Justfor.fans gay

And where does Mark fall into the LGBTQ+ acronym? "Gay. Just gay," he says. He chose for two reasons, "I find the back end a bit easier to navigate and upload content.

You know the appeal, horny stud

Plus, it's run by a friend, so that makes it better.". Run by "Cory" and his husband "Jared Tyler," the BigCMen page was one of the highest performing accounts on A cameo appearance on their feed (of which there were many) could. You know the appeal, horny stud wants to show off and be seen doing all sorts of pervy things. In this instalment we visit Conrad Parker, and he ticks all of the aforementioned criteria.

This San Diego resident enjoys a perpetually nice climate, as well as a train of men looking to expl. Alejandro Castillo, a local Puerto Vallartian, has been named the top Mexico performer on the popular subscription based social media platform, Out & About PV reached out to after reporting on the top performers in the US. Read that story here.

However have more lenient guidelines allowing things such as lactation, fisting, ageplay, watersports, asphyxiation and incest roleplay to be uploaded. Their kink-friendly attitude helps to win over those who like to work within this field as well as fans who enjoy this content. A ography entrepreneur was awarded substantial damages by the High Court after being falsely accused by the defendant of being a rapist and a serial rapist.

He was well known in the gay ography industry as a performer and as the founder of the website JustFor. Fans JFF , a platform on which adult film performers provide content to their fans and subscribers. He was an adult film performer who used JFF and had done some promotional work for it. Over the course of 14 days in June , the defendant published a series of 10 tweets to his , followers on Twitter, accusing the claimant of: a raping an identified individual; b raping multiple other men; c being a serial rapist; and d abusing his position in the adult entertainment industry in order to rape models.

The defendant also gave a video interview published on YouTube in March , in which he again accused the claimant of rape. It was accepted that Mr Tennent and the claimant had had sex on a number of occasions — in particular, on two occasions on 28 May and 29 May It should be noted that, as an alleged victim of rape, Mr Tennent would ordinarily have been entitled to anonymity.

Yet it was his express choice to be named in the proceedings. The question was how a hypothetical reasonable reader would have understood an allegation of rape. Would they understand that rape requires the absence of a reasonable belief by the alleged perpetrator that the complainant was not consenting? The defendant only presented evidence of one person that the claimant had purportedly raped. That was not sufficient evidence to support an accusation that the claimant had raped multiple people, or was a serial rapist, and so the defence failed immediately in relation to those allegations.

As to the allegations that the claimant had raped Mr Tennent on 28 and 29 May , that was an unusual case, in that the sexual encounter on 29 May was all on film. He did not believe Mr Tennent was lying; indeed he had little doubt that Mr Tennent genuinely believed that what he said in evidence was true. The judge also found that the claimant had reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Tennent was consenting to sex on each occasion that he claimed to have been raped.

On the balance of probabilities, then, the defendant had not proved that his publications were true or substantially true. There are three essential questions to be answered by a defendant in establishing a successful public-interest defence:. On the first question, the defendant argued that the central subject of the tweets and the YouTube video was rape, sexual assault, exploitation and abuse in the adult entertainment industry.

That argument failed, as the connection with the industry was absent from all but two of the publications. They were not presented as illustrative examples of a generally recognised problem within the industry; they were accusations of rape and, when viewed objectively, were little more than a public, specific and targeted attack on the claimant. The judge found that none of the publications was on a matter of public interest, and the defence failed at the first hurdle.

Making public accusations of rape against a named individual is not or not necessarily in the public interest. Nonetheless, the judge continued to consider the other questions in case he was wrong on that point. The claim concerns 11 separate publications on social media, which the claimant asserted were part of a vendetta by the defendant against him.

In certain other cases involving multiple publications on social media, [2] there have been occasions where claimants have failed to convince the court which of the publications has caused serious harm to their reputation, and the court has ruled that harassment would be a better cause of action than defamation to address the objectionable course of conduct.

Yet in those cases there was a much more limited number of publishees, as opposed to the present case, where the defendant had more than , followers. This judgment is therefore a welcome reminder that cases of this nature will invariably turn on their own facts. A publication will not automatically qualify for the protection afforded by section 4 of the Defamation Act simply because it relates to a serious allegation.

Skip to main. Close menu. Media regulatory.