Originally Posted by
embarcadero1
In a civil case, establishing the plaintiff's state of mind (that the FA had threatened the illegitimate use of force, had humiliated the plaintiff) is perfectly legitimate,
Well, most likely, UA's lawyers would use the original post where the OP said it was fun. Maybe sarcasm, but he would have to explain that, as the face value makes it seem as if he wasn't scared at any point. UA could also ask FT for their original postings as well, pre-edit.
The hypothetical civil suit case with the OP posting here does not serve the plaintiff's cause. Of course, it is hypothetical, but in a hypothetical suit, one would be well advised to not utilize FT (or any other public bulletin board /blog/forum) to try out their case, and if they do, talk to an attorney 1st about what to reveal and what to not reveal.