Cape 埼 🔞

Amazing work because I don't have access to that email anymore. Redo your entire support system discord. More victims will be caught in this.

Breaking: For the 34th time in a row, the world overwhelmingly votes to condemn and end the illegal US 🇺🇸 blockade of Cuba 🇨🇺. Here's a map I made of the official vote.

We take legal notices seriously. After review, we decline the demand for the following reasons: 1. The post reports an allegation of a third-party threat; it does not make or promote the threat.
 The post states that a former associate is threatening to leak material and describes the nature of the alleged content as reported by that source. Reporting the existence of an allegation or claimed threat—particularly involving a public figure—is not the same as making the threat, facilitating a crime, or distributing intimate imagery. News and commentary outlets routinely report on alleged blackmail, extortion attempts, or threatened disclosures without becoming the threatener. Your notice itself carefully avoids confirming the existence, authenticity, or origin of any material; the post similarly treats the matter as an unverified allegation from a source. 2. First Amendment protections for reporting on public figures and matters of public concern.
Sneako is a widely followed public streamer and commentator. Statements and allegations about public figures on matters of public interest (including consistency between public persona and private conduct) receive robust First Amendment protection. Defamation claims against publishers regarding public figures require a showing of actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). Your notice does not identify specific false statements of fact, provide evidence of their falsity, or establish actual malice. Attributing allegations to anonymous or third-party sources does not automatically create liability where the reporting is framed as such and no independent assertion of verified fact is made 3. Distinction under laws governing threats to release intimate imagery (including the TAKE IT DOWN Act and related federal/state provisions). Federal law (including provisions of the TAKE IT DOWN Act) and Florida law criminalize certain intentional threats to publish nonconsensual intimate imagery (authentic or qualifying digital forgeries) when made for purposes such as intimidation, coercion, extortion, or causing mental distress. Those statutes target the person making the threat or the person knowingly disseminating the imagery itself under the required elements. Reporting that a third party has allegedly made such a threat, or describing the substance of an allegation, is not equivalent to the criminal act. Nothing in the post constitutes a threat by the poster, an offer to distribute material, or the knowing publication of nonconsensual intimate imagery. If a third party is in fact making an unlawful threat, that is a matter for law enforcement regarding that third party; reporting the allegation is not participation in or facilitation of the crime. 4. Overbreadth and chilling effect.
The demand to remove reporting of an allegation, accompanied by warnings of potential civil and criminal exposure for “amplifying” or “promoting” it, is overbroad. Protected speech is not rendered unprotected merely because it concerns sensitive or contested personal allegations about a public figure, nor because the underlying conduct (if true) or the threat (if made by another) would itself be unlawful. Attribution to a source and framing as an allegation provide the relevant context. Nothing in this response concedes the truth, falsity, authenticity, or existence of any alleged material or the accuracy of any source’s claims. Your client’s rights to pursue legitimate claims where the legal elements are met are reserved, as are ours, including rights to report on matters of public concern and to defend against unfounded demands that chill protected speech. We remain open to a more specific discussion of particular statements you contend are false and defamatory (with supporting evidence), but the broad demand for immediate removal of the reporting is rejected.