So first off, wasn't to do with LFJ. It was a direct response to accusations by the company Epik which is already admitting that they "made it up". (Their words from their Twitter account!) So your repeated attempts to bring up LFJ is a little weird. Secondly, I don't think anybody in this thread has stated that LFJ is a rapist. Some people have quoted LFJ's own Twitter feed where LFJ says there was a "consent accident". I.e. LFJ had sex with somebody and admits that it was without the other parties consent. Why you want to keep forcing people to bring that up I don't know but it's very similar to LFJ's own actions with KiwiFarms where LFJ's tweet would be an amusing/horrible footnote if LFJ hadn't then tried to use their position at Google to get KiwiFarms deplatformed and all the other attempts LFJ has made so far. The outcome is in both cases the exact opposite of what we presume you want which is for people to not be aware of this or the involvement with the charity funds misappropriation (as determined by a court! ;) ).
At any rate, despite this you keep following this simple strategy of entering the thread and trying to turn it into a pro-/anti- LFJ discussion when this is so very much bigger than that. It makes me half-wonder if that meme above is true and you really were LFJ in a Scooby Doo mask. Nonetheless, lets take apart a couple of your statements simply because it's so easy to do:
>It is harassment, as ruled by a court.
KiwiFarms has never been found guilty of criminal action. Jersh is pretty scrupulous about legality and the Farms itself has a general policy of hands-off observation only. Rare exceptions where someone directly involves themself with the Farms.
In anticipation of you spamming that Guardian article a third time to try and suggest that your statement is true, I'll head that off. The judgement in that case (a) wasn't against the farms (b) was against some one-person company that owned a block of IP addresses that the Farms used (c) was for defamation, not harassment, (d) the guy who owned and ran the company never showed up in court apparently because he thought it would just get thrown out (stupid overconfidence on his part but no indictment of the Farms) resulting in a default judgement because no defence was mounted.
Anyone of those items alone refutes the notion that the court found KF was guilty of harassment. Indeed, the Australian court doesn't even have jurisdiction over KF an American site but that's neither here nor there due to all the previous reasons anyway.
I've actually read some of the court papers from that case, fwiw, and will share a couple of more egregious elements.
One of the incidents referenced in LFJ's claims was how a photograph was taken of a picnic they attended. It makes it sound like stalking. The picnic was a "protest picnic" that LFJ themself advertised time and location of and LFJ was annoyed because someone took a photo of LFJ sitting alone there with a box of doughnuts when the hoped for protestors didn't show up. It puts rather a different complexion on a photograph being taken when it's a "picnic" vs. "a self-advertised protest that you've invited people to", does it not? This other line from the judgement also tickles me: "It is well accepted that injury to feelings may constitute a significant part of the harm sustained by a plaintiff, and for which a plaintiff is to be compensated by damages". I.e. the court will order payment for your hurt feelings. That's hilarious and awful and had the defendent shown up I doubt much of the case would have stood up. Shame he didn't. Other parts of the judgement establish that LFJ "had a good reputation". Well that's an interesting logic to take that if you discount the negative things said about someone they have a good reputation and therefore the negative things are damaging and actionable - even when they're merely archiving of the claimant's own public tweets.
In any case, the court case doesn't show that KiwiFarms was found guilty of harassment by court as you have stated is the case. So if not this, it's on you to point to some other court case I'm not aware of that does show it.
As to your other two statements:
>>Monitoring someone and keeping track of everything they do and throwing accusations around is called stalking (I would know, I've been a victim of it which resulted in a conviction for the perp).
Recording someone's public statements on their Twitter feed, linking to their own public appearances or a photo by somebody of a despondent LFJ waiting in vain for anyone to show up to their self-advertised time and place may result in "hurt feelings" as the court document ruled but is a pretty darn low-bar for harassment and that's the best you've got. Maybe just drop the LFJ obsession because you're doing more harm to LFJ's reputation by trying to use this derailment tactic than if you just let it drop.
>>If Mumsnet is going to permit hateful false accusations on its forum too against LGBT people maybe there needs to be another court case?
Be specific - who are you talking about and where? Reporting that someone has been accused of being a rapist is not the same as making an actionable accusation yourself. The person who accused LFJ of rape was someone who knew LFJ personally and had a sexual encounter with them acknowledged by LFJ. Not someone on this forum that I know of. Nor is quoting LFJ's own words about the accusation that there had been "a consent accident" someone making a false accusation. Nor, just making a logical observation here, is any body on this forum in a position to state that the accusation from the woman who said LFJ did rape her is false. We simply don't know. We can only know that LFJ themself acknowledged that it wasn't consensual.
Maybe we can return to discussing the legal fund now? It's over USD153,000 now.