Step right up, ladies and gentlemen! Three for the price of one! Tales of censorious douchebags that will thrill and amaze you!

First up, we have Dr. Randeep Dhillon! Dr. Dhillon is suing Jay Leno. Is he suing Jay Leno for being a trite, phone-it-in placeholder? NO! There's no California cause of action for that! SAG would never allow it! No, Randeep Dhillon is suing Jay Leno for a lame joke about Mitt Romney suggesting that his vacation home was the Golden Temple of Amritsar, a holy site for Sikhs! Dr. Dhillon says that by making this joke, Leno "exposes plaintiff, other sikhs and their religion to hatred, contempt, ridicule and obloquy because it falsely portrays the holiest place in the Sikh religion as a vacation resort owned by a non-Sikh." He's backed up by an Indian foreign affairs minister who says "freedom does not mean hurting the sentiments of others."

Congrats, Dr. Dhillon! You win a date with California's robust anti-SLAPP statute! You're going to pay Jay Leno's attorney fees in this case, which I will estimate to be $50,000! And because some people will generalize about Sikhs based on the act of one asshole — you — you've just done more to expose Sikhs to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy than that threadbare hack Leno ever could! Way to go!

Next, ladies and gentlemen, we travel North, to Canada, and the Fredericton, New Brunswick Police Department! The Fredericton Police just staged a eight-officer raid of the apartment of Charles LeBlanc! Is Charles LeBlanc breaking bad with a meth lab? Does he have children in cages? Is he a gun-runner? No! He's a blogger, and he's being raided for criminal libel for criticizing the Fredericton Police! That's right! The Fredericton Police Department not only thinks it is appropriate to serve search warrants on bloggers who say mean things to them, they think that they should execute the search warrants themselves, even though they are the alleged victims of the criminal libel! That's the New Professionalism in action, ladies and gents! Stand and be amazed!

And finally, across the pond, to England! Sally Morgan, purported psychic, is suing the Daily Mail for saying her psychic abilities are bunk! Her suit faults the Daily Mail for running columns exposing the ways that purported psychics con their audiences! Hey Sally — surely you don't need to conduct discovery in this case — you know all the answers to your questions already!

It's not faked, ladies and gentlemen! Freakish, yes! Difficult to believe, yes! Astounding, yes! But all of it real! Step right up and see!

Listen to me: no sensible and well-ordered society can recognize a right to be free from offense. It's unprincipled and mercurial, a celebration of the rule of subjective reaction over the rule of law. It's an open invitation to censorship-by-heckler's-veto. It chills satire, parody, sharp retorts, hard truths, and uncomfortable revelations. George Bernard Shaw says "all great truths begin as blasphemies" — so where is the room for exploration of truth in a society that lets every entitled group define its own blasphemies and demand that everyone avoid uttering them? Going to courts complaining of fee-fees is no basis for a system of government.

Why the mini-rant? It's because today, courtesy of Ophelia Benson, I learned of a loathsome example of the assertion that we all have the right not to be offended, and an illustration of how it can be used as a weapon of suppression. The Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society (ASHS) at University College London has a Facebook page, and on that page they posted a picture as part of an invitation to a party:

And you know what happened next:

Continue Reading »

That was the title of an email I received an hour ago. OK, I added the exclamation point — the email was titled only "Felony Arrest."

Other criminal defense attorneys — indeed, perhaps most attorneys — know what comes next. Was it from a client, or potential client, alerting me to crisis requiring my assistance? No. No, it was not. It was an unsolicited email from a legal marketeer I had never heard of before — from a fairly well know referral service — who wanted me to "discuss a relationship" in which I would pay for access to his firm's list of potential clients. Here, with certain deliberate omissions and alterations, is how it went:

Ken,

I do not believe that our two firms have met.

I'd like to discuss a relationship regarding the rights to our criminal law matters in the San Diego area.

Take a look at some of our current pre-screened (for financial capability) client matters in that protected territory.

To access our database:

• go to our site, societyforcornholingunsuspectingchildren.com;

• click on attorney log-in;

• your user name is rube2012;

• your password, is sucker2012;

• all lower case

• note that the password and user name are different

• click on the "all" cases line near the top of the home page;

• expires on January 4

Of course, I do ask that you not yet contact any of the clients.

Let me know whether it looks like a potential fit.

Cordially,

Mr. Feculent Q. Pus-Crust
Society For Cornholing Unsuspecting Children
[Los Angeles address and numbers]

My new pal Feculent is right about one thing — our firms have not met. That's because my firm is a law firm, and his firm is lodged, like a partially absorbed suppository, in the legal referral industry.

A few notes:

1. As is common with solicitations form the legal referral industry, the email title is intended to deceive. They do they same thing when they call — they tell the receptionist "I'm calling with a referral of a case" or "I need to talk about a criminal case."

2. My firm does, in fact, do work throughout California. However, most of our work is in the greater Los Angeles area. Our San Diego work is a few percentage points of our practice. Trying to pitch San Diego strongly suggest that dear Feculent is working off of some sort of automated lead generator. [Note: Feculent writes an enraged email back stating that he writes each pitch by hand and does not use any automated lead generator.]

3. Note that the misleading headline and the lack of a prominent opt-out provision puts the email squarely in violation of the CAN-SPAM Act.

4. I cannot imagine doing business with someone who seeks to initiate a business relationship based on deception. Even if I thought that using a legal referral service is palatable (which I do not) or made business sense (which I do not), I would never in a million years turn to a firm like the S.F.C.U.S., which approached me with a deceitful heart and a dishonest pitch.

5. I didn't use the password to look at their "pre-screened (for financial capability)" client matters. But the mere existence of a list of such things being put on the internet and emailed to potential customers is bizarre. I assume — I hope — that the list doesn't disclose actual names. Even if it does not, what type of criminal case has (a) a client pre-screened for financial ability and (b) such a leisurely pace that it can be summarized on a web site and used for marketing purposes to attract potential lawyers to represent the client, as opposed to, I don't know, immediately connecting the criminal defendant with a lawyer to protect his or her rights?

I feel the way I do when I get body-part-enlargement spam and fortune-in-gold-in-Nigeria pitches: what sort of morons respond to this? Isn't the model, in some ways, inherently self-repudiating? Isn't any lawyer who would respond to such a pitch inherently unsuitable to represent any criminal defendant?

What could be worse than a self-righteous TSA agent?

Answer: A TSA agents' union advocate.

One such arrives, dripping with angry entitlement on behalf of genital-pokers and prosthesis-fondlers everywhere, via In These Times. His name is Mike Elk, and he is concerned, very concerned, on behalf of our nation's TSA agents:

“A lot of people take this job very seriously—any vagina into which I stick my fingers could be my last,” said Heydrich Thomas, a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) baggage screener who works at New York City's JFK airport and is also local union leader.

OK, OK, Thomas didn't actually say that in Elk's article — even though he may as well have. Thomas said "any bag I open could be my last." That prospect deeply concerns Mike Elk (Mr.), who emphasizes that the many guns TSA agents find every week (to say nothing, one supposes, of the many they don't find) illustrates the "dangerous nature of their jobs." Oddly, Mike Elk offers no evidence whatsoever that any TSA agents have actually been injured the course of searching Americans — just as the TSA offers no evidence that its search procedures has actually halted any terrorist attacks.

What are Mike Elk's more specific concerns? Well, he's upset that some TSA "supervisors are former military members who create a hostile work environment for employees." You know, military members — bad people. Bad people who, despite potentially having some relevant experience and training in leadership and threat detection as a result of a military background, have very little regard for the feelings and dignity-rights of the sort of people who are recruited via pizza boxes into positions of authority over strangers. Mike Elk is also very concerned because TSA agents tell him that they are being brutalized by uppity Americans:

TSA employees told In These Times that on a daily basis, workers are shouted at and have obscenities hurled at them by airline passengers upset for following TSA search procedures. Several workers complained that on several occasions airline passengers had physically assaulted TSA workers, but the passengers were allowed to board flights because TSA screeners are unable to arrest passengers who assault them.

Note that Mike Elk believes that (1) TSA agents are telling the truth about being assaulted, and (2) TSA agents understand what "assault" means, not to mention (3) we should give a shit about citizens cursing at polyester-clad strangers empowered by the federal government to grope their children. Some of us are more skeptical on each of those points. After all, we know that TSA agents think that reciting the Fourth Amendment is "disorderly conduct," that objecting to a government employee sliding her fingers between your labia is "defamation" and "intentional infliction of emotional distress," that being in the same aisle as brown people is "reasonable suspicion," that a small toy hammer used as a comfort object by a severely disabled man is a "weapon," and that traveling in the United States of America is a "privilege." So you'll pardon me, Mr. Elk, if I question both TSA agents' veracity and their grasp of legal terminology like "assault."

What does Mike Elk (Mr.) want, anyway? Well, he seems to want to give TSA agents more power. Specifically, he wants the United States to confer upon TSA agents the power to arrest Americans:

TSA cannot legally arrest or detain power under powers granted to it by the federal government; in order to make arrests, TSA workers must call local police situated in the airport.

TSA workers' inability to detain or arrest people also hinders their ability to protect airlines in general. “My job is to stand in the exit doors that passengers from arriving flights are leaving. I am supposed to stop people from entering the airport through those doors, but if somebody tries to run through those doors, all I can do is yell at them to stop and call the police,” said one TSA employee who wished to remain anonymous for fear of losing her job.

If they only had that power, TSA agents could feel swell again. They could arrest people themselves for "assault" and "disorderly conduct" and for having sequential checks or carrying too much cash or for generally failing to respect their authority, rather than waiting for police officers trained (sort of, occasionally) in crime detection and law enforcement.

What else does Mike Elk want? Well, he wants Americans to adjust their priorities. Just as the TSA wants Americans to return to the days of unquestioning compliance, Mike Elk wants Americans to focus not so much on the fact that TSA agents are making money by subjecting them to demeaning and largely pointless searches, but on the fact that it's an unpleasant job, and agents need a better contract:

While there has been a very high degree of concern among progressives about the search policies of TSA, the often brutal working conditions of 44,000 people charged with protecting our airports have largely gone unnoticed. If those conditions had received as much media attention as the search procedures they are charged with implementing, it's possible America's newly unionized airport screeners might have had a first contract by now.

Damn those selfish Americans! Damn them for thinking that TSA agents are making money by subjecting Americans to unwarranted abuse in the name of insipid security theater! Damn them for thinking that TSA agents across America are drunk with power, largely incompetent to conduct their mostly symbolic job, and subject to very little scrutiny from a mostly canine news media! Oh, won't somebody think of the gropers?

Well, Mike Elk, I have thought about it. I've thought about the plight of people who have decided that it's okay to take a paycheck to promote the security state, advance the cause of unquestioning compliance with government demands, demean travelers without just cause, and stand in as feckless scarecrows. I've thought considerably about it. And now I invite you to examine my wellspring of sympathy, and do so methodically and carefully.

I'll tell you just where to find it. You're going to need those gloves.

h/t Balko.

[Title reference for the Python-impaired]

As our readers know, free speech — and various enemies thereof — is one of our very favorite topics here at Popehat. After a year of observing various attempts at censorship, I've decided to seek your input in selecting Popehat's "Censorious Asshat of the Year." (I first considered a more generic "Popehat's Asshat of the Year" contest, but soon realized that the eligible posts comprised roughly half of our work product. There may or may not be medication for that.)

Note that big-scale censors — leaders who killed dissidents, national political figures who pushed big and ominous censorship laws, and the like — aren't eligible. "Asshat Censor" requires a certain element of whimsy, fecklessness, and/or lack of actual power.  Also, I only included people on here if we contributed something to the discussion of their asshattery.

Without further ado, here are the candidates. The poll closes at 5:00 PST Friday:

Dr. Karin Calvo-Goller, for pursuing criminal libel charges in French court over a bad book review. In Aggravation: Forum-shopped to France. In Mitigation: Thanked me for my post.

Karen Spears Zacharias, for promoting muddle-headed hand-wringing about how satire can harm children. In Aggravation: Forced me to write poetry. In Mitigation: More a silly Mrs. Grundy/agony aunt figure than a censor, really.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, for classifying Juggalos as a potentially dangerous gang. In Aggravation: renders assessment of truly dangerous groups properly classified as "gangs" less credible. In Mitigation: as a former federal prosecutor and current federal defense attorney, allow me to assure you that they really, really don't know better. The FBI, I mean. Possibly also the Juggalos.

Tennessee General Assembly Representative Charles Curtiss, for pimping a ridiculous no-mean-pictures cyberbullying bill and then defending it in very, very stupid terms. In Aggravation: he took an oath to uphold the Constitution. In Mitigation: As a state legislator, he is part of an indigenous people with no cultural tradition of the rule of law.

Tennessee State Legislator Joe Armstrong, for pressuring a college bookstore to stop selling novelty mints unflattering to President Obama. In Aggravation: Seriously? Mints? Are you fucking kidding me? In Mitigation: Member of same traditionally oppressed and historically disfavored and probably genetically poorly endowed tribe of state legislators, see above.

Florida Attorney Joel Hirschhorn, for issuing legal threats to critics of his telemarketing client. In Aggravation: criticizes First Amendment defense lawyers for overconfidence while using the web site "www.aquitall.com." In Mitigation: Admits that he knows nothing about First Amendment law and must rely on other lawyers, who are presumably from Florida.

Joseph Rakofsky, for agreeing to defend a murder case as his first trial, doing an appalling job, and then suing critics for defamation. In Aggravation: Sued dozens across the nation for accurate reporting of the contents of a court transcript, sued for "internet mobbing," a tort accepted only by the professionally censorious or the insipidly and self-promotingly contrarian. In Mitigation: increasingly pathetic.

The University of St. Thomas School of Law, for settling with the aforementioned Rakofsky, thus funding his litigation, promoting frivolous defamation litigation, and squandering the heritage of American legal education. In Aggravation: Cowardly capitulation consistent with their touchy-feely let's-reach-consensus approach to legal education, which produces baby seals to be clubbed in the real world. In Mitigation: technically didn't censor anyone themselves; just empowered, promoted, surrendered to, and endorsed censorship.

Froma Harrop, for being part of an organization promoting civility, calling tea partiers terrorists, defending herself by saying that civility means not refraining from such invective but providing everyone with an opportunity to say their piece, and then promptly deleting critical comments on her blog. In Aggravation: No apparent sense of irony or self-awareness. In Mitigation: only censored comments on own blog; went through entire life with a name that sounds like a minor character from the cantina scene in Star Wars.

Sam Houston State Professor Joe E. Kirk, for attacking a free speech wall with a box cutter because one comment on it said "Fuck Obama." In Aggravation: inspired Sam Houston State campus police to threaten the promoters of the free speech wall with disorderly conduct because of the propensity of free speech to cause people like Joe E. Kirk to attack walls with box cutters. In Mitigation: As a university professor, a likely victim of his peer group.

York University student Sarah Grunfeld, for accusing a professor of anti-Semitic comments based on poor listening skills, then doubling down and arguing that the professor should not have uttered hateful words about Jews even in the context of listing them as examples of unacceptable speech, while uttering the same words herself in order to complain. In Aggravation: Also asserted that there was no basis to accept the professor's statement that he himself was Jewish. In Mitigation: too young, stupid, and Canadian to know any better.

Christopher and Maeghan Maloney, for threatening a science blogger with a SLAPP suit for calling Christopher Maloney a "quack" because he promotes naturopathy. In Aggravation: Ms. Maloney, author of the SLAPP threat, wanted an injunction prohibiting all of the blogger's peers from repeating the "quack" statement, and is a state legislator. In Mitigation: The Maloneys were forced to read a ten-page letter from Ken.

Sarah Deming and her lawyer Martin Leaf, for attempting censorship via class action in a lawsuit claiming the movie Drive was actionably anti-Semitic. In Aggravation: "misleading trailer" and "hurtful content" litigation are both forms of censorship. In Mitigation: those Ryan Gosling internet memes are getting really freaking annoying.

Albin H. Gess of Snell & Wilmer, for threatening bloggers who engage in transparent satire of Meghan McCain. In Aggravation: actually smart enough to know that his threats were premised, legally speaking, on sheer bullshit. In Mitigation: forced to work at a giant firm being polite to Meghan McCain.

Thedala Magee and her lawyer Vicki Roberts, for threatening Amy Alkon with a defamation suit because Amy complained when Magee, a TSA agent, went to third base with Amy. In Aggravation: people who threaten Americans with lawsuits for complaining about government sexual assault are vermin. In Mitigation: Mageee has to touch sweaty business travelers all day, Roberts is apparently addled by television appearances and has a wrenchingly sad IMDB page.

University of Wisconsin-Stout Chancellor Charles W. Sorensen, for defending the censorship of obviously satirical and non-threatening posters on a college campus and disrespecting Firefly. In Aggravation: even when he caved, could not resist justifying his clearly unlawful actions. In Mitigation: did eventually, belatedly, do the right thing. Also, Chancellor job market is awful right now, so unable to get other work.

California Assemblywoman and Speaker Pro Tem Fiona Ma, for this deathless quote: "“We found out later on that, Constitutionally, you can not ban a type of music,” said Ma. “Plus, I, like my opponents said, I didn’t really know what was going on.” In Aggravation: she gets to make laws. In Mitigation: only said what they are all, to use the term loosely, "thinking."

Marc Stephens, for posing as a lawyer to threaten a 17-year-old blogger (among others) because they questioned questionable "science." In Aggravation: fond of bizarre conspiracy theories. Marc Stephens would say that if you follow college football, in light of the Penn State scandal you are probably complicit in child sex abuse. In Mitigation: entertained me in the course of threatening me. And who here hasn't wanted to threaten me?

Ken and Patrick, for calling out scrapers and occasionally banning or ridiculing comenters. In Aggravation: V. snarky assholes. In Mitigation: Not technically state action, authors come from broken homes.

 Loading ...

Bad marketing is one of our favorite topics here at Popehat, and one of our favorite precepts about marketing is Eric Turkewitz's "outsource your marketing, outsource your ethics," to which we generally add ". . . and your reputation." Though we generally discuss this concept in the context of bad legal marketing — for instance, legal comment spam — the principle applies to every industry.

Today's example: an truly epic flameout by Ocean Marketing.

Ocean Marketing is apparently responsible for marketing and distributing a ludicrous-looking X-Box 360 controller. A guy named Paul Christoforo is apparently the head of Ocean Marketing. On his LinkedIn profile, Paul has this to say about his company:

Our professional, highly skilled staff has the knowledge and expertise to help your business increase exposure on major search engines and portals.

Paul's right about the "increased exposure" part, though perhaps not in the way that his customers anticipate. John Biggs at TechCrunch has the story. In brief, when a customer complained about this controller not shipping by Christmas, and suggested he would complain to various tech sites, Paul Christoforo reacted with a bizarre rant, including the following:

You just got told bitch … welcome to the real internet check kotaku in 2 weeks when they are reviewing free PS3 Avengers we send them as well as G4 and all the other majors hell yeah , don’t forget to check Amazon, gamestop.com, play n trade , Myers , Frys and a ton of other local stores coming your way you think you speak for billions son your just a kid you speak for yourself no one cares what you think that’s why were growing and moving 20-50 thousand controllers a month. We do value our customers but sometimes we get children like you we just have to put you in the corner with your im stupid hat on.

When the customer included Mike Krahulik of Penny Arcade (one of the most prominent figures in gaming culture) in the thread, Paul Christoforo doubled down, insulting Mike in a rather deranged fashion:

OK Mike whatever you say lol , are you sure hour not in Boston I spoke to the person who ran the show in Boston last year. If you let some little kid influence you over a pre order then we don’t want to be a your show ,Ill be on the floor anyway so come find me , I’m born and raised in Boston I know the people who run the city inside and out watch the way you talk to people you never know who they know it’s a small industry and everyone knows everyone. Your acting like a douchbag not that it matters pax east pax west , e3 , CES , Gamer Con , SSXW ,Comic Con, Germany I’m all over the place.

Penny Arcade posted the exchange, and it has gone viral, appearing at Kotaku and all over the place. Paul Christoforo had already doubled down, so I guess you could say what came next was quadrupling down: when someone at IGN demanded that he stop citing them for support, he lashed out and suggested that he expected good reviews because he had sent free copies of the controller to them:

In short, Christoforo showed he had learned nothing from BrandLink's skirmish with The Bloggess.

Penny Arcade's story has been slammed all day. It's gone live on Reddit. It's all over the place on Twitter, where Christoforo maintains an account called @oceanmarketting [sic]. The result is not merely extraordinarily bad publicity to Ocean Marketing and its client over this incident, but widespread inquiries into past incidents — like a prior incident of Christoforo acting like a douchebag towards a customer, and inquisitors determining that Ocean Marketing, supposed SEO and web experts, are using a template for their site (and an ass-ugly one, I might add).

There are no lessons here for the Paul Christoforos of the world. Paul Christoforo and his ilk are uneducable. However, if you run a business, there is a lesson for you: when you outsource your marketing, you hand your reputation and ethics over to someone who may or may not be just like Paul Christoforo. Now, not every marketeer is like Paul. But can you tell the difference up front? Do you know how to supervise your outside marketeer? When you wake up one morning after the Christmas holiday and find your company or product in the center of an internet shitstorm caused by your deranged marketeer, do you have a strategy for repairing your reputation?

Remember: outsource your marketing, outsource your reputation and ethics.

Edit: Possible plagiarism, too! What a shocker!

Edit 2: Looks like Paul closed the @oceanmarketting account and someone else snatched it up.

Edit 3: One source reports a conversation with Paul, in which he suggests this is no big deal and will all blow over, after which he offers an apology to the customer. It's likely to be too little too late — also, I'd point out that Paul's claim that he doesn't normally get into these communications with customers, and this was a one-time loss of temper, is contradicted by the earlier incident discussed above.

Edit 4: An apology to Penny Arcade. Sort of. "I didn't know how big your site was" is saying, in effect, "I now regret I picked on someone with power, instead of just the weak."

Edit 5: Caught on tape!

Note my update about his "apologies," and comment on "internet justice."

This morning, it came again: a robo-call from Kent, Washington — at 253-246-8503. The recording was of a chipper woman saying she was from "Credit Card Services" with an "important message" about my credit card.

This is perhaps the fifteenth or twentieth such call I've gotten on my cell phone. I've never pressed one to get more information; I always hang up. Even though it sounds like an obvious scam, even though I'm on the do-not-call list, even though they are illegally calling my cell, I've never bothered to look into it.

But today it's raining in LA, and people drive like lunatics, and I was late and in a bad mood. Today I slept badly and am feeling off. Today things at work are annoying me. Today I also got an email from a Popehat reader who has been annoyed by the same calls from the same number, and who had read my Anatomy of a Scam series about investigating a crook. [A quick aside: watch for an update on that soon!]

Upon such little coincidences our lives turn. Scammers, I may decide to pursue you, or not, depending on how last night's dinner is sitting. Your fate may turn on Scrooge's fragment of an underdone potato.

Time to drop the hammer. And I'm sending up the Popehat Signal, because it's time for you, ungentle readers, to help. We're crowdsourcing this motherfucker.

Like the Batsignal, only with much more relaxed physical fitness requirements.

So: first. You know our methods, Watson. Preliminary Google results for 253-246-8503 reveals many hallmarks of a scam: multiple results on nearly every "who is calling me" site on the internet, consistent stories about robocalling to people on the do-not-call list and to cell phones, consistent stories of pressing "1" leading to rude and abusive and evasive telemarketers (including, but not limited to, threats of violence and attempts to induce children to give up their parents' credit card numbers), and potentially related scam enterprises at the same 253-246 prefix. Many people have apparently already contacted authorities; I recommend that everyone continue, using optimal reporting methods and looking to the FTC, the Attorney General of your state, the Attorney General of Washington state, and possibly the King County Prosecuting Attorney.

A note about publicizing this: for God's sake, if you are complaining about a telemarketer and posting your experience on a site like 800notes.com, don't post something like "these people called my cell phone number, 213-555-1000, and I want that number removed from their calling list, and my name is Gullible Numbnuts." People. Don't post your name and phone number on the internet.

So. I need some help:

1. Anyone in or near Kent, Washington, who could scope out locations once we start to find them?

2. Some of you are awesome Google wizards who put me to shame. Any thoughts on using public resources to track the number to individuals, named companies, or addresses before I start spending money to do so?

And, finally, there's a specific group I need help from: current or former employees of "Credit Card Services" from 253-246-8503. People who work there or have worked there, I'd like to address you for a moment. I bet some of you will get here eventually.

You probably worked there because you didn't have a lot of other options. I'm guessing they treated you like shit, right? They paid you poorly, and maybe sometimes the paychecks didn't arrive, or they bounced, or they docked you pay for bogus reasons? Scam artists usually treat their employees very badly. They probably also harassed you, belittled you, screamed at you. Scam artists tend to be sociopaths. A lot of them are sexual predators. A lot of them get off on demeaning other people over whom they have power.

Did any of that happen to you? Is it happening right now? Did you work hard, and they ripped you off?

I can help you.

I will help you by finding the right place to file complaints if they ripped you off on your pay (the Washington Department of Labor & Industries, for example). I will use my contacts in Washington State, and my audience here, to find competent attorneys in Washington to help you — whether its good lawyers willing to work on contingency or lawyers willing to work pro bono. If you worry that you're in the government's crosshairs right now because you participated in a scam, I'll work to find you pro bono criminal defense counsel to protect you and convince the government to see you as a witness rather than as a target for prosecution. In short, I will go to bat for you. I can't practice law in Washington, but I will do everything I can.

All you have to do is help.

By that, I mean that you have to provide the full name of everyone you dealt with at 253-246-8503. You need to provide their home addresses if you have them. If they paid you by check, I'll need a copy of one of the checks so we can see where they bank and under what name and what the account number is. You'll need to provide the names of any corporations or other entities you saw or heard there. You'll need to tell me about assets that the scam-leaders flaunted — the cars, homes, and boats. Finally, I'll want to hear about every scam they were running — every pitch, every bogus company name, everything you were trained to do. I won't ask you to commit to cooperating with the government — that's between you and the attorney I will find for you. But if I'm going to help you, you need to give the scammers up. You can reach me at ken at popehat dot com. I'll be waiting.

Let's take down some scammers. Together.

Edited to add: People in the comments have made the perfectly fair point that the Washington number may be spoofed or forwarded and that the callers may reside physically someplace else entirely, perhaps even overseas. Even so, let's find out what we can, publicize it to make it easier for people to find on the internet, and follow up on the leads. If there are readers in, say, Pakistan who are employees of this enterprise and want to drop a dime on it, I don't have as many contacts there, but I will do what I can for you.

Part One: Lowe's Decision

This week home improvement mega-chain Lowe's pulled its advertising from the TLC channel's show All-American Muslim. TLC describes the show like this:

All-American Muslim takes a look at life in Dearborn, Michigan–home to the largest mosque in the United States–through the lens of five Muslim American families.

Each episode offers an intimate look at the customs and celebrations, misconceptions and conflicts these families face outside and within their own community.

To some Americans — for example, the Florida Family Association — this portrayal was unacceptable. Does "All-American Muslim" portray Hamas suicide bombers sympathetically? Does it glamorize calls for the destruction of Israel? Does it suggest that honor killings are a rational method of maintaining good family order?

No. All that "All-American Muslim" does is fail to depict such issues. The quarrel of people like the Florida Family Association is that "All-American Muslim" portrays a group of Muslim-Americans as regular folks, faced with regular challenges, with blowing people up and imposing Sharia Law on the West not among them. This, to the Florida Family Association, is necessarily propaganda:

The Learning Channel's new show All-American Muslim is propaganda clearly designed to counter legitimate and present-day concerns about many Muslims who are advancing Islamic fundamentalism and Sharia law. The show profiles only Muslims that appear to be ordinary folks while excluding many Islamic believers whose agenda poses a clear and present danger to liberties and traditional values that the majority of Americans cherish.

One of the most troubling scenes occurred at the introduction of the program when a Muslim police officer stated "I really am American. No ifs and or buts about it." This scene would appear to be damage control for the Dearborn Police who have arrested numerous Christians including several former Muslims for peacefully preaching Christianity. Dearborn Police falsely arrested Nabeel Qureshi and Paul Rezkalla in 2010 and Sudanese Christian Pastor George Saieg in 2009 for preaching Christianity at the Annual Arab International Festival. Information on these two arrests are posted below.

The first two episodes start off with Muslim youth complaining about non-Muslim Americans’ perception of them as extremists after 911. The show then reports on these youths’ daily, weekly and monthly prayer rituals. Many Imams who are at the head of these prayer rituals believe strongly in Islam and Sharia law. This TLC show clearly failed to connect the dots on this point but then again that appears to be their intent.

In other words, the FFA believes that it is propaganda to portray some American Muslims as regular people without mentioning that there are also some Muslims who are extremists. Imagine, for a moment, applying this logic to other religious groups. Imagine arguing that it's propaganda to portray a Jewish family without mentioning Baruch Goldstein or Irv Rubin or the USS Liberty "for balance." Imagine attacking any of the many television shows portraying Catholics on the grounds that they do not depict clerical molestation of children. Imagine saying that "Big Love" is propaganda not because of its portrayal of polygamy but because it fails to spend enough time depicting Mormons like Ron and Don Lafferty. Imagine saying that it is propaganda to portray conservative Christians (like those in the Florida Family Association) without mentioning people like Eric Rudolph.

Well, actually, it's not too hard to imagine any of those. America is full of nuts saying stupid, stupid things about popular entertainment.

But it is hard to imagine a major company like Lowe's caving to such an argument about other faiths other than Islam. And make no mistake — spin as they might, Lowe's did cave here:

While we continue to advertise on various cable networks, including TLC, there are certain programs that do not meet Lowe's advertising guidelines, including the show you brought to our attention. Lowe's will no longer be advertising on that program.

Our goal is to provide the best service, products and shopping environment in the home improvement industry. We appreciate your feedback and will share your comments with our advertising department as they evaluate future advertising opportunities.

Lowe's is now desperately trying to pretend that it didn't cave to the FFA, and that it just sort of coincidentally decided that "All-American Muslim" is unsuitable:

Lowe's spokesman Katie Cody clarified, insisting that the reason why they stopped their ads was not solely the Florida Family Association.

'We understand the program raised concerns, complaints, or issues from multiple sides of the viewer spectrum, which we found after doing research of news articles and blogs covering the show,' she said.

'It is certainly never Lowe's intent to alienate anyone,' she continued.

The Florida Family Foundation, triumphant, can wander off to pester other advertisers for buying ads on shows that fail to portray homosexuality as an E-ticket ride to Hell. Lowe's, having caved to the FFA, is now reaping the whirlwind and trying desperately to please everybody:

It appears that we managed to step into a hotly contested debate with strong views from virtually every angle and perspective – social, political and otherwise – and we’ve managed to make some people very unhappy. We are sincerely sorry. We have a strong commitment to diversity and inclusion, across our workforce and our customers, and we’re proud of that longstanding commitment.

Lowe’s has received a significant amount of communication on this program, from every perspective possible. Individuals and groups have strong political and societal views on this topic, and this program became a lighting rod for many of those views. As a result we did pull our advertising on this program. We believe it is best to respectfully defer to communities, individuals and groups to discuss and consider such issues of importance.

Lowe's apologia merely hands a roadmap to anyone who wants them to pull advertisements from shows in the future. It's also bringing out the attitudes of their supporters, and the supporters of the Florida Family Association. The comments on their Facebook post show off the folks who support them and the FFA. Take Dr. Dan S. Gilliam, Sr., apparently a psychologist in Wildorado, Texas, who says "I guess it is time to return to Lowe's. At least they can hear and analyze what customers say about promoting a race that would like to kill Americans. If you don't believe that, then you have your head in the sand." Personally I wasn't aware that Muslims are a race, but then I'm not licensed in Texas. There's Billie Jo Connor of Berwyck, Pennsylvania, who is either confusing Muslims with Latinos or is trolling me: "Welcome to america everyone comes from different backgrounds but i for one believe if u come here u should learn english and we should not press 1 to hear someone who i can understand im not gonna learn another language to live in the good ole USA! Merry Christmas!" Or there's Mary Calkins Malone of Yelm, Washington, who has grasped the core message of the FFA that Lowe's has endorsed through its action: "Yay, Lowe's! I don't think All-American and Muslim should be in the same sentence."

Part Two: Americans Living From the Outside In and From the Inside Out

The Florida Family Association is wrong. Lowe's was wrong to yield to it.

Earlier this year, when I wrote about the tenth anniversary of 9/11, I discussed a theme our pastor emphasizes that has become very significant to me:

A life lived from the outside in is a life defined by what has happened to me. A life lived from the inside out is a life defined by how I conducted myself in reaction to what happened to me. We should not define ourselves as the nation that was attacked on 9/11. We should define ourselves as the nation that stood up again, dusted itself off, looked to the injured, honored its dead, and persevered after 9/11.

It is beyond question that some Muslims are violent religious extremists who will kill Americans if they can. It's even beyond question that some such Muslims are here in America. It's clear that some Muslims favor imposition of Sharia law — antithetical to American values like equality and freedom of expression and worship — upon societies, and that some harbor a grand ambition to impose Sharia law here in America.

But those Muslims — however many of them there are — are powerless to change America's nature by themselves. The most horrific terrorist act, the most aggressive campaign to impose their religious values upon us — none of that can, by itself, alter fundamental American traditions and values. Those traditions and values were born in rebellion and deprivation, raised on the frontier, toughened through slow and painful progress from wrong towards right. They include hard work, fair play, due process, equality before the law, liberty, and individuality. Terrorist bombs cannot quell them.

But Americans' reactions to terrorist bombs could.

Americans could live from the inside out — we could define ourselves as the people who defend equality and free expression and freedom of worship and freedom from government interference no matter what, in good times and bad, come what may. Our we can live from the outside in. We could define ourselves as "the country that was attacked by Muslims and now is at war with Islam." God knows that's how people like the Florida Family Association wants us to see ourselves — a fond wish they share with both actual Muslim extremists and lip-service-paying dictators in Muslim countries, who dream of the power they would reap from America declaring war on all Muslims. By doing that, we'd not only commit ourselves to total and endless war, we'd change what America is in response to the threat of Islamic extremism. Muslim fanatics wouldn't have to destroy America — we'd do it for them by turning it into something different, something else, something small and ugly and inglorious. We would abandon consistent and ordered liberty for the vain hope of safety. "Liberty," said Learned Hand, "lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it." (Thanks to Mike for reminding me of that quote.)

We've flirted with doing this, after 9/11. We've allowed the government to assume much broader powers, unreviewable powers, upon the premise that "9/11 changed everything." That danger is not past. And the mindset displayed by the Florida Family Association and endorsed by Lowe's threatens to push us much, much closer to the abyss. People like the Florida Family Association believe that there is no such thing as an "All-American Muslim" — that "Muslim-American" is an inherently contradictory term. They might agree in theory that America is a land of freedom of expression, but they will employ some categorical dodge to explain their position on Islam — like the increasingly popular "Islam is a political agenda, not a religion." (Note that this appeal to the categorical is exactly how the government convinces us to hand it more and more power over us — by saying things like "this belongs in the 'terrorism' box, not the 'freedom' box.")

So, such people want to affix an asterisk to "Muslim-American." That asterisk is indelible and stains us all, as surely as if we agreed "there is no such thing as a Jewish-American, because Jews have divided loyalties to Israel" or "there is no such thing as Catholic-Americans, because Catholics have divided loyalties to the Pope." No doubt there are some Muslims divided between American values and the values of Islamic extremists, just like there are some Jews divided between American values and the best interests of Israel and some Catholics divided between American values and papal edicts. But it is a central tenet of the mighty American experiment that we should treat people as individuals based on their abilities and acts, not based upon their origins or creeds. If we accept the proposition "we welcome all religions except Islam" or "we recognize freedom of religion for everyone except Muslims" or "we treat everyone equally except for Muslims, because of what some Muslims have done or want to do to us," or even the milder "any Muslim must be viewed with suspicion; no Muslim can be portrayed without a reminder that some Muslims are grave threats," we become a nation that lives from the outside in. We re-define ourselves based on wrongs done to us, rather than continuing to define ourselves by what we are capable of doing in the face of any challenge or any wrong.

It's fashionable, in some quarters, to call words like these naive. Islam is different, we're told. Sharia law is on the march, they cry. You're a fool to extend protections to people that they would never offer to you. But if hewing to these values is naive, I'll live with being naive. Frankly, I think that the mindset of the Florida Family Association and their ilk offers far more fertile soil for Sharia law than tolerance. I'm not worried about secular humanists (or "liberal" Presbyterians like me) yielding to Sharia law some day. I'm far more worried about the sort of people who invoke "America is a Christian nation!" to every social, cultural, legal, or political issue. These are the people, I fear, who are already susceptible to the belief that dogma trumps everything.

Make no mistake: the Florida Family Association and its members have the freedom to call for boycotts of anything they want. Lowe's can cave to the advertising-related demands of any cultural group they want; they're a private entity and they have rights too. But the rest of us also have freedoms. I submit we should use those freedoms to criticize Lowe's and defy the mindset of groups like the Florida Family Association. Let's define ourselves by continuing to defend core American values even when facing tremendous threats. Let's live from the inside out.

Yesterday I shared with our readers the story of Marc Stephens, a bumptious non-lawyer whose fatuous threats dramatically magnified and multiplied the bad press of his putative client, the Burzynski Clinic.

This morning I awoke to a friendly note from Marc Stephens — using the same email address he has when threatening other bloggers, the same address I used to seek comment from him before posting. The note contained what I would characterize as a decent effort, given his apparent abilities, to intimidate me. He sent it to my Popehat address and to my real-world big-boy-pants Ken's-sekrit-identity law firm address. Here's what he had to say:

Hello Kenneth, or Ken @ Popehat,

Please confirm your information below. Please note that the case of Skeptics Society/JREF is under federal investigation for identity theft. I suggest you remove all articles on your website in relation to this email address and/or individuals immediately. Please confirm, at this email address, when you have removed the articles.

Are you associated, or a member of The Skeptic Society / James Randi Educational Foundation? We have noticed on your twitter account that you requested an individual to investigate this email account. All of your actions have been recorded.

If we do not hear from you, your information will be forwarded for further investigation, and a associate will contact you. Please confirm if you are Ken@popehat/Kenneth [SektritIdentity] immediately.

[Ken's sekrit work phone and IP address.]

Marc Stephens also included what appears to me a screen shot of some back and forth tweets from the Popehat Twitter account with another Twitter user.

I've decided to make my response public. Here it is.

Dear Marc Stephens:

Congratulations on figuring out my top-secret identity! Only about a dozen people — falling into the elect group of "those who have tried" — have ever managed to do that. I think the last one was a law student at Tulane who was too drunk to study for Real Property.

Anyway, please rest assured that I am totally all terrified here that you identified me. Really. I have goose bumps. I'd take a pic and post it but my iPhone is dead again.

I'd like to address some of your questions and comments, Marc.

Please note that the case of Skeptics Society/JREF is under federal investigation for identity theft.

Under federal investigation! Fascinating. That's all very foreign and scary-sounding and likely to deter me. I mean, it would be, except that I've practiced federal criminal law for seventeen years, one as a clerk for a federal judge, five as a federal prosecutor, and the rest as a federal defense attorney, not counting various internships. I'm actually kind of familiar with federal agencies and federal investigations. I've both run them and thwarted them. So, Marc, would you like to tell me the federal agency you're dealing with, and let me know the name of the case agent? I'd love to call them and answer any questions they have about the investigation.

Also, your reference to "identity theft" fascinates me, because previously it seems you've been complaining that everyone you're angry at is guilty of defamation and mean-scientist-fraud and stuff. I think the identity theft is new. Can you explain? Is it — could I hope — are you going with the "I've been caught being a total douche to dozens of strangers by email, and have fraudulently posed as an attorney, and now I've been publicly humiliated, so I'd like to get a mulligan here, so I'm going to go with 'oh noes my email was hacked and the hacker did nasty things?'" Would that be the same email account you're now using to email me? So I guess you regained control of it? Yeah, Marc, you've got to let me know how that works out, because I've frankly sent some regrettable emails in my life that I'd like to walk back, and I'm eager to hear if this approach works. The "when you get an email like that from me, a wizard did it" approach hasn't been working for me.

I suggest you remove all articles on your website in relation to this email address and/or individuals immediately. Please confirm, at this email address, when you have removed the articles.

Marc, kindly take this post — the link to which I will email to you — as a formal, legally binding, 100% certified style invitation to snort my taint.

Are you associated, or a member of The Skeptic Society / James Randi Educational Foundation? We have noticed on your twitter account that you requested an individual to investigate this email account. All of your actions have been recorded.

Well, Marc, I'm not sure the Skeptic Society or the Randi Education Foundation would let a former Presbyterian deacon in. Also, I'm not really a scientist. I'm just a humble lawyer and blogger. I'm a loner, Marc. A rebel. So, no.

Also, can you tell me who the "we" is in "we have noticed"? You're correct that I used Twitter to discuss, with another Twitter user, investigating your email account. Oh. Is that what you mean by identity theft? Are you using "theft" in the "casually peruse public records of" sense? Am I breaking some sort of federal law that I've never heard of in 17 years as a federal criminal lawyer by Googling your email address? Wow. I must have missed that one.

Also, when you say "all your actions have been recorded," could you elaborate? Because, I mean, my Twitter actions are still on Twitter. And my blog posts are still up here. Are you talking about nifty screenshots, like the one you sent me in your email? Screenshots rock. I've been trying to figure out how to post pics of my Skyrim character when he's put, like, twelve arrows into a Forsaken's head and the guy is still blundering around like a post-apocalyptic hedgehog. It's hilarious. But I might be straying a bit from my point. Did you record me on videotape? Or audio? Do you still use audio? Did you record me on 8-track? God I loved 8-track. I had a girlfriend in college who had 8-track in this ancient station wagon of hers and we would . . . you know, never mind. Anyway, if you have me recorded on 8-track, could I get a copy?

If we do not hear from you, your information will be forwarded for further investigation, and a associate will contact you.

There's "we" again. Honestly, Marc, you're starting to freak me out. How many of you are there? Is this the same "we" as above, or a different "we"? Also, is the associate part of the "we" or not? Are you talking about, like, a law firm associate? Because if you have a lawyer, Marc, I'd be totes happy to call him right now. Or do you mean an "associate" in the sense of "Wayne, who lets me sleep on his futon when I can't pick up enough shifts at Arby's?" Or is it more malevolent, like in mob movies: "my associate, [name with 'the' in the middle], will discuss this with you"? Or . . . wait a minute, Marc. Can . . . can anyone other than you see and hear this associate? Because if this associate is a giant goddam invisible rabbit, Marc, that's a deal-breaker. I hate rabbits, and a six-foot invisible rabbit would freak me right the fuck out. Are you siccing your invisible rabbit on me, Marc? Because if that's what you're saying, I think we have a problem here and there SHOULD be a federal investigation. Threatening people with giant rabbits through the electronic mails is almost certain a violation of several federal statutes, possibly including wire fraud depending on the existence or non-existence of the rabbit. But a sharp legal guy like you already knew that, right Marc? My God. You're already, like, three steps ahead of me.

Anyway, Marc, I notice that you haven't specified any factual statements in my post that you think are incorrect. Can you? I'd be happy to hear you out. Are you a lawyer, Marc? Is it your intention to convey to people that you are a lawyer? People want to know, Marc.

Must run, have to berate an associate;

Ken

Edited to add: If you liked this tale of an exchange with someone who tries to threaten skeptics, you might like this recent pro bono success.

Remember Joseph Rakofsky?

He's the guy — technically a lawyer — who chose to represent a man accused of murder at trial even though he had never tried a case before. This led inevitably to a mistrial and to a judicial observation that Rakofsky's advocacy was below the standard one would expect of a defense lawyer at a murder trial. News organizations and bloggers commented unfavorably. Stung by criticism, Rakofsky sued a wide swath of media outlets and internet writers, asserting feckless theories of defamation. Some stood defiant; a cowardly few caved.

So, remember him? Well, anyway, he's back.

Eric Turkewitz reports that reports that Rakofsky — now representing himself — has filed a gigantic motion seeking a dog's breakfast of court orders. Rakofsky wants to amend his complaint to add 14 defendants, he wants an order deeming his complaint adequate in order to head off motions to dismiss (no, really), he wants his former lawyer sanctioned, and he may want a pony and a pat on the head. The motion is a freakish mess, of a quality I would normally associate with mid-range pro se work — not as bad as a homeless psychotic pro se, but not as good as a reasonably articulate and experienced pro se, like a tax protester or something.

Several people have noted that Rakofsky seeks to add a cause of action for "internet mobbing." Now, you might say that there is no such cause of action, whether under New York law or anywhere else. But Rakofsky is more clever than you. Rakofsky might take the lives of helpless men into his hands when he is manifestly not qualified to do so, but Rakofsky has a certain low craftiness. He knows that the din of insipid anti-bullying rhetoric is growing steadily louder, and that some people are willing to turn their concerns about bullied children into broad and unprincipled doctrines that allow anyone to lash out at critics. Rakofsky is encouraged in this mindset by the leaders of his state. New York state senators are advocating "cyberbullying" legislation, and are premising it on the assertion that we need to revisit our dusty old notions of freedom of speech and come around to the progressive viewpoint that expression is a privilege, not a right:

And yet, proponents of a more refined First Amendment argue that this freedom should be treated not as a right but as a privilege – a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis that can be revoked if it is ever abused or maltreated. British Philosopher John Stuart Mill long argued that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm from others.”76 His “harm principle” was articulated in an analogy by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1841-1935), and still holds true today: “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins,” or, a person’s right to free speech ends when it severely infringes upon the safety and well-being of another.

In the case of cyberbullying, the perceived protections of free speech are exactly what enable harmful speech and cruel behavior on the Internet. It is the notion that people can post anything they want, regardless of the harm it might cause another person that has perpetuated, if not created, this cyberbullying culture.

You might say that this is mere jibber-jabber by a politician, not anything supported by law. But jibber-jabber can be terribly powerful and seductive when brought to bear on behalf of the nation's children, whether temporal or emotional. Why, even professionals nominally devoted to the vigorous defense of constitutional rights can be seduced right into insipid advocacy of hysterical and unprincipled tort remedies.

So: don't blame Rakofsky. He's just got his finger on the pulse. But a dilemma remains: what is the nature of this newly invented tort of internet mobbing? What are its elements? Well, with the encouragement and help of Scott Greenfield, I think I have come up with a set of elements worthy of a jury instruction:

INTERNET MOBBING: ESSENTIAL FACTUAL ELEMENTS

[Plaintiff] asserts that [Defendants] have committed the tort of internet mobbing and hurt [Plaintiff's] feelings really quite badly. The law recognizes that this is a shame. To establish that [Defendants] have committed the tort of internet mobbing, [Plaintiff] must prove the following:

1. That [Defendant] joined a group of three or more persons [including co-bloggers, commenters, and sock puppets];

2. That some member of the group made some use of the internet;

3. That the use of the internet including writing something about [Plaintiff];

4. That something could be described in one or more of the following ways:
a. Mean,
b. Hurtful,
c. Cruel,
d. Uncomfortably true,
e. Emotionally distressing,
f. Bad for business and/or branding or Google rank,
g. Just not kind;

5. That deep and progressive thinkers believe that the right of [Plaintiff] to be free of any such comment outweighs the right of [Defendant] to speak;

6. That at least one other member of the group committed an overt act endorsing or acknowledging the writing through a link, tweet, cross-post, thumbs up, +1, or lol;

7. That [Plaintiff] is, in at least one person's view, special, and thus deserving of the protection of the legal system from criticism or dissent.

Glad to be of help. There's a whole internet of butthurt potential clients out there. Better get cracking.

I'm sure you've heard of Righthaven, a copyright-troll Frankenstein's monster created in a boardroom rather than a laboratory. Righthaven's creators had dreams of making money by assigning newspapers' right to sue for alleged copyright infringement to a litigation entity. Righthaven came out swinging, suing bloggers left and right, in many cases for what was clearly fair-use quotations of articles.

Its efforts met in abject failure. In some instances it lost based on fair use defense; in other cases it lost when courts found that a newspaper couldn't confer standing to sue upon a litigation entity by transferring only the bare right to sue. The end result: Righthaven has lost repeatedly and is facing both sanctions and orders compelling it to pay the attorney fees and costs of its defendants. Frankenstein's monster is lumbering dumbly away.

But Frankenstein's monster was a pathetic and somewhat sympathetic figure, the occasional child-strangulation aside. Righthaven is not. Righthaven, now claiming to be close to bankruptcy, reaches for pathos but achieves only schadenfreude. In a recent Ninth Circuit "Urgent Motion" Righthaven begs the Circuit to stay the district court's order requiring it to pay the attorney fees and costs of a successful fair use defendant, complaining that it cannot secure even a $34,000 bond and that the defendant will soon seize its assets:

To date, Righthaven has been unable to secure a bond. The terms required by the bonding companies that Righthaven’s counsel has investigated and/or contacted are an impediment to meeting the district court’s stay requirement. The bonding companies are requiring what amounts to a full cash bond. In sum, the bonding companies ask for full cash payment, certain forms of collateral held by the company or irrevocable letters of credit be posted to obtain a bond in the amount requested. To date, Righthaven has been unable to satisfactorily meet these requirements in a manner acceptable to a bonding company. Due to the pending appeals and the stay of certain active litigation matters, Righthaven’s operating capital is being utilized to service its monthly operating expenses. As such, it is presently unable to allocate more than $34,000 toward the bond required by the district court to stay the Judgment pending appeal.
Absent posting the required bond or obtaining a stay of the Judgment pending appeal from this Court, Righthaven unquestionably face an imminent threat of irreparable harm through Hohen’s judgment enforcement efforts. As set forth in the motion for writ of execution, Hoehn is clearly seeking to seize and liquidate Righthaven’s intangible intellectual property assets. These assets include not only the copyrighted work at issue in this appeal, but the copyrighted works at issue in other appeals pending before this Court and those at issue in pending district court actions.

The technical, legal term for this request is JNOD, meaning "judgment notwithstanding obvious douchebaggery."

Righthaven's opponent in this is our friend Marc Randazza. One never knows which Randazza is going to show up to the party. Is it the entire legal brief about dicks Randazza? The ram has touched the wall Randazza? No, in this case, it's the literate Randazza, who picks up a mid-nineteenth-century American literature reference and beats the living shit out of Righthaven with it, having (as usual) more fun that one is supposed to as a lawyer. Read it and enjoy.

Things can't get much worse for Righthaven and its lawyers. Or . . . can they?

The Bloggess is simply hilarious. That's why I'm a fanboi.

But because she's simply hilarious, she gets huge traffic. And because she gets huge traffic, she gets huge amounts of blogspam — press release spam, let-us-advertise spam, etc. We get a little here, but nothing like that.

Part of what makes the Bloggess hilarious and awesome is that she has a lot of fun with them, as I've pointed out before.

But spammers and other forms of marketeers are, as a rule, an entitled bunch. They don't like it when people make fun of them.

That's how marketeers from a firm that is supposed to be in the business of media relations and marketing called the Bloggess a "fucking bitch" and told her, in effect, that she should be grateful to be spammed by them.

The outfit in question is called Brandlink Communications LLC. Their Twitter account describes them thusly:

BrandLink Communications. Builds brands with ROI strategies Leverages its relationships with media, influencers and talent to ensure a clients messag

The kids these days — they're in such a hurry.

Anyway, Brandlink sent the Bloggess an unsolicited PR pitch, hoping that somebody might blog about a Kardashian wearing panty hose, which they view as newsworthy. From the email:

“The Kardashian’s once again show they are right on trend, and this is on (sic) Mommy’s are all going to want to follow.”

Global illiteracy is also a trend that is widely followed, though I do not believe that it is a paying client of Brandlink Communications per se.

Anyway, the Bloggess sent her standard whimsical reply: a picture of Wil Wheaton collating paper. It means "thanks for the thing I didn't ask for; here's something you didn't ask for, albeit almost certainly a far cooler thing.

Some marketeers laugh this off, or engage in amusing banter with the Bloggess. Not this one. "Erica" of Branklink sent a snippy email threatening the Bloggess with the ULTIMATE MARKETEER SANCTION: they would stop sending the Bloggess things she didn't ask for and didn't want:

We’ll make note of this email in moving forward and remember if we have any advertising opportunities with any of our clients not to go through you.

How will the Bloggess know whether or not the Kardashians are wearing hose now?

But that wasn't all. "Jose" — would that be VP Media Director Jose Martinez? — sent a "reply all" calling the Bloggess a "fucking bitch." I haven't been to media relations school, but I'm pretty sure they don't recommend that. Perhaps the "reply all" was an accident — but it strikes me as just the sort of deliberate-accidental move you might make if you are a passive-aggressive douche who spams people about Kardashians for a living.

The Bloggess responded with an unusually serious email about how she fights PR spam. "Jose" replied. "Jose's" reply is why I am writing about this — not because of the "fucking bitch" reply-all, which could be Jose having a bad day. "Jose's" reply shows him swollen with typical marketeer/spammer entitlement, including the following:

I get it and I was out of line by saying that however you put way too much effort into your approach. A simple "I don't cover this, no thanks" or "Please remove" would suffice. To go out of your way to be snarky and rude is a little inappropriate. Again, I should've been less harsh – but I also feel like your email was rude and unprofessional as well. We will do a better job to research who we are pitching but maybe you should be flattered that you are even viewed relevant enough to be pitched at all instead of alienated PR firms and PR people – who are actually the livelihood of any journalists business.

Jose is freakishly entitled: he thinks people should be grateful to get his spam, and that people should, out of courtesy, simply politely decline or ask to be removed from the mailing list. Jose sees himself as participant in a polite conversation, not as the equivalent of a stranger deluging you with unwelcome, over-capitalized and oddly spelled screeds telling you how you can make your dick bigger. Jose is wrong. Jose is a classic loser in high-tech form: someone who makes his money sending insipid spam emails about uninteresting things done by vapid people to masses of people, 99.9% of whom don't care and the other .1% of which only care because they are stupid.

Jose's attitude is typical of his ilk. Remember when we made fun of SEO spammer Jamie Spottz, and he showed up in the commends to tell us we should be grateful like his other clients? Remember Spara Townson, the the marketeer who thinks that the comments to other people's blogs are fair game for her shitty little advertisements? Remember serial spammer Bradley Johnson, who inspired a different marketeer to show up and call us assholes for not just deleting comment spam meekly and moving on? Spammers and other marketeers are entitled. I suspect they feel so entitled because they secretly know what they do is so loathsome. They don't just feel entitled, under the First Amendment, to spam you — they feel entitled to be free of criticism and ridicule for doing it.

But they are not. People like this aren't entitled to such polite deference. They aren't entitled to the expectation that you will simply delete the email or unsubscribe, that you will refrain from telling them what you think of them if it amuses you. They are unwelcome intruders, annoying ten thousand people to get one sale. Fuck 'em. Keep up the good work, Bloggess.

Also, on a pure marketing level — if you were the manager for a celebrity, or an event, or a product brand, and were shopping for a public relations and marketing firm, wouldn't you want to know that this is what the people at Brandlink Communications think is good marketing?

Edited to add: On Twitter, Jose is saying that he was "defending" Wil Wheaton. That's his story. That's his crisis management. He gets paid to do that.

Edited again to add: Consider this post by a PR blogger to demonstrate that not all PR people support spamming — though from the comments to that post, you can see that other PR people still think that there's something wrong with calling spammers out. In a similar vein, consider Scott's encounters with PR entitlement syndrome here and here.

Also, Brandlink's Facebook page now says this:

Earlier in the evening I wrote an email to the Bloggess. She was the wronged party and it is up to her to decide if she wants to post the contents of my email. An apology was included, as were my thoughts on profanity and spamming. A mistake was made, but we will respect the privacy of those involved and deal with it, and the consequences, internally. I have chosen not to remove or block the posts. I do ask that you refrain from obscenities as it wasn't right today, and it isn't necessary now. I hope you will continue to follow us and that we will have the opportunity to earn the respect of those of you who were introduced to us through this situation. Sincerely, Carol Bell- Partner

That's somewhat better. Though "mistake was made" made me guffaw.

Last month I wrote about how the University of Wisconsin-Stout ("UWS") tore down Professor James Miller's Firefly poster upon the silly pretext that it represented a threat, threatened him with arrest, then tore down another poster decrying fascism and threatened him over that poster as well. I also wrote about how UWS, once called out, simply doubled down, offering academic double-speak about "a campus climate in which everyone can feel welcome, safe and secure."

Have UWS or its officials gotten smarter? No. No, they have not.

Continue Reading »

Potentially, very.

Just ask Albin H. Gess of the Costa Mesa branch of the firm Snell & Wilmer. He's making stupid and meritless censorious threats on behalf of Meghan McCain.

Continue Reading »

The other day I described how University of Wisconsin-Stout police got all censorious and thuggish about a rather inoffensive Firefly poster and an anti-fascism follow-up. Nathan Fillion and others took notice of the story, spreading it widely. The general hope was that once the matter left the hands of UWS Chief of Police Lisa A. Walter and reached the hands of someone with a room-temperature IQ and even a tenuous grasp of freedom of expression, the problem would be corrected.

We should have known better.

As FIRE reports, UWS Chancellor Charles W. Sorensen has reacted to nationwide ridicule by acting in an even more ridiculous fashion.

FIRE has posted Chancellor Sorensen's email here:

There have been recent news reports about an incident in which two posters hung by a UW-Stout professor outside his office were removed by campus police. There are some important points to consider in the wake of these incidents:

UW-Stout administrators believe strongly in the right of all students, faculty and staff to express themselves freely about issues on campus and off. This freedom is fundamental on a public university campus.

However, we also have the responsibility to promote a campus environment that is free from threats of any kind—both direct and implied. It was our belief, after consultation with UW System legal counsel, that the posters in question constituted an implied threat of violence. That is why they were removed.

This was not an act of censorship. This was an act of sensitivity to and care for our shared community, and was intended to maintain a campus climate in which everyone can feel welcome, safe and secure.

Chancellor Sorensen had some "important points to consider." I have some for him, as well:

1. The obligatory "we believe in freedom of expression" paragraph in the standard defend-our-censorship communique is simply embarrassing. That's why the Chicago Manual of Style For Censorious Dipshits ("CMSCD") recommends eschewing it and launching straight into the meat of your uninformed and conclusory stomping on First Amendment law.

2. The problem with demanding a campus free of "implied threats" is illustrated by this case. Campus police first censored a poster of an imaginary space cowboy with a fan-pleasing quote. Next, just to say FUCK YOU IRONY they used threats of official retaliation against a poster condemning threats of official retaliation. No rational person could construe either poster as a threat, actual or implied, to commit violence against any person (although I suppose the second could be construed as a warning — a correct one — that thugs will act thuggishly when questioned.) If a rational person wouldn't take it as an actual threat of violence, then it's not a true threat that can be censored, however much the hysterical, irrational, nanny-stating, coddling, or professionally emo think about it, and however much university chancellors would like to believe otherwise.

3. Similarly, this case illustrates the problem with an approach to freedom of expression premised on "sensitivity" and making people feel "welcome, safe and secure." "Sensitivity to hurt feelings" is not, in fact, a First Amendment value or a justification for censorship. In fact, stopping people from speaking because the speech hurts people's feelings is the essence of censorship. A system in which what we can say is premised upon the likely reactions of the mentally ill and the undernourished pussywillows of the world is a system that encourages suppression of all unpopular, forceful, interesting, or challenging speech. The irrational and the morally and mentally weak are not entitled to have their feelings protected through the force of law, however prevalent they are on campus.

4. If your "UW System Legal Counsel" told you that these posters could be censored based on their content, then stop hiring lawyers out of the back of a bait shop. Or were you using someone who splits their duties between "UW System Legal Counsel" and "Assistant Professor of Western Hegemony And Hurt Feelings Studies"?

5. "No it isn't!" and "nuh-uh" may be entertaining, but they are not actually legal arguments.

6. Fuck you, you censorship-apologizing, rule-of-law-obscuring, equivocating, worthless bureaucrat.

I think we need a new tag for "Twits in Academia" here at the hat. But the task of going back to all the old posts about academic twits and editing them to add the tag is daunting.