journalism and resisting close minded SJW interference in gaming.
You have failed to explain how The Mary Sue story knowingly, intentionally and maliciously spread false allegations against the Honey Badger Brigade.
Your first argument was that the article implied GamerGate funded the Honey Badgers, since GamerGate “has raised funds for specific charities and projects.”
You then contradicted yourself by saying GamerGate is not a group and cannot have members. How can an entity raise money for charity and not be considered a group?
And throughout all this, you have gone to great lengths to show me how wonderful GamerGate is. If GamerGate solely is a positive phenomenon that raises money for charity and improves journalism ethics, then it is not a malicious allegation to say the Honey Badger Brigade is affiliated with GamerGate.
My argument is that describing the Honey Badger Brigade as a GamerGate-affiliated group is not a false allegation. You have failed to explain to me why it is false or malicious.
You said “You have failed to explain how The Mary Sue story knowingly,
intentionally and maliciously spread false allegations against the Honey
Badger Brigade.”
I have no obligation to answer for an allegation I never made. I am quite satisfied that the HB legal team will deal quite effectively with TMS role is this affair.
You also said
“Your first argument was that the article implied GamerGate funded the
Honey Badgers, since GamerGate “has raised funds for specific charities
and projects.”
Nope wrong again – I simply gave MY opinion on why I would not describe the HB as being “affiliated” with GamerGate – I chose to highlight the lack of any financial support from GamerGate raised funds as being IN MY OPINION an important distinction – I made no comment whatsoever on what TMS actually wrote or did not write.
You wrote:
“You then contradicted yourself by saying GamerGate is not a group and
cannot have members. How can an entity raise money for charity and not
be considered a group?”
First of all you yourself earlier in this thread acknowledged that GG was a twitter hashtag. How can it raise money you ask – easy you simply use one of the online fundraising platforms that allows individuals to raise money for their selected cause or charity. An individual who supports the GG hashtag may do this then tweet about the cause or charity asking for donations. There is no requirement to be a “group” or to have any seperate “entity” other then the individual who sets up the fundraiser with one of these platforms. Crowdrise is one such fundraising platform as described if you are interested.
You said:
“And throughout all this, you have gone to great lengths to show me how
wonderful GamerGate is. If GamerGate solely is a positive phenomenon
that raises money for charity and improves journalism ethics, then it is
not a malicious allegation to say the Honey Badger Brigade is
affiliated with GamerGate.”
I did not say “it was a malicious allegation to say the Honey Badger Brigade is
affiliated with GamerGate”.
I chose to offer my opinion that it would be wrong to describe the HB as being “affiliated” with GG.
You can keep trying to put words into my mouth as long as you like – this will be settled in court. I should also point out (lest you waste any more of your time) that I am neither a plaintiff nor a defendant in this case. I am not a lawyer of barrister either – I may offer my opinion or I may not – either way it will have no bearing on the final outcome.
Have a nice day.
Don’t accuse me of putting words in your mouth or changing the topic when you’re having difficulty following the discussion. The topic on hand is the merit of the Honey Badger Brigade’s legal draft, in which they accused The Mary Sue of intentionally and maliciously spread false allegations.
Yes, I know you’re only offering your opinion, as well as you should know I’m only offering mine. It seems you were so determined to prove me wrong in something, you quoted my paraphrase of your argument, then essentially repeated the same argument with the added “IN MY OPINION.” The slightly different wording did not change the intent or message.
And I know GamerGate at its root is a Twitter hashtag, but you must admit it is much more than that. There are entire websites dedicated to the movement, posters, mascots, merchandise, and a unifying factor that inspires people to act in the name of GamerGate. Even if there are no formal requirements or organized leadership, it is still a group.
Keep in mind that I am not attacking you or anyone personally. I am, and always have been, attacking this fundamentally flawed legal document. This is one of many replies to my original post pointing out one of my biggest areas of concern with this document.
It’s very clear that you were focused ONLY on those objecting because on my twitter feed the vast majority showed nothing but strong support for the HBB.
I was mostly referring to the industry professionals and celebrities discussing the topic. I saw a lot of award-winning, best-selling comic book creators speak out against GamerGate and a convention that GamerGate groups. I did not see any of these influential creators come to the defense of GamerGate or the Honey Badger Brigade.
Sucks to be him then, we’re everywhere. One would be hard pushed to find a convention not taking money from GG people in some form.
The “overwhelming” negative reaction?
So you believe that censorship is just dandy as long as the “majority” support it?
I wonder how that would have worked out had those rules been applied to, oh, say, Martin Luther King?
This was not a case of censorship. The Honey Badger Brigade was allowed to set up a booth and participate in the panel. They were only told to leave after people complained about them. This is a case of possibly improper and unduly harsh expulsion, but not censorship.
And do not compare the plight of a Twitter hashtag to the Civil Rights Movement.
They rented the booth, though, and incurred in travel expenses for that reason. If the pre-screening didn’t get rid of them, then a handful of crazies on twitter shouldn’t either.
Your idea is also pretty stupid as any large outrage machine will be able to succesfully curb the participation of anyone they dislike anywhere without any sort of proof because the argument will be tied to personal (thus subjective) feelings.
They did not infringe on the code of conduct of the place, and worse of all, Calgary lied about the reason to shoo them away multiple times.
Is it possible Calgary Expo had multiple reasons to expel the Honey Badger Brigade?
If so, why retract statements? And why the contradictions?
Do you happen to have a comprehensive list of every official statement the Expo made and retracted on the matter? I’m pretty curious to see what you’re exactly referring to.
We also need to remember that unethical behavior is not necessarily illegal behavior.
I don’t have them on hand, no. I don’t have the habit of keeping dossiers on everything on the internet.
I could google-fu it for you, but I’m afraid I don’t care enough for the sole reason that this is going to be tested in court anyway, and very soon.
No. Why don’t you show them to me?
You kept referencing all these retractions and contradictions that I haven’t seen. Since it was such a big part of your argument, I was hoping you could at least provide me with some examples.
I can’t – like I said, I don’t keep dossiers on everything. And like I said, I would bother proving my allegations to you, if this wasn’t already going to be tested in court.
This is me saying “we’ll see who’s right soon enough”. Well, not that soon, but soonish.
However, are you telling me you defend the statement Calgary gave without even having seen them?
I have only seen one official statement from Calgary Expo. This document alluded to the Expo providing two reasons for the expulsion. I haven’t seen any retractions or contradictions from them. And I can’t form an opinion on something I haven’t seen. And I’m not just going to take your word on these events without seeing some proof.
You don’t have to. I have seen the retractions, but I will not provide proof this time.
In fact, I probably wouldn’t post it here, and would rather forward it to HBB directly instead of putting their strategy out in the open considering the lawsuit.
As I said before, this will be tested in court. There, you will be able to see what I’m talking about, as it will be an integral part of the arguments. So I’m afraid our discussion will have to be on-hold until then.
Listen to the Women in Comics Panel recording. HBB was ejected for “disrupting” the panel.
I did listen to that, and I agree, “disrupting” is a strong word. Derailing? Yes. Monopolizing the conversation and intentionally steering it in the exact opposite direction? Possibly. But let’s not forget that the ejection was not solely caused by their behavior in the panel. That was just one factor in the decision.
I also invite you to consider how unusual it is for someone to record themselves at a comic convention panel. That act alone implies some foreknowledge of a negative outcome. Either the Honey Badger Brigade anticipated receiving negative backlash, or — dare I say — they planned to antagonize the panel.
It’s my theory that the Honey Badger Brigade intended to push the limits of disruptive behavior — to go right up to the edge, but never cross the line. And I think they recorded themselves to offer proof that they weren’t harassing anyone for when they were expelled. Yes, I did say “when” and not “if” because I also think at this point they knew they were going to be banned.
LOL You’ve already made up your mind.
Yes, I thought I’ve made this perfectly clear. After careful and objective study, I have come to the conclusion that the Honey Badger Brigade was aware of their controversial nature ahead of time. I think they fully knew there was a chance they would be expelled, hence the slight obscuring of their identity during registration and the constant recording of themselves.
I also think that Calgary Expo overreacted and hastily caved to the external pressures from Twitter and comic professionals. I believe their behavior was unethical, but not illegal.
And as a journalist, I find that The Mary Sue’s article was biased and slanted, but not libelous. The article did reach the bare minimum of giving the Honey Badger Brigade a voice in the story.
In conclusion, I do not see this lawsuit having much success on either front, and I feel bad for all the time and money that was poured into this.
Only a disingenuous twit with an agenda would suggest a group who do regular youtube videos was foreshadowing expected negative outcomes by videoing their public appearance at a convention.
People like you are pathetic.
Don’t be so naive. The Honey Badgers are fully aware of their controversial nature. Remember their tongue-in-cheek “manifesto” about infiltrating the convention? Behind every joke is a kernel of truth. And this joke would not have been funny if there wasn’t the possibility of people being offended by the Honey Badgers’ message.
The only agenda I had when this story broke was to learn the truth of the matter. I looked carefully at both sides, and reached out to the people directly involved to hear their side of the story. I even did my best to give the Honey Badgers good advice, cultivated from my experience in journalism and public relations. But my polite inquiring and kindness was met with shocking rudeness and ridicule. And so now I take a small amount of pleasure from watching this court case go down in flames. I used to pity the Honey Badgers. But now I feel that they’ve brought all this on themselves, and they deserve what’s coming to them.
Shocking rudeness?
Did they call you a dickless mangina cunt?
What exactly was so shocking and rude, pray tell?
Your obvious bigotry is admitted and yet you try to claim “no agenda”.
Here’s a clue, because you obviously need one:
“I used to pity the HB” and
“”
is about as believable and congruent as a feminist claiming rape culture.
You are patently an unselfaware arrogant prat.
Yes, I was called those things and more. Some even told me to die. Much of the hate came directly from the alleged victim of this case, Alison Tieman. And this surprised me. Just as it surprises me that you are now resurrecting this conversation three months later.
“To many, GamerGate posters are offensive because of the perceived culture surrounding the movement and the animosity associated with it.”
That comes out of a gender bigotry that is exponentially more offensive than anything HBB is even accused of, let alone guilty of.
I don’t understand what you’re saying. Are you arguing that the animosity around GamerGate comes from gender bigotry? Or do you contend that only gender bigots are offended by GamerGate?
Or perhaps you misunderstand what I am trying to say. My argument is that people are offended by GamerGate posters. And that offense could be used to justify Calgary Expo’s decision.
No-one *at the Expo* indicated there was any offence with any of their materials at the time. The ruffled feathers kicked off after the fact when someone objected to a photo one of the HBB, posted to her twitter feed on the second day (first public iirc). So one could argue that CalEx were in fact being punitive after an oversight on their own behalf – after all CalEx is responsible for public safety so no matter the ‘rules’ exhibitors are held to, the buck stops with CalEx to make sure Exhibitors are properly vetted – that means site inspections amongst other things (as is normally the case for other events).
That’s certainly an argument the Honey Badger Brigade won’t want to make. It acknowledges that they knew their material would be offensive.
On one hand, I think it strengthens Calgary Expo’s stance by pointing out they waited to expel the group until after they received complaints about it. It can be argued that they waited to issue the ban until they had a cause.
It doesn’t acknowledge anything. A person (or group) cannot specifically know they’re doing something wrong, where there is no general expectation they might be, without being told they are (it’s why “keep off the grass” signs exist). This isn’t like saying “sorry Gavnah I didn’t know it was wrong to kill my husband”, this is more akin to “sorry I didn’t know you wouldn’t like sausage”. There is a general expectation the former is patently wrong, not the latter as there is no reason for it to be so beyond the individuals proclivities at not liking sausage. Again… this isn’t the game of semantics you seem to be playing here, sorry.
Was the Honey Badger Brigade so ignorant to the controversy surrounding GamerGate? They were completely nonplussed by the negative reaction?
And I don’t know what you mean by “game of semantics.” I am trying to clearly explain why this case has no chance in court. I would like to help these people avoid considerable heartbreak and financial loss, but I know they won’t listen to me because I don’t support their claims.
Their argument is weakened by their multiple retractions on why they were banned, though.
It’s doubly weakened by the fact that, if the problem was the promotional material and not the wrongthink, then a simple request to remove said material from display would have sufficed and preserved their ability to make use of their booth that they paid for.
“Wrongthink?” I didn’t realize we were in 1984!
But yeah, if the only cause for the Honey Badger Brigade’s expulsion was the GamerGate material, then the whole issue could have been defused by simply removing the material. However, have you considered that there were multiple reasons that led to the ban, and not just one big one?
It doesn’t matter. If none of those multiple reasons were given when HBB were expelled and banned from further expos for ten years, anyone claiming them after the fact doesn’t have a leg to stand on wrt the expo’s alleged breach of its contract with HBB.
Unless, of course, the expo have proof they
a) gave HBB the appropriate warnings prior to ejection,
b) informed HBB of these multiple reasons so HBB can address them (provided none were serious enough to warrant immediate expulsion) and HBB failed to rectify the problem,
c) evidence of HBB doing anything that supports these “multiple reasons”.
Reporting at the time seemed thin on the ground with allegations of anything other than links to GG and the panel participation, even publications making allegations against HBB. I also recall at the time the expo’s explanation was light on reasons beyond they’d received complaints.
If something has surfaced since, I don’t know. Maybe someone else does?
A lot of us a surprised to find 1984 is alive and well in 2015.
You are right. The multiple reasons do not matter. All that matters is that Calgary Expo felt the Honey Badger Brigade had violated the convention’s policies.
On April 17, the infamous Mary Sue article quoted the convention: “The Calgary Expo is a positive and safe environment for everyone. We have reason to believe that the Exhibitor in question does not fall in line with this mandate.”
I think the Expo’s rules, agreements and anti-harassment policies were written broadly enough to encompass this simple reason. The Calgary Expo felt like Honey Badger Brigade was not promoting a positive and safe environment. That’s it. And there’s a chance that they won’t need to justify or elaborate on that stance in a court of law.
“I think the Expo’s rules, agreements and anti-harassment policies were written broadly enough to encompass this simple reason.”
In that case, this is a scam, as they are collecting money from these people to use the convention grounds. Being able to eject anyone for any reason while retaining their money is wonderful, isn’t it? Unfortunately, I don’t think that is very legal, because the moment this becomes a contractual obligation, both parties have certain assurances guaranteed by law.
And it is Calgary Expo’s contention that Honey Badger Brigade breached the contract to promote a safe and positive environment. As difficult as it can be to prove that contention, I think it is much more difficult to disprove.
They have to show how they did it. You can’t unilaterally end a contract while keeping the payment without basis.
Did the Honey Badger Brigade agree to a contract that included this language?
“The CCEE shall have the full power in the interpretation and enforcement of all contract regulations contained herein …” And, “The Comic & Entertainment Expo Committee reserves the right to remove any person(s) who does not comply with the rules and regulations … No refund shall be given to exhibitors who are removed from the show.”
If the Honey Badger Brigade agreed to this, then they essentially agreed to giving the Calgary Expo the right to interpret and enforce their own broadly written policies. And the Honey Badger Brigade should have been made aware of the potential of facing expulsion without a refund.
The convention set the terms of the contract, gave itself the power to interpret and enforce the contract, and set the terms for the punishment. It will be very hard to argue that Calgary Expo breached their self-created and self-interpreted contract. And it would be tough to argue that said contract was unfair after willingly agreeing to it beforehand.
Contracts have to abide to the law of the land. This is why people usually say that EULAs are null, since they contradict the consumerist law of several countries.
You give the impression of arguing from a position in which your mind is already made up. If the presence of GamerGate posters is the reason for HBB’s eviction, then surely a request to remove the posters would have been sufficient?
You seem to move from one argument to the next without consistency. Your “safe and positive” environment argument is extremely flimsy. The law takes a dim view of overly broad “get out” clauses in T&C’s, for exactly this reason. Individually their actions may have been shrugged off, but as a whole the case makes a good argument.
Why didn’t they give any warnings? Why weren’t the posters just requested to be removed? Why the lifetime ban? Why the flimsy accusation of disrupting a panel?
I thought I made it perfectly clear that I had already decided that this expulsion was not a case of censorship and that this lawsuit has a small chance of succeeding. I came to this conclusion after spending several weeks of examining the issue from both sides and hearing directly from the people involved. I think that the Calgary Expo overreacted and definitely could have handled the whole situation better, but I don’t think they can be held legally accountable for what they did.
I have tried to use each of my comments to support this argument. If it seems like I’m jumping around it’s because this is a complex, multi-faceted issue. I think the GamerGate posters were a big reason for the ban, but not the only reason.
And was it a lifetime ban or a 10-year ban? There seems to be some confusion on that detail.
GG is only controversial because that’s how MSM wants to play it, controversy sells. Why else do they constantly listen and believe instead of verify then trust the “victims” and libel GG every chance they get without actually stepping back and looking at it from a much larger picture. Those “victims”? Yeah… they usually goad the situation with their own stupidity. The “Safe and Positive Environment” argument is flimsy as hell and should never hold up in court as that can be taken very subjectively.
GamerGate is controversial because it inherently attracts controversy. It inspires heated and passionate arguing on both sides, and all too often has fallen in the realms of harassment and abuse. At a large public gathering, such as a convention, GamerGate can be seen as a potentially disruptive, and even hostile, entity.
Multiple reasons such as…? Them being disruptive at the panel – a statement that was silenced quickly after HBB uploaded the full audio of the panel, at which point this narrative was completely dropped?
I agree. “Offensive” is HIGHLY subjective. Anyone can take offence at just about anything, and make a complaint about it being offensive. In some cases, it can be called “Hate Speech” and legal action can be taken.
yep.. they should highlight in “22” that HBB were given no indication their material was problematic *at the time it was put up* (was the booth inspected by staff on set-up day as they normally do… if not is that an omission on CalEx’s part for which they might be seen to be taking punitive action after the fact?).
Good point.
Schedule B section 1. Alison is misspelled.
‘podcast’ is one word.
> The Plaintiff’s concede
Plaintiffs*
I was surprised at how many mistakes there are in this $3,500 document. For that kind of money, you’d expect better proofreading. On a related note, is it common Canadian practice to put the dollar sign after the numbers?
It’s because I accidentally uploaded a previous draft. It’s also been worked on by several dyslexic people.
Looks like you’ve got a new one up, but you still refer to Koypto as Kopyko twice in your intro box.
29 Messages on your account and almost all of them on this thread alone. What are you afraid of? Eventually everyone will find out if a paid-up booth can be kicked out of the Calgary Expo because a couple of people didn’t like their views. That’s useful information … either way, everyone wins.
For the record, I did make a bunch of comments on various YouTube videos a couple of months ago. I just find this case fascinating, and the people defending it equally fascinating. Their perception of reality is so … entertaining.
And I guess the outcome of this case will be useful information, but is $40,000 too steep a price to learn that organizers of a private event have the right to eject potentially disruptive guests?
In a way, you could argue that I’m helping the Honey Badger Brigade. If they can’t come up with rock-solid answers to all my questions, what will happen when they face a real lawyer?
Good. Based on your posting frenzy here you seemed invested in this case to the point of it being some sort of bizarre, personal crusade. That of course would be pretty sad. But, I’ll take your word for it that you’re only here for the “entertainment”.
Being ejected from an event you paid for because a couple of b-grade celebs and a Twitter hate mob disagrees with your views should entitle you to a refund, at the very least. The event is partly funded by the City of Calgary so this isn’t a “private” event in the traditional sense. The organizers are bound by Canada’s human rights laws. From that perspective this case serves the public interest so no, $40K is not to steep a price to pay.
Yep, it’s comments like these that keep me coming back. Almost everyone here takes the position that anyone who complained against the Honey Badger Brigade must be inherently flawed and hate-filled. Consider the possibility that GamerGate can be offensive to rational, well-meaning and influential people.
And I have heard that the convention was partially funded by the city of Calgary, but I don’t know to what extent this affects the case. The above document doesn’t even mention that fact.
If we’re going to “consider possibilities”, then consider the possibility that anti-GamerGaters can be just as offensive to rational and well-meaning people as well. In the meantime, while we’re participating in the Offended Olympics, the justice system can determine if Calgary Expo contravened any actual laws.
> The Plaintiff states that the conduct of the Defendant as described above contravenes the published policies and procedures outlined in Calgary Expos materials advanced to registrants and in particular, the policies of the Defendant specifically applying to its dealings with registrants, specifying that registrants were to be given warnings and requests to cease behavior that was inconsistent with their contractual obligations prior to any further action being taken.
The fact that you don’t quote the policies and procedures is telling, because the terms you agreed to don’t support your claims.
http://www.calgaryexpo.com/_storage/547f5f3369a93.pdf
> The Exhibitor agrees to protect, keep, and save the CCEE, the promoter of the event, forever harmless from any dam- age (s) or charge (s) imposed for violations of any ordinance or regulation by the Exhibitor, his/her employees or agents, as well as failure to comply with the terms and agreements of this contract. Further, Exhibitors shall at all times protect, indemnify, save, and keep harmless CCEE against and from any loss, cost, damage, liability, or expense which arises out of or from or by reason of any act or omission of the Exhibitor, his/her employees, or agents.
> The CCEE shall have the full power in the interpretation and enforcement of all contract regulations contained herein, and the power to make such amendments thereto, and such further rules and regulations as shall be considered necessary and proper. The foregoing represents the agreement between the undersigned Exhibitor and Calgary Comic & Entertainment Expo, the promoters of the Calgary Comic & Entertainment Expo for the convention held on April 16-19, 2015.
That specific passage is an ‘indemnification clause’. It says *CalEx cannot be held accountable for consequences resulting from Exhibitor actions*. It does NOT say that CalEx cannot be held liable for CalEx’s actions. The difference isn’t semantics :rolleyes:
Should “Alsion Tieman” read “Alison Tieman”?
If the Calgary Expo people don’t try and settle this, thy are truly daft.
They can’t throw a group out for disagreeing with someone and then say they support free speech, that’s just stupid.
I think HBB has a good case based on that alone.
High working part time680.78$perday
>~……
http://www.TopWorldmedia.pointNetwork//Money//work
Point 16: “they were approached by a Alberta Expo staff member”
Should be “an Alberta”
<❶❷❸.%@^@^@^!^!^!^!^.. ??????????+badg+.Part-time working I Saw at the draft which said $19958@mk9 < Read more info here='' ……..''
29. “As a result of the publication of the aforesaid allegations by The Mary Sue, which were reprinted and re-tweeted to other third parties and which were directly communicated to the co-Defendant for the purpose of inducing it to breach its contract with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff sustained pecuniary harm in selling the merchandise which was brought to the Alberta Expo booth and its efforts to promote HBB and its products and commercial prospects. The false and disparaging comments published by The Mary Sue also dissuaded persons from engaging in and refusing to have any contact or purchasing merchandise from the Plaintiff.”
I would suggest changing “Re-Tweeted” to “Distributed”. That way it also includes not only twitter, but all other forms of communication and social media, and whatever other means such allegations were communicated.
Also, If I understand this correctly, it’s basically saying that because of the false allegations of The Mary Sue, The HBB wasn’t able to sell as much merchandise, nor make as many contacts, nor have as much interaction with attendees as they could have?
This seems a bit shaky at best. It’ll be impossible to prove how many expo attendees didn’t come to the booth based solely off of what was said in The Mary Sue. The Mary Sue could argue that, what they said was their opinion on the matter, and it was up to each individual who read the piece to act or not act on it. But its not their responsibility if someone chose to act upon it, and not visit the booth.
If anything, instead of blaming The Mary Sue for lack of activity at the booth, try to make the case that The Mary Sue damaged the credibility of the HBB, and thus the credibility of the members of the HBB, and the with such damage, it can incur the loss of a means income and opportunities for the HBB in the future.
Just a thought.
I’m neither Canadian nor a lawyer, but it seems to me that the defamatory nature of untrue statements made by both defendants is underplayed in this draft. Is it possible to address this more directly?
I know you are all Badgers and give no fucks, but the people attacking you need to be held accountable for their actions, and defamation is an even bigger issue than expulsion. It is fear of defamation in one form or another, after all, that makes people afraid to stand up to feminists and thus allows them to run unchecked. People cave because feminists can say almost *anything* and get away with it, and they will often be believed. Defamation is their main weapon. Take that away from them, and the whole war changes.
Proving intent is difficult, but The Mary Sue certainly seems to have made a very deliberate * and successful * effort to undermine the reputations of both Alison and the HBB. The consequences of this are not limited to the response of Alberta Expo. It affects the HBB and all members’ acceptance in many areas of life, potentially impacting social and academic opportunities, future sales of art and literature, and employment. Whether or not this frightens you, it is what frightens most of the people who let feminists have their way with the world.
Alberta Expo initially directed the public to The Mary Sue article for an explanation of the HBB’s expulsion. By doing so, they confirmed the TMS’s completely untrue allegations as fact. Because AE organized the event and expelled the HBB, they can reasonably be assumed to know what happened in Calgary. Therefore, their support of TMS carries much more weight than a link from some random twitter account, and they are responsible for the effect of that weight on public opinion.
Though AE later removed their link to TMS and replaced it with Orwellian non/doublespeak that is less actionable because it says nothing and doesn’t even say that clearly, they initially confirmed the TMS’s bizarre version of events, and many people still believe it. This is documented through many articles, blog posts, and discussion threads on multiple web sites. Months later, AE still has not issued a retraction. In a sane world, they would be held at least partly liable for the effects of TMS’s lies.
The feminists most effective tool is defamation, and they almost always get a pass. I think it makes sense to take away as many of those passes as possible. What would the world be like if feminists could not bludgeon their opponents into submission with baseless accusations?