"Did April give you permission to share these?"
"Yeah, she said I could tell the story forever ago."
So, only the story and presumably before she decided to leave the Internet for her privacy.
Interesting
Of course respecting her "privacy" was just another one of those "principles" that he defines as his "rights on loan to others" until he calls the loan due at any time, no different from how he used to pontificate about how any DV accusations against Aaron were strictly "her story to tell" so that he could sidestep any definitive statements about the topic unless and until she comes forward, which effectively left that an open question
forever once she "left the Internet" and Nick insisted that everyone respect her privacy in perpetuity.
And then poof, now all of a sudden those "principles" were just burned on the altar of his manic tweetstorms' frantic scrambling for dopamine hits late last night, throwing her back in the spotlight with outright actionable statements of fact that could end up dragging her from the sacrosanct "privacy" of Lake Wakanda to a witness stand for Monty 2: Electric Boogaloo.
@ItsAaronIgnoreMe has a chance to do something very funny:
[X] [A]
[X1] [A1] [X2] [A2]
[X1] [A1] [X2] [A2]
Unfortunately the biggest problem for a defamation case, aside from the expense that Aaron might not be able to afford absent crowdfunding or champerty, is that this could end up being another one of those "
technically true" Nickisms where the transcript just writes itself:
MR. SCHNEIDER: Next, Mr. Rekieta, I'm showing you the previously admitted Exhibit 7, a printout of your tweets dated May 11, 2025, directed at an individual identified by Twitter handle @You're A Faggot [sic] -
THE COURT: Decorum, counselor.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Apologies, your honor. For purposes of identification, let the record reflect that I hereafter refer to said Twitter user as "Elmo." Now, Mr. Rekieta, where you told Elmo that my client abused Ms. Anderson, did -
MR. REKIETA: Objection! [hiccup]
THE COURT: Ugh... again, counselor, do you have an objection?
MR. RANDAZZA: Apologies, your honor, it won't happen again. I'll need a moment to confer with my client.
(A discussion was had off the record)
MR. RANDAZZA: Objection, vague and ambiguous.
THE COURT: Overruled, and I would again remind the witness to let counsel finish each question in full and then we can address any objections at that time.
MR. SCHNEIDER: I'll rephrase. Mr. Rekieta, when you used the word abuse -
MR. REKIETA: Wait what do you mean, like physical abuse?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes, fine, when you referred to my client's physical abuse of -
MR. REKIETA: I never said that!
MR. SCHNEIDER: I beg your pardon?
MR. REKIETA: I never said that! Um, ackshually [sic], all I meant was he emotionally abused her! It's so weird and funny that people read anything else into it, because I guess they're retarded.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Ugh... your honor, in light of this newly discovered evidence, I move to dismiss the complaint with prejudice as required by the Rule in Balldo's Case. If memory serves, the citation on that one is 10 northwest reporter page 68, or, forgive me, 69 rather. 69 is where it's at.
MR. REKIETA: That's what she said! 
I am talking about the behavior by Nick and Melton in the last ~9 months that lead up to Hackamania.
My argument is that they did enough things that Aaron could have forced Nick to STFU and stop talking about him.
In combination, there's a pattern of conduct here, not just scurrilous abuse of some random person otherwise unconnected.
Fortunately debating the finer points of balancing First Amendment rights against narrowly protected privacy interests would be moot now anyway, since this dipshit's tweetstorm last night just went ahead and squarely implicated classic safety interests that the HRO statute was made for anyway. Obviously there's no unironic explicit threat and his usual "never
said that" pilpul and/or "just jokes" defense would even be right, but as a practical matter almost any judge would just look at the last nine months of sheer lunacy and take Aaron at his word about any intimidating effect of this shit:
[X1] [A1] [X2] [A2]
[X] [A]
