I'm in trial preparation mode, so this will be brief.

A publisher in India called OMICS Publishing Group has threatened to sue a blogger named Jeffrey Beal, who runs a blog called Scholarly Open Access. Beal critiques open-access publishing venues, and and ran a post asserting that OMICS engages in spamming and bait-and-switch. OMICS' threat would be mundane, except that its lawyer, Ashok Ram Kumar of the Indian firm IP Markets, has chosen to be so very ridiculous. He's threatening to sue for $1 billion, and to seek criminal penalties in India.

In India, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act makes it illegal to use a computer to publish "any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character" or to publish false information. The punishment can be as much as three years in prison.

Lawyer, please.

Mr. Beal has little to fear from civil or criminal proceedings in India unless he wants to travel there.

First, if OMICS gets a civil judgment against him from India, they won't be able to enforce it here. The SPEECH Act prohibits any federal or state court in the United States from recognizing or enforcing a foreign judgment for defamation unless (1) the judgment creditor can prove that the foreign court offers equivalent protections for free speech as the defendant would have enjoyed in United States courts under the First Amendment, or (2) the judgment creditor can prove he or she would have prevailed even under the stricter standards in the United States.

Second, if OMICS seeks criminal charges against Mr. Beall in India, they won't be able to extradite him there. Like most extradition treaties, the treaty between the United States and India requires dual criminality — that is, that the offense is a crime in both countries. Hurting fee-fees isn't a crime in the United States. Moreover, under these circumstances, the chance that the U.S. Departments of State or Justice would cooperate with extradition requests is effectively zero.

So. OMICS can sue in the United States. If they do so, they'll have to satisfy their burden under U.S. law — for instance, by showing that Mr. Beall made provably false statements of fact. Attorney Kumar's bluster does not encourage confidence that they will be able to do so:

The rambling, six-page letter argues that Mr. Beall's blog is "ridiculous, baseless, impertinent," and "smacks of literal unprofessionalism and arrogance." The letter also accuses Mr. Beall of racial discrimination and attempting to "strangle the culture of open access publications."

"All the allegation that you have mentioned in your blog are nothing more than fantastic figment of your imagination by you and the purpose of writing this blog seems to be a deliberate attempt to defame our client," the letter reads. "Our client perceive the blog as mindless rattle of a incoherent person and please be assured that our client has taken a very serious note of the language, tone, and tenure adopted by you as well as the criminal acts of putting the same on the Internet."

Let us know how that works out for you, Mr. Kumar. Remember: you can't say "all the publishing credibility of COMIC SANS" without OMICS.

Remember Joseph Rakofsky? He's the brand-new lawyer who thought it was prudent and appropriate to attempt, as his first trial, the defense of a man accused of murder. Havoc ensued. A federal judge granted Rakofsky's request to withdraw, which coincided with the defendant's request for a new lawyer, and granted a mistrial. In doing so the judge said that in the alternative he would have granted a new trial based on Rakofsky's incompetence:

I must say that even when I acquired [sic -- probably "inquired of"] Mr. Deaner [the defendant], I — as to whether or not, when the Court found out through opening, at least near end of the opening statement, which went on at some length for over an hour, that Mr. Rakofsky had never tried a case before. And, quite frankly, it was evident, in portions of the trial that I saw, that Mr. Rakofsky — put it this way: I was astonished that someone would purport to represent someone in a felony murder case who had never tried a case before and that local counsel, Mr. Grigsby, was complicit in this.

It appeared to the Court that there were theories out there defense theories out there, but the inability to execute those theories. It was apparent to Court that there was a — not a good grasp of legal principles and legal procedure of what was admissible and what was not admissible that inured, I think, to t detriment of Mr. Deaner. And had there been — If there had been a conviction in this case, based on what I had seen so far, I would have granted a motion for a new trial under 23.110.

So I am going to grant Mr. Deaner's request for new counsel. I believe both – it is a choice that he has knowingly and intelligently made and he understood that it's a waiver of his rights. Alternatively, I would find that they are based on my observation of the conduct of the trial manifest necessity. I believe that the performance was below what any reasonable perrson could expect in a murder trial.

And later in that hearing . . .

And I think that the – As I said, it became readily apparent that the performance was not up to par under any reasonable standard of competence under the Sixth Amendment.

This was widely reported, resulting in Rakofsky suing a ridiculous array of news outlets and lawbloggers, and stubbornly pursuing those claims in what became known as "Rakofsky versus the Internet."

Last week he lost — a judge granted motions to dismiss his case. That represented two major victories last week for Marc Randazza, who not only represented many lawbloggers in Rakofsky's case, but also crushed infamous copyright troll Righthaven on appeal. This will not make him any easier to live with.

Rakofsky's lead argument was that he was defamed because his detractors reported that a judge had declared a mistrial based on his incompetence, when in fact the judge had declared a mistrial based on the defendant's request and had only said that in the alternative he would have granted a mistrial based on Rakofsky's incompetence. The correct rejection of this argument is a good example of the substantial truth doctrine, also known as the "gist" or "sting of it" doctrine — the rule that says that a statement isn't defamatory if the main insulting thrust of it is true. So, if you accuse me of molesting squirrels in a public park, and I sue you for defamation on the grounds that my companion was a chipmunk and I was in the storm drain adjacent to the park, my defamation suit against you should not survive. (Unless, I suppose, we live in a community where squirrels are held in high esteem but chipmunks are generally despised.) Here, it was patently ridiculous for Rakofksy to maintain that the "mistrial resulting from incompetence" story was meaningfully misleading or false. The trial judge was brutally frank in his evaluation of Rakofsky's ability, and trial judges don't just go around letting defendants change lawyers mid-trial for no reason.

There are a few lessons to learn from this regrettable affair.

1. Our legal system is so broken that it can take years to resolve even the most patently vexatious, harassing, and incompetently prosecuted lawsuits like this one.

2. Rakofsky doubled down. Had he slunk away after his grave error in judgment, giving thanks that his rashness did not lead to someone being convicted, he might have learned the trade, become a competent lawyer, and overcome a brief flurry of bad publicity. Instead, he chose to file a vexatious lawsuit. Now he belongs to the ages. He will never, in the half a century he has left to him, live this down.

3. Yielding to censorious thuggery like Rakofsky's is harmful to your reputation. Cowardly and unprincipled University of St. Thomas School of Law, I'm looking at you. You yielded to a frivolous suit and taught your students and alumni a terrible lesson about being a lawyer and a citizen. You encouraged vexatious and speech-chilling litigation. Let your cringing suckitude be proclaimed throughout the land.

4. Judge Wright's photon torpedo salvo notwithstanding, most judges are reluctant to award sanctions even against conduct that richly deserves it. Here the judge declined to award sanctions against Rakofksy. I'm inclined to agree with Scott that Rakofsky's youth, inexperience, and nationwide humiliation probably stayed the judge's sanctioning hand.

5. If you want the law to be an instrument of self-actualization, start a blog. Law practice — the profession of providing services to clients who need you — is not your personal voyage of self-discovery and empowerment. If you practice as a lawyer, you owe it to your clients only to do the things you are competent to do. Embarking on the defense of a man accused of murder as your first trial is a moral and ethical outrage. Regrettably, the profession is barraged with eager voices telling us that attracting clients with puffery and keywords and Twitter accounts is the way to build a practice. Nobody's reminding us that you have an obligation to know what you're doing before you accept the client. Somebody should.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is in federal prison. He's scheduled to remain there until September. He's held under the name "Nakoula Basseley Nakoula," not as "Sam Bacile" (the name he used make the anti-Islamic film "the Innocence of Muslims,") nor under the name "Mark Bassely Youssef" (which he now claims is his current correct name, notwithstanding that he pleaded guilty to a federal crime under the Nakoula name).

Why is he in prison? It depends on who's talking.

To hear some people talk, he's in prison because he made an anti-Islamic movie, because the Obama Administration is eager to cover up the root causes of the Benghazi catastrophe, and because the Obama Administration wants to appease censorious Islamists. Some people merely imply this with headlines: "The guy who made “Innocence of Muslims” is still in jail, and we still don’t know who attacked Benghazi" Some people, like National Review's Rich Lowry, come right out and say it, asserting that Nakoula would not have been arrested and charged with a supervised release revocation but for his speech:

He is not going to win any good citizenship awards and violated the terms of his probation by using an alias (something Nakoula admits).

A violation of probation, though, usually produces a court summons and doesn’t typically lead to more jail time unless it involves an offense that would be worth prosecuting in its own right under federal standards. Not for Nakoula.

This wasn’t a case of nailing Al Capone on tax evasion. As Nina Shea of the Hudson Institute points out, Al Capone’s underlying offense was racketeering and gangland killings. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula’s underlying offense wasn’t an underlying offense. He exercised his First Amendment rights.

Some call him a political prisoner.

These people all have something in common. They've never prosecuted a supervised release revocation in federal court. They've never defended someone accused of violating supervised release in federal court. They've never worked as a federal probation officer or filed a petition to revoke a sueprvisee's release. They've never worked as a federal judge and approved or denied such a petition, or presided over such a hearing. They've never seen a supervised release revocation hearing. Moreover, I'd wager a substantial amount of money that before they opined about the proceedings against Nakoula they didn't talk to anyone who had ever done any of these things, or anyone reasonably well informed about how they are done.

I've observed, and participated in, federal supervised release revocation proceedings since 1995. In writing about Nakoula I've drawn not only on that experience but on the actual documents from his case and on the law. My premise has been this: anyone on supervised release for a federal fraud conviction and owing more than $700,000 in restitution would face supervised release revocation if the Probation Office discovered that they were using aliases, engaging in unreported financial transactions, and using computers in those transactions, all in violation of their terms of release. Most federal judges would issue arrest warrants, not summonses, and most federal judges would order jail time to such a person if they found he had obtained and used a false driver's license and concealed transactions from the Probation Officer. Rich Lowry's claim that "[a] violation of probation, though, usually produces a court summons and doesn’t typically lead to more jail time unless it involves an offense that would be worth prosecuting in its own right under federal standards" is quite frankly pulled straight out of his ass. Supervisees are routinely arrested rather than summoned, particularly when there are indications they might be a flight risk — like using a false identity. Supervisees are routinely returned to prison for offenses that would never be prosecuted federally as separate crimes.

Is Nakoula in federal prison because he made the "Innocence of Muslims" video? Superficially, perhaps, in the sense that his behavior may have escaped detection if he hadn't become famous. It's even possible that someone in the Obama Administration tipped off — or pressured — the Probation Office about his conduct. (If that's what happened, there ought to be a Congressional investigation.) But Nakoula's conduct is the sort that would absolutely be pursued if detected by his Probation Office and would routinely result in a revocation of supervised release and a return to federal prison. People saying otherwise don't know what they are talking about or don't care, or both.

I support a vigorous Congressional inquiry into the attack at Benghazi. The most charitable interpretations of the inquiry to date raise grave concerns about the honesty and decency of Obama Administration officials. I support asking hard questions about whether anyone in the administration contacted the U.S. Probation Office in Los Angeles about Nakoula. But this inquiry doesn't require, and shouldn't encourage, lying about the law. We should absolutely fight, to our last breath, pressure to yield to unprincipled "hate speech" and "anti-blasphemy" norms of other countries. But the cause of freedom of expression is not advanced by cynical and dishonest partisan bullshit.

Edited to add:

Mr. Baldwin, you're completely awesome. But my days of taking you serious politically are certainly coming to a middle.

Scott Bloch used to be a deputy director to the Department of Justice's Task Force for Faith-based and Community Initiatives under President George W. Bush and a Special Counsel at the United States Office of Special Counsel. Now he's a defendant in a federal criminal case, and has pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for approving a "seven level wipe" on certain Office of Special Counsel computers, and now faces sentencing. This represented a milder charge than ones the government previously pursued: the feds charged him initially with contempt of Congress but abandoned that charge after Bloch was allowed to withdraw a guilty plea to it.

In addition to all that, it appears that Scott Bloch is a censorious thug.

Empty Wheel — which has been following Bloch's prosecution closely — has a post describing how Bloch has threatened bloggers writing about his case. Empty Wheel attaches and quotes a letter on Scott Bloch's own law firm letterhead. It includes the following language:

I write to demand that you remove these articles and blogs about me and my time as Special Counsel immediately. This is harmful to my professional reputation as a lawyer and you are not commenting on any public matters that are current. The prior legal defense fund is defunct and has not been active for over two years. Your demeaning and personal attacks impute to me qualities that tend to injure me in my business of representing contractors. Your website is dedicate [sic] to them and therefore you are targeting my business in Washington, D.C. intentionally, and my residence in Virginia, from where I draw some of my clients.

If you choose to ignore this and not remove the materials from your internet site and blogs and all caches, I will be forced to sue for an injunction and to seek damages. As long as the article remains on your website, you are publishing it. In addition, you are publishing it in various fora, including in Virginia and Washington D.C. where I represent employees and federal employees [sic] Continuing publication also subjects you to Virginia jurisdiction as long as the article remains on the web. I will institute an action in Virginia and in Washington D.C. against you for defamation and actual malice, together with damages and punitive damages.1 I will also seek damages for civil conspiracy to harm my business, and Virginia courts and juries have proved to be very protective of one’s business reputation when gratuitously harmed by publications. If I determine through discovery that you have worked with others to do this, I will join them as well. (emphasis added)

Were it not a vexatious attempt to chill free speech, Bloch's letter would be comical because it is so surpassingly ridiculous. First, Bloch does not specify which specific statements in the blog posts are false and defamatory. As I often say, vagueness in a defamation threat is the hallmark of meritless thuggery. Second, the assertion that Bloch's federal case — the prosecution of a former Department of Justice and Office of Special Counsel lawyer — is not a "public mater" that is "current" is freakishly frivolous. Third, the demand that bloggers remove all materials — not just specified allegedly false statements — is legally unsupportable and a reliable tell of censorious bullying, not merit. Fourth, the statement "As long as the article remains on your website, you are publishing it" is at best a highly questionable assertion of law. Virginia will probably follow the Single Publication Rule, and the District of Columbia definitely follows it; that rule provides that the statute of limitations for a defamation suit begins to run when a statement is first published, even if it remains on the internet thereafter.

Bloch's letter has all of the signs of bullying and none of the signs of truth. Empty Wheel notes that he has not threatened a larger blogger with a wider audience, but smaller blogs — perhaps ones more easily cowed.

I hope that someone finds a way to put this threat before the judge in Bloch's case to consider when he is sentenced.

It's time for the Popehat Signal. I'm looking for attorneys admitted in Massachusetts to represent both named and anonymous online commenters. They've been sued by a man named Jonathan Graves Monsarrat based on a series of LiveJournal posts and comments.

Monsaratt's lawsuit is here. You can see LiveJournal threads talking about the lawsuit here and here.

The lawsuit targets posts and comments about Monsarrat's January 2010 arrest. Various sources reported that police arrested Monsarrat when they found him at a loud Somerville party that featured (gasp) underaged drinking. The charges against Monsarrat were later dismissed. Monsarrat was already known locally. Some of his fame was benign — he ran a whimsical message board called the "Wheel of Questions" where people could leave notes and have them answered. Some of his fame, on the other hand, was not positive. In 2003 the MIT and Harvard student papers reported complaints by participants in a Harvard-MIT-Wellesley matchup program he created and operated; participants asserted that Monsarrat chose people he wanted to meet from the matchup he was running and persistently contacted them in a way they found harassing. He was quoted thus:

Monsarrat, who also participated in the matchup service, said that he had heard of complaints about his personal use of data from the service, but said “I kind of don’t get that. I signed up like everybody else. There was no privacy policy.”

These reports led to a certain amount of internet infamy, including an unflattering entry on Encyclopedia Dramatica.¹ Monsarrat filed a DMCA notice against Encylcopedia Dramatica seeking to remove among other things, pictures of him they posted in the course of ridiculing him.

When Monsarrat's arrest broke in 2010, people began writing about it, and him, and his past, on LiveJournal. People writing about it referred to past stories about him in connection with the matchup incident, and other critiques of him. As is common online, many criticisms were vivid and accusatory and hyperbolic. That's the basis of Monsarrat's suit against two named defendants (a blogger and a poster on LiveJournal) and multiple anonymous commenters.

Monsarrat's complaint cites some statements made about him which, if untrue, could be defamatory. So why do I think this case is worthy of the Popehat Signal? It's because the complaint is overtly censorious and abusive of the legal process in multiple ways.

First, the complaint jumbles allegedly false statements of fact together with clear statements of opinion and insulting rhetoric. The former can be defamatory; the latter is protected by the First Amendment.

Second, the complaint jumbles together numerous defendants and suggests that they are all jointly responsible for each others' words. But under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act content providers — like bloggers — can't be held liable for the words of their commenters. Moreover, Monsarrat's conspiracy theory appears to be a method to target people for protected speech (like insults or statements of opinion) on the theory that the protected speech was connected to non-protected speech (like false accusations of fact). Practically speaking, that theory means if you post an insult or opinion about someone in a thread that also contains a false statement by someone else, you could be sued for conspiracy to defame. The chilling effects are obvious.

Third, the complaint suggests that bloggers, and commenters, cannot report and comment based on stories published in newspapers. There can't be any dispute that a local paper reported on Monsarrat's arrest and that student papers reported on the matchup incident. Misstating what's in those articles can be defamatory, but suing people for repeating what was published in the paper — without any basis for asserting they knew it was false — seems overtly censorious, and faces substantial legal barriers.

Fourth, Monsarrat cites some commenters merely for linking to other sites, like Encyclopedia Dramatica and the Harvard student paper. But there is — thankfully — an emerging legal consensus that linking to content does not constitute republication of that content for defamation purposes.

Fifth, for some reason, it appears that Monsarrat has waited to the very ragged edge (if not beyond) of Massachusetts' three-year statute of limitations for defamation actions. That does not support the assertion that he was actually harmed; it appears tactical.

Sixth, Monsarrat's non-defamation causes of action appear highly dubious. His "common law copyright" claim is based on uses of content that are clearly intended to critique or satirize. His commercial claims seem to rely on the highly dubious proposition that the defendants were involved in commercial activity. In short, the other claims appear to be a kitchen-sink approach. And, of course, there's Butthurt In the First Degree, also known as Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

The Streisand Effect may yield results that Monsarrat will regret. He needs to prove that the things said about him are untrue. A lawsuit like this seems designed to generate widespread publicity and encourage any witnesses that might support the defendants to come forward.

The complaint is highly vulnerable to attack. The named defendants need legal help. One of them — Ron Newman — helps maintain a LiveJournal community. Like many Americans, he's out of work, and like almost all Americans, he'd find it impossible to fund the defense of a lawsuit. Lawsuits are ruinously expensive to most folks — which is exactly why merely the threat of a defamation suit can silence people, and why plaintiffs can abuse the legal system to chill expression.

Someone may have uttered false and genuinely defamatory words against Monsarrat; I don't know. I do know that defamation cases — particularly ones where the plaintiff is pursuing extravagant legal theories that threaten everyone's speech — are best resolved with vigorous and capable counsel on both sides. Here Monsarrat's complaint, whatever elements of merit it might have, is framed in a way that should be of grave concern to anyone who values freedom of expression and opposes legal bullying.

So: if you are a Massachusetts lawyer, please consider helping the named defendants. I suspect that First Amendment lawyers across the country will be willing to offer support and advice. In addition, the anonymous commenters require counsel to help them oppose discovery calculated to pierce their anonymity.

Thanks, as always, for standing up to defend free speech.

The Streisand Effect is one possible bad consequence of a legal threat designed to remove content from the internet.

But it's not the only possible bad consequence.

Battlefoam makes storage containers for miniatures used in wargaming. If you don't know what that means already you'll just be irritated if you try to find out, so don't bother. Battlefoam's exec Romeo Filip was angry at some things someone wrote at a site called The Blood of Kittens Network. That site is "devoted to spreading a heritical understanding of the Warhammer 40k universe to neophytes and devotees alike." Again, if you don't know what that means, you very likely don't want to know. Just nod your head and move along.

Anyway, Battlefoam and Filip got some Arizona lawyers to write a very blustery cease and desist letter. It's not the worst cease-and-desist I've ever seen — it does some things to avoid the Streisand Effect, like specifying particular statements that Battlefoam thinks are false — but its language and demands are extravagant. It also offers a short drop-dead date for capitulation.

Lawyers offer short deadlines hoping to convey seriousness and determination. Sometimes it works. Other times, it conveys "there's no point in negotiating with these people."

As followers of The Oatmeal saga will recall, a subject of blustering legal threats need not stay on the defensive; there are offensive options as well. That's exactly the approach Blood of Kittens and its owner, Nicolas Hayden, took. They siezed the initiative and filed a strong declaratory relief action in Northern California, seeking a court determination that the posts about Battlefoam and Filip are protected by the First Amendment. They are being represented pro bono by First Amendment badass Marc Randazza and his colleague Gil Sperlein, also a notable First Amendment practitioner.

Now, unless Battlefoam can get the action dismissed or moved, Blood of Kittens has chosen the forum, the time, and the framework of the litigation, and is represented by two exceptional First Amendment practitioners.

Had Battlefoam's lawyers written a less blustery, less demanding letter, this might not have happened. They could have written a polite but firm letter saying they wanted to discuss resolution of concerns about false statements. They could have avoided purple prose and demands for things they could never get in court. Then Hayden might not have been able to attract two of the nation's best defamation defense attorneys to work for him for free. He might not have attracted anyone to file a declaratory relief suit, and indeed the grounds for such a suit (the clearly presented immediate controversy) might have been unclear.

But Battlefoam's lawyers decided to please their client with a take that type of letter.

Hey guys. Was it worth it?

Edited to add: Thanks to a commenter, I see that Romeo Filip did a podcast yesterday. At about the 60 minute mark he talks at length about the litigation, demonstrating that he doesn't understand declaratory relief, attorney fees, or the law. Plus, in a case in which he says it is defamatory to say he physically assaults critics, he shrewdly jokes (Kind of — I think) about punching critics in the face. Genius. Sheer genius. I presume his attorneys didn't know he was making their job so much more difficult. If he has meritorious claims — if Blood of Kittens posted false statements of fact with the requisite intent — he just significantly reduced his chance of winning. Clients.

Today, when Jason Collins became the first openly gay NBA player, some people were predictably annoyed. One of them was ESPN's Chris Broussard, a lout:

"I'm a Christian. I don't agree with homosexuality," Broussard said. "I think it's a sin, as I think all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is.

"If you're openly living in unrepentant sin … that's walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ," he added.

Yeah, Jason Collins is really bringing down the high moral tone of the NBA.

Chris Broussard is a dinosaur snarling at the oncoming asteroid. Even opposition to gay marriage is doomed in the long term, let alone dwindling opposition to gays and lesbians living openly. If they are angered by people like Jason Collins, Broussard and his ilk are destined for lives of increasingly marginalized bitterness and resentment.

But that's not enough for some who think Chris Broussard's views should be suppressed by force of law. For instance, over at Pacific Standard, Nicholas Jackson uses Chris Broussard as an opportunity to call for censorship and be thoroughly wrong about free speech and the First Amendment. It's typical for people to react to obnoxious speech by waving their arms and proclaiming vaguely there oughta be a law; that's banal. Jackson distinguishes himself by asserting authority and then promoting disinformation about the law, all in the service of an argument that the law should prohibit Broussard's speech.

What authority, you might ask? Authority as a journalist:

It’s the blanket free speech argument. (And I know that argument well. As a wildly conservative—this is back in the jingo days before I came out, when I was using the near-lethal combination of pen and temper to shield my own personal insecurities—high school student, I wrote a number of columns for the student newspaper and regional publications in the Chicago area on this subject.) But the blanket free speech argument is a weak one. Any journalist knows that. After a basic media ethics class (the easy way) or a handful of frightening emails from a subject (the hard way), you’ll know a thing or two about libel and slander.

Jackson relies upon his journalist's experience to tell us that the Supreme Court has many restrictions on free speech, and has been cutting back on the First Amendment.

There’s also, of course, obscenity, child pornography, incitement, false or misleading advertising (all commercial speech is subject to limited protection), and speech owned by others (this is where trademarks and copyright issues come into play). Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has tightened the definition of free speech over and over again.

Therefore, Jackson suggests, the "fighting words" doctrine should just be expanded a bit to prohibit words like Broussards'.

Jackson's just flat-out wrong.

First, Jackson's censorious fantasies aside, the Supreme Court has been expanding free speech rights for a half-century, not "tightening" them. With very few context-specific exceptions — like speech at schools — the Supreme Court has used every opportunity to reject the argument that the First Amendment permits suppression of speech because it's "offensive." In doing so, the Court has relentlessly rejected attempts to expand — or even apply — the "fighting words" doctrine. The Court said it wasn't fighting words to wear a jacket with the words "Fuck the Draft." The Court Court held Jerry Falwell couldn't recover for the humiliation of a Hustler ad parody suggesting he lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse, "fighting words" doctrine or not. The Court overturned flag burning laws, rejecting the argument that flag-burning constitutes "fighting words." The Court found a broad hate speech law to be unconstitutional, noting that the "fighting words" doctrine could not be applied selectively to disfavored speech. And, as Jackson concedes, the Supreme Court rejected — by an 8 to 1 margin — the argument that Fred Phelps' douchebaggery constitutes "fighting words" just because it causes emotional pain.

Nor has the Court been willing to carve out new exceptions to the First Amendment. The Court refused to create a new First Amendment exception for lies about military credentials. It refused to create a new exception for depictions of animal abuse.

In short, the "fighting words" doctrine is dying. It's quite rare to see it used to justify censorship. What Nicholas Jackson is asking for is not the minor tweak to current doctrine that he suggests, but a wholesale reversal of fifty years of free speech precedent. Why does he think we should do that?

Now, as a 25-year-old, I appreciate those restrictions [on speech], because, frankly, I don’t want to listen to your bullshit.

Oh, Nicholas. Believe me when I understand that I get that right now. But it's not enough. My right to free speech depends on the free speech of people like Broussard. If you think that that's just a rhetorical flourish, let me remind you of Nicholas' own words:

After a couple of years in which we’ve seen dozens of studies—LGBT youth who are bullied are far more likely to consider and commit suicide; acceptance from family and friends minimizes risk—and a similar number of deaths, Broussard’s words, and the arguments by otherwise reasonable people that they should be protected by free speech, are no longer acceptable. They’re fighting words. [emphasis added]

Yes: not talking out of your ass when you discuss the First Amendment is now hate speech, according to Jackson.

Broussard's team is losing, or has lost. Their traditional argument — that homosexuality is evil, and dirty, and icky, and morally objectionable to decent people — is no longer palatable to most people, let alone convincing. Therefore their strategy has shifted. More and more, the public argument against gay marriage is not that it's morally wrong, but that expanding gay rights will necessarily lead to fewer rights for everyone else. We're told that recognizing the equal rights of gays and lesbians will lead to suppression of freedom of speech and religion.

I don't think that's a winning argument long-term. But people like Nicholas Jackson do their best to make it seem plausible.

Nicholas Jackson is a useful idiot for the anti-gay right.

Edited to add: My good friend Clark has a critique of my treatment of Broussard, and I have a partial response.

There are many rules governing sensible protection of your company's online reputation. The first is simple, if vague: to quote Wil Wheaton, don't be a dick.

If you've been a dick, there's no need to despair. Everybody has a bad day now and then, and the internet is basically a big old bag of dicks, so your dickery may quickly be forgotten. Redemption is within your reach.

Unless, that is, you double down, and triple down, and quadruple down.

"Doubling down" means that, when called out for being a dick, you retaliate by being even more of a dick. The infamous Charles Carreon doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down in his dispute with The Oatmeal and with a satirical blogger. Paul Christoforo doubled down. Craig Brittain of "Is Anybody Down?" doubled down. Ranaan Katz doubled down.

When you double, triple, and quadruple down on online dickery, you place yourself beyond easy reputational redemption, and instead face the full force of the Streisand Effect.

Illinois bus company Suburban Express learned this lesson over the past week. But even though they engaged in online dickery, and even though they doubled down, having caught a glimpse of the Streisand Effect, they are now retreating furiously from the precipice and avoiding the fatal triple- and quadruple-down. But has their change of strategy come soon enough?

Continue Reading »

We get letters.

This week we heard from a reader who, to protect her privacy, I'll refer to as Rapunzel. Rapunzel had a bad experience with a piece of jewelry she'd ordered from an online merchant. It seems that Rapunzel had ordered a necklace, which she expected to look like this:

What actually arrived looked like this:

But by the time this reached me, the necklace was not Rapunzel's problem. This is not a post about cheap cosmetic jewelry.

This is a post about baseless threats of suit to suppress a dissatisfied customer's speech, spurious allegations of crime, stalking, and  the most bone-headedly aggressive  customer service department on the entire world wide web.

"A bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes." — Douglas Adams.

This is a post about alwaysinfashion.com, the "Online Store of Polish & Russian Amber and Murano Glass Jewelry," whatever that is.

Now ordinarily I would not lift a finger to assist someone who had purchased a trinket online and found its appearance … something less than what was advertised. I would politely commiserate, then point out that I charge more to make one telephone call than the trinket is worth.

To her credit, Rapunzel did not seek my assistance in getting a refund. She had dealt with that herself. After sending an inquiry, she found that the company's return terms (a refund only if the offending merchandise is shipped first-class mail to Italy, at the buyer's expense) were unsatisfactory, and advised the company that she would write a negative review of the product, and her experience with the company.

That's when things got weird. That's when Rapunzel received this email, from "sales" at alwaysinfashion.com:

Mrs. Rapunzel,

We are a reliable and well known company and people on the internet talk about Us very positively.

You have received the items that You have ordered and paid for, that is it.

Thousands of customers are happy for the quality of our products and for our professionalism and We must suppose that You agreed with them since You have decided to place on order from our company.

Be aware that You have threatened, tried to blackmail and accused our company of Scam with your e-mail. This something really serious and inacceptable therefore We will send a copy of your e-mail and all your data to our lawyers.

If You keep on with your defamations and write anything on blogs, forums or social networks, We will immediately start a lawsuit against You.

Sales Department
Alwaysinfashion.com (Emphasis in original)

This email brings several thoughts to mind.

First, it's good to know that Ignatius J. Reilly is alive and well, and working in customer service.

Second, the circular logic that leads alwaysinfashion.com to suppose that Rapunzel, a first time customer, "must have agreed" with the thousands of customers happy for the quality of its products and professionalism, before she ever received a product, is breathtaking.

Third, my co-blogger Ken has said, rightly, that vagueness is one of the hallmarks of a poor legal demand. When the threatening party cannot identify a specific defamatory statement, that's a sign of bullying and bluster. In this case, alwaysinfashion.com goes one better: The company threatened Rapunzel with litigation before she wrote a single word about its product.

Fourth, well, you'll see…

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." — Hunter S. Thompson.

After receiving alwaysinfashion's thug-missive, Rapunzel replied, stating she would communicate with the company no more, but asserting her right to express her honest opinion of the product, as well as the fact that alwaysinfashion had threatened to sue her, to others. I believe she has done so at this point.

Later this week, unsolicited, this popped into Rapunzel's in-box.

Mrs. Rapunzel,

These are the facts:

1)You placed an order of two Amber necklaces ATN002 (realized with irregular beads softly rounded in matte and cognac color) promptly shipped and delivered to You.

2)You liked so much Our Amber necklaces that You have tried to get another couple for free adducing unfounded reasons.

3)After Our denial, your opinion about Our products and Our company suddenly changed:  Our necklaces became “sub par” items and We became scammers.

Objectively if You feel yourself victim of a scam, the only logical thing to do is to ask for product return instructions and surely not to ask for other two pieces of the same item. You also asked for an expedited shipping since you:” really wanted to have this amber for the trip”.

Moreover your scam allegations are based on your personal idea that beads color is  an evidence of Amber quality. Please show Us your credentials as jewelry expert or send Us a copy of the  documentation that certify your statements.

Mrs. Rapunzel You can be sure that We will leave reviews and post on social networks about your blackmail and threatens and We surely inform about this matter all the companies You work for in Oklahoma [REDACTED BY PATRICK]

This is our last warning to You Mrs. Rapunzel: If You keep on with your defamations and write false reviews or lies on blogs, forums or social networks, We will immediately start a lawsuit against You.

This is our last e-mail and We assure You, Mrs. Rapunzel that the next communication will be sent from Our lawyers along to a claim for damages.

Sales Department

Alwaysinfashion.com

Believe it or not, there is a charitable interpretation of this email.

I will assume, charitably, that the mastermind behind alwaysinfashion.com's sales team learned English as a second language.

And one could assume, charitably, that alwaysinfashion's threat to "leave reviews and post on social networks about your blackmail and threatens" is a poorly phrased way of stating, "We will post detailed rebuttals of your online criticisms of our products."

If one were charitable.

I'm not charitable, because the following threat, to contact Rapunzel's employer concerning her "blackmail and threatens," showing that alwaysinfashion had gone so far as to google Rapunzel and name an employer, is extortion in the moral sense of the word if not the legal: a threat to accuse Rapunzel falsely of a crime, and to jeopardize her livelihood, all in order to suppress her speech.

"This aggression will not stand, Dude." — Walter Sobchak.

By this time Rapunzel had contacted Popehat. Where initially she had considered alwaysinfashion's threats to be bluster, that the company had taken the trouble to search her employment history, in a dispute over a cheap piece of jewelry, was so off-the-rails scary that she felt she needed help.

Yesterday I sent the following email to "sales" at alwaysinfashion.com:

Dear Sir or Ma'am.

I am writing to inquire whether a series of threatening emails sent to your customer Ms. Rapunzel concerning Ms. Rapunzel's request to return an amber necklace represent your company's typical customer service.

As I believe you are aware, Ms. Rapunzel recently purchased an amber necklace from your website. She was dissatisfied with the quality of the product. She asked to return the necklace for a full refund. When you informed that she would have to pay shipping costs to return the product at her own expense, Ms. Rapunzel advised she would mention that fact, and her overall dissatisfaction with the quality of your merchandise, in a review of the product.

In response, you sent Ms. Rapunzel an email which contained the following threat:

Be aware that You have threatened, tried to blackmail and accused our company of Scam with your e-mail. This something really serious and inacceptable therefore We will send a copy of your e-mail and all your data to our lawyers.If You keep on with your defamations and write anything on blogs, forums or social networks, We will immediately start a lawsuit against You.

Later this week, although Ms. Rapunzel had not contacted you in the meantime, you wrote her again, threatening to contact a former employer about this situation, and to "leave reviews and post on social networks about your blackmail and threatens."

I write for a weblog known as Popehat, which can be read at www.popehat.com. We write occasionally on legal issues, as well as free speech and threats to free speech. I am an attorney, as are several of my fellow writers. Although I do not represent Ms. Rapunzel as her attorney, I do find it troubling that you would threaten a lawsuit against Ms. Rapunzel simply for exercising her right to express her honest opinion.

I plan to write about this situation. Before I do so, I would like to offer you the opportunity to comment on the situation. If my understanding of the facts is incorrect, please let me know. I would also appreciate it if you could answer the following questions:

1) How has Ms. Rapunzel "blackmailed" your company? Has Ms. Rapunzel threatened or attempted any criminal action against you, as opposed to expressing her honest opinion of the product and what appears, to me as well, to be atrociously poor customer service?

2) Is it usual for alwaysinfashion.com to contact employers of customers who complain about the quality of its merchandise?

3) Is it usual for alwaysinfashion.com to threaten to accuse customers who complain about the quality of its merchandise of crimes on "social networks"?

4) Do you understand that, in the United States as in most free nations, Ms. Rapunzel has an absolute right to express honest opinions, and to write honest reviews, of products and of merchants such as alwaysinfashion.com?  If you do understand this, on what basis do you threaten to sue Ms. Rapunzel?

5) Are you familiar with the term "Streisand Effect"?

For your reference, here are some posts we've written in the past at Popehat about people and companies who baselessly threaten litigation against others who, like Ms. Rapunzel, are simply expressing the truth or honest opinion:

[snipped]

Finally, while I do not represent Ms. Rapunzel at this time, I am an attorney. Naturally I know many attorneys, in California (where your company appears to base its American operations) as well as in Ms. Rapunzel's state of Oklahoma, and around the nation. I do want you to know that in the event alwaysinfashion, or any of its affiliates, files a baseless lawsuit against Ms. Rapunzel for exercising her constitutional right to free speech, we will do everything in our power to see that Ms. Rapunzel is afforded counsel who will vigorously protect her rights, including, if necessary, filing motions for sanctions under appropriate state law to recover her attorney's fees and costs.

I look forward to your response.

Patrick at Popehat

I've sent that email multiple times, with and without links. As of today my emails have been returned as undeliverable or have not generated a response.

I can't say whether alwaysinfashion will follow through on its threats to sue Rapunzel, but that isn't the point. By promising a suit, and by promising to contact her employers, alwaysinfashion has already shown it's willing to use the chilling effect of threatened litigation (and worse) to silence her.

All that I can do at this point is to speak for her, and to encourage her to continue to speak. I'll be the first to admit that I know nothing about jewelry, but even if I did, and I knew enough to say that alwaysinfashion sells the finest Baltic amber jewelry on the planet, I wouldn't use one of their necklaces to wring a chicken's neck.

Stupid defamation threats like those issued by alwaysinfashion, issued before an aggrieved customer even writes a review, threats of extrajudicial terror such as contacting employers, can and should be publicized far and wide. Alwaysinfashion's customers, and its potential customers, deserve to know that if they have a poor experience with the company and complain about it, they may receive the Rapunzel treatment: threatened litigation and threats to employment.

Caveat emptor.

UPDATE: ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!

A representative of Always In Fashion has favored us with a reply.

But the reply raises more questions than it answers and, if possible, makes the company look worse.

Patrick Frey, also known as Patterico, has been living under the cloud of a frivolous, censorious, and thoroughly contemptible SLAPP suit seeking to chill his First Amendment rights.

Today he won.

Background

Since last year it's been my privilege to work alongside the formidable Ron Coleman to defend Patrick pro bono against the federal lawsuit Nadia Naffe filed.

Ron and I filed motions seeking to dismiss Nafe's original federal complaint. In December United States District Court Judge George Wu granted our motion to dismiss, but without prejudice — that is, he gave Naffe once chance to amend to see if she could state a valid claim.

We moved to dismiss her amended complaint on a variety of theories. Today we won. Judge Wu's tentative ruling with the meat of his decision is here, and his order of today confirming his tentative is here.

The Issues and The Ruling

I'm not going to explain the legal issues at length. I attached all the pleadings from the first round of briefing before, and the pleadings this time are below. If you want to get a sense of the case, I recommend reading our anti-SLAPP motion, our Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), and Judge Wu's order.

In brief: Naffe sued Frey for a violation of civil rights by the state under 28 U.S.C. Section 1983 (on the frankly ridiculous and disingenuous theory that he blogs as a Deputy District Attorney rather than as a private citizen), invasion of privacy through public disclosure (because Frey published on his blog deposition transcripts that were available in public court records online), false light invasion of privacy, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. In her amended complaint she sued the County of Los Angeles on a theory of negligent supervision. She originally sued Patrick's wife for no discernible reason, and sued the former District Attorney of the County; this time it was just Patrick and the County. She had two theories of why she could be in federal court: because there was a federal question (her Section 1983 claim) and because there was diversity of citizenship (she's in Massachusetts, Frey's in California; diversity requires different states and at least $75,000 in damages).

We filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (which argues, essentially, that even if everything in the complaint were true, she hasn't described a legal wrong), an anti-SLAPP motion under California law (arguing that her state law claims were attempts to censor speech, and that she could not succeed on them), a motion to dismiss her state law claims under Rule 12(b)(1) (arguing that she can't show $75,000 in damages, as is required for federal diversity jurisdiction, so there's no jurisdiction over the state law claims if her Section 1983 claim fails), and a motion to force her to post a bond under California law (in California, you can make a plaintiff from another state post a bond to cover costs if you win).

Federal judges tend to be conservative with jurisdiction: that is, they take only cases they must, and address only issues they must. Judge Wu ruled that (1) Naffe can't succeed on her Section 1983 claim — her only federal claim — because she didn't state facts showing that Patrick was a state actor when he was blogging as "Patterico", and (2) he wouldn't exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims, because Naffe failed to show that she suffered at least $75,000 in damages, as required for diversity jurisdiction. Based on those rulings, the judge didn't need to reach the anti-SLAPP motion or the bond motion.

The Result

The result: the Section 1983 civil rights claim is dismissed with prejudice, meaning Naffe can't re-file it. The state law claims are dismissed, but Naffe could re-file them in state court if she wanted. If she does we will file an anti-SLAPP motion there as well — and a motion for sanctions against both her and her attorneys. Naffe has already filed a notice of appeal, suggesting she may pursue an appeal in the Ninth Circuit rather than re-filing in state court. Bring it.

The Conduct of the Case

One of the most frustrating things about the case was that Naffe and her attorneys misrepresented the content of relevant blog and Twitter posts to the Court to suggest that Patrick was purporting to blog in his official capacity as a Deputy District Attorney, when in fact the documents showed the exact opposite. The best summary of what I mean is at pages 9-11 of this brief and page 2-3 of this brief. Even though we made that point very strongly, Naffe — tellingly — did not respond at all in her opposition briefs. It's rather unusual not to answer an accusation that you've attempted to mislead a federal judge Judge Wu noticed it as well. We didn't raise the issue of sanctions, but he did on his own. In footnote 5 he noted:

In paragraph 39 of the FAC [First Amended Complaint] Plaintiff quotes Frey as saying the following: "You owe [O'Keefe] @gamesokeefeiii a retraction. A big one. You'd better issue it promptly. [A threat made as a Deputy District Attorney]." FAC 39. The Court may consider the text of Frey's actual statement in connection with a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge. See Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006), Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001.). Notwithstanding Plaintiff's use of quotation marks, the language "[A threat made as a Deputy District Attorney]" does not appear in Frey's actual comment. See Frey Decl. (Docket No. 40), Exh. KK, at 266. The Court would consider issuing sanctions against Plaintiff and/or her attorneys for the contents of paragraph 39. [emphasis added]

And there's footnote 7. Noting that Frey wrote a tweet saying "My first task is learning what criminal statutes, if any, you have admitted violating," Judge Wu wrote:

In her Opposition brief, Plaintiff characterizes this as "Frey issu[ing] a direct threat against Ms. Naffe with Frey stating that he intended to investigate Ms. Naffe for possible criminal misconduct." Docket No. 53, at 11:18-21. Again, sanctions may very well be in play for Plaintiff's (and/or her counsel's) willingness to play fast-and-loose with the language that is actually at issue here. [Emphasis added]

Though Judge Wu did not ultimately award sanctions, I look forward to quoting those words on appeal or in a state court motion for sanctions if Naffe re-files there.

Closing Thoughts

It's been an honor to represent Patrick pro bono. It's been a privilege to work with and learn from Ron Coleman. I appreciate the opportunity.

Observing commentary on the case has been . . . interesting. I'd divide the coverage into three camps. There are people who are supportive of Patrick, but whose coverage really doesn't delve into the legal issues. There are the vapid and dishonest partisan hacks who attack Patrick for political reasons, and who don't address the legal issues at all. There's the greasy, demi-literate, demented Hutt who wrote an extended quasi-sexual fantasy about a mob murdering Patrick and me. Fun!

There are many people out there who support free speech, so long as it's free speech they agree with. That's not really supporting free speech. It's nice that people on the right supported Patrick's free speech — I wish they all supported vigorous political speech from the left as well. I would also have been happier if more people on the left supported Patrick — or, at least, treated the stark free speech issues presented in the case seriously. I didn't defend Patrick because I always, or usually, or even often agree with him. He's to the right of me politically, and a prosecutor (and therefore reliably wrong on criminal justice issues), and I often disagree with him. I defended him because the First Amendment that lets him speak freely lets me speak as well. I defended him because malicious, frivolous, and politically motivated lawsuits aimed at censorship make it a little more dangerous for each of us to speak. I defended him pro bono because frivolous lawsuits can effectively censor people even when they eventually fail, because the expenses of lawsuits can be ruinous.

If you are happy with this result, and if you are happy that lawyers will represent people pro bono in free speech cases, I ask this favor: next time you have the chance, stand up for the free speech of someone whose views you despise. Speak up and fight back when someone advocates censorship. Respond to the Popehat Signal, or to any of the opportunities out there to support free speech — even speech that angers you. Even if you don't like this result, or you don't like Patrick's politics, or mine, I respectfully challenge you to review the free speech issues in the case. Think about them carefully and ask yourself: could I be accused of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress for vigorously challenging someone with whom I disagree?

Thank you.

Appendix: Documents From This Phase Of The Case

Operative Complaint

Nadia Naffe's First Amended Complaint

Patrick's Motions

Anti-SLAPP Motion

Motion To Dismiss Under FRCP 12(b)(6)

Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Jurisdiction Under FRCP 12(b)(1)

Motion For Bond

Declarations and Exhibits

Supplemental Declarations and Exhibits

Request for Judicial Notice

Naffe's Opposition Briefs

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6)

Opposition to Anti-SLAPP Motion

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Under FRCP 12(b)(1)

Opposition to Request for Bond

Declaration of Nadia Naffe in Support of Opposition Briefs

Patrick's Reply Briefs

Reply In Support of Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6)

Reply in Support of Anti-SLAPP Motion

Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Under FRCP 12(b)(1)

Reply In Support of Motion for Bond

Judge Wu's Ruling

Tentative Ruling

Minute Order Confirming Tentative Ruling

Today the Daily Journal published my column "Protect Your Client's Online Reputation Without Running Afoul of the 'Streisand Effect.'"

It's behind a paywall. But much of the advice I give is paraphrased from this post from last July.

It was the Daily Journal's idea to use, as a graphic on the story, an enormous picture of Barbara Streisand's house. Well played.

All of my coverage of the Prenda Law saga is collected here.

The Prenda Law crew has been up to shenanigans for many months, and Ars Technica and Techdirt and Die Troll Die and Fight Copyright Trolls were all doing great work covering them long before I took notice. I was preoccupied by crucial legal issues like Bigfoot and ponies and thus-and-such until Prenda Law blundered into my core area of interest: bogus defamation suits calculated to silence critics.

My first post about Prenda explained how Prenda Law and its principals Paul Duffy and John Steele filed three defamation suits in three federal districts against Alan Cooper (the man who accuses Prenda of stealing his identity as a front man for fake plaintiff entities), Paul Godfread (Cooper's lawyer), and various unnamed John Does. I also reported when Alan Cooper seized the initiative and filed counterclaims against Prenda Law and Paul Duffy. Steele shrewdly dismissed his defamation suit in Florida before Cooper could counterclaim.

Today there were updates in the defamation cases — anti-SLAPP motions filed by Godfread and Coooper. In addition, Morgan Pietz — whose defense of John Doe defendants has led to Prenda's downfall — filed his promised supplemental brief before Judge Wright. Meanwhile, in Florida and Arizona and San Francisco, attorneys nip at Prenda's heels.

April is the cruelest month for Prenda. You might want to grab a sandwich; there's a lot going on, and this will take a while.

Continue Reading »

It's time for the Popehat Signal: a call for lawyers and citizens to assist a litigant in standing up against unprincipled censorship.

My friend and colleague Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen — fresh off a free speech victory against the infamous Charles Carreon — has asked for assistance in Medina County, Ohio. This is a classic case where pro bono assistance can help thwart an unprincipled and censorious plaintiff's manipulation of the flaws in our judicial system.

The plaintiff in question is Med Express, a company that sells refurbished medical equipment on Ebay. They have sued Ebay and a South Carolina resident named Amy Nicholls. I will let Med Express' complaint speak for itself:

6. On February 12, lOB, Nicholls paid for the item and shipping via Pay Pal. Promptly after receiving Nicholls' payment, Med Express took the equipment to the Valley City post office. where it was weighed and shipped to Nicholls. Med Express paid the full amount of the shipping cost, but for some reason unknown to Med Express, the equipment was received by Nichols with $1.44 postage due.

7. When notified of the problem, Med Express immediately offered to reimburse Nicholls for the postage due amount. Despite this offer, and before giving Med Express a chance to reimburse her, Nicholls on February 26, 2013, apparently as a result of the $1.44 postage due, posted negative feedback and comments for the transaction on Ebay's website and gave Med Express low ratings in the Detailed Seller Ratings section of Ebay's Feedback Forum, resulting in an unfavorable feedback profile for Med Express. In so doing, Nicholls falsely and deliberately slandered the good name and reputation of Med Express.

You read that right — Med Express admits that Nicholls received a package from them postage due, and is suing her for complaining about it, suggesting that she should have just taken reimbursement and shut up. Med Express is seeking damages and an injunction forcing the removal of Nicholls' feedback. That feedback was, by Med Express' own description, true:

Order arrived with postage due with no communication from seller beforehand.

When Mr. Levy pointed out to James Amodio, attorney for Med Express, that true statements are protected by the First Amendment, Mr. Amodio responded with an open, contemptuous, and contemptible threat to abuse the legal system:

I contacted James Amodio, Med Express’s lawyer, to explain to him the many ways in which his lawsuit is untenable. He readily admitted that, as the complaint admits, everything that the customer had posted in her feedback was true; he did not deny that a statement has to be false to be actionable as defamation; but he just plain didn’t care. To the contrary, he told me that I could come up to Medina, Ohio, and argue whatever I might like, but that the case was going to continue unless the feedback was taken down or changed to positive. And he explained why his client was insisting on this change — he said that it sells exclusively over eBay, where a sufficient level of negative feedback can increase the cost of such sales as well as possibly driving away customers.

This is the ugly truth of the legal system: litigants and lawyers can manipulate it to impose huge expense on defendants no matter what the merits of their complaint. Censors can abuse the system to make true speech so expensive and risky that citizens will be silenced. Regrettably, Ohio does not have an anti-SLAPP statute, so Med Express and James Amodio can behave in this matter with relative impunity. If Ms. Nicholls has to incur ruinous legal expenses to vindicate her rights, the bad guys win, whatever the ultimate outcome of the case.

Unless, that is, you will help Amy Nicholls stand up — not for $1.44, but for the freedom to speak the truth without being abused by a broken legal system.

If you are an attorney practicing in Medina County, Ohio, please consider offering pro bono assistance. Mr. Levy will be coordinating assistance, and I can tell you from personal experience that it is a privilege to work with him. Help give Med Express and James Amodio the legal curb-stomping they so richly deserve. Justice, karma, and the esteem of free speech supporters everywhere will be your reward.

If you aren't an attorney, you can help, too. Med Express should not be permitted to act in this manner without consequence. The natural and probable consequence is widespread publication of their conduct. Help by publicizing the case on Facebook, Twitter, on your blog, on forums, and on every other venue available to you. Ask yourself — would you want to do business with a company that abuses the legal system to extract revenge against customers who leave truthful negative feedback?

Stand up for free speech.

Thanks.

Edited to add: "Med Express" is a mundane name; make sure you refer to and link to the correct one — this one, med_express_sales.

Edited again to add: Thanks to Prof. Reynolds of Instapundit for the link to this. It's possible Med Express didn't think this plan all the way through.

UPDATE WITH AWESOMENESS: I offer my profound respect and appreciation to Jeffrey M. Nye and Thomas G. Haren, who have answered the call. If their names sound familiar, it may be because they stepped up and represented a blogger pro bono just a few months ago. I understand that they will be stepping in to assist Ms. Nicholls pro bono. Moreover, I understand that multiple attorneys are now investigating whether Med Express has filed other defamation suits to silence negative feedback. I'll report when I hear more.

I've said this before: free speech depends on people like Jeff and Tom. Anti-SLAPP statutes are slowly proliferating across the country and more people are becoming educated about First Amendment rights. Ultimately, though, our broken legal system allows bullies to extort silence through the credible threat of stressful, expensive, uncertain litigation even when they have no valid claim. It takes lawyers like Jeff and Tom — and like a number of other good people who wrote me in response to the Popehat Signal — to push back against that problem. I'm just sitting on my ass blogging; Jeff and Tom are putting their skills and many hours of their valuable time on the line during a bad economy. I salute them, and if I ever have to recommend lawyers in Ohio, they will be at the top of my list.

All of my coverage of the saga of Charles Carreon, his threats against Matthew Inman of The Oatmeal, and his dispute with a satirical blogger are collected here.

When I write about prolonged bad behavior in the legal system, I often get angry comments from people who say "when will the system impose consequences on people who act this way?" Take heart, I respond. The wheels grind slowly, but they grind. "Bullshit," comes the response. "Prove it."

Very well. How about an order requiring Charles Carreon to pay $46,100.25 in attorney fees?

Charles Carreon became infamous when he rashly threatened Matthew Inman of The Oatmeal, leading to infamy and spectacle. Later he made very foolish and extravagant threats against a satirical blogger, leading to a declaratory relief action against him. He evaded service for a while, then capitulated in that case, but has been fighting over whether he should have to pay attorney fees.

Today a federal judge in the Northern District of California granted the motion for fees by the satirical blogger, granting $46,100.25 in fees to the blogger's attorneys, Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen and attorney and blogger Cathy Gellis. They had been seeking a total of $77,765.25.

Judge United States District Judge Richard Seeborg's order awarding fees is devastating to Carreon. Judge Seeborg rejects Carreon's arguments one by one, and finds Carreon's litigation conduct rendered the case exceptional, justifying a partial award of fees under the Lanham Act:

While defendant’s threatened claims were not “exceptional” at the outset of this case, defendant’s actions throughout the litigation certainly transformed this case into an “exceptional” matter, deserving of an award of attorney fees. The Ninth Circuit has stated that “bad faith or other malicious conduct satisfies the exceptional circumstances requirement.” Boney, 127 F.3d at 827. Evidence supports a finding of malicious conduct during the course of this case. Defendant first went to great lengths, imposing unnecessary costs on plaintiff, to avoid service. Then, in response to this motion for attorney fees under the Lanham Act, defendant engaged in unnecessary, vexatious, and costly tactics in preparation of his opposition to the motion. The Ninth Circuit discourages major litigation with respect to attorney fees. See, e.g., Camacho, 523 F.3d at 981; Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983) (“A request for attorney’s fees should not result in a second major litigation.”). Defendant’s serving of interrogatories and taking of plaintiff’s deposition amounted to a mini-trial on plaintiff’s motion for fees. Indeed, plaintiff incurred an additional $37,650.25 in fees and costs after his motion was filed. Despite this additional discovery, defendant has presented no evidence to support his initial contention that plaintiff’s attorney is on a mission to “turn Internet gripe sites into profit centers for him and
Public Citizen Law Group.” Doc. #45, at 4. Defendant has failed to show that his additional discovery efforts led to anything other than additional frustration for plaintiff and his attorneys. Accordingly, plaintiff’s efforts to respond to defendant’s litigation tactics merit the imposition of a fees award.

Judge Seeborg rejects Carreon's argument that the settlement precluded an award of attorneys fees. Carreon drafted his own offer of judgment. He could have made it clear that the offer precluded fees. He didn't.

Defendant cannot now escape the consequences of his inartful drafting.

Charles Carreon could have escaped with a much lower award, or no award at all. The court declined to award fees for the filing of the declaratory relief suit itself, or for the brief litigation of its substance, finding that Carreon's initial threats did not render the case exceptional under the Lanham Act. The bulk of this order — $37,650.25 — results from Carreon's bizarre discovery demands in response to the motion for fees itself, which the court described as "unnecessary, vexatious, and costly." Most of the rest of the order — $8,450 — results from Carreon's evasion of service. So, instead of facing a costs bill for a few thousand dollars at most, Charles Carreon is facing a bill for $46,100.25. Character is destiny.

There are consequences for bad behavior. They come slowly. But they do come.

Note: I was going to wait for Paul Alan Levy to write about this first, since it's his win based on his work. But Adam Steinbaugh and Mike Masnick scooped me.

Edited to add: Paul Alan Levy offers his thoughts, plus some very kind words for which I am grateful.

I say it often: vagueness in legal threats is the hallmark of meritless thuggery.

Today, let's look at a case study.

Continue Reading »