The Tort of Internet Mobbing Is Perfect For Suing The Internet

Print This Post

You may also like...

22 Responses

  1. Scott Jacobs says:

    He’s the guy — technically a lawyer

    Look, you're going to have to pick one…

    One term suggests he is human, and the other one suggests that he want to law school.

  2. VPJ says:

    Stung by criticism, Rakofsky sued a wide swath of media outlets and internet writers, asserting feckless theories of defamation…

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

    Yaaaaaaaaay! *Snoopy dance* I thought he'd gone off the air or had grown up or gotten a few new brain cells or something. He's back? Schweet!

    *passing bowl of popcorn*

  3. Scott Jacobs says:

    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

    I'm sorry, what?

    You God Damn worthless motherfuckers…

    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

    Justice Holmes would have beaten this worthless shitstain's face is if he heard his words being used to back up a fuck-witted idea like this. Speech can not cause physical harm (unlike my fist and whoever this retard is's face). That some people are such mother-fucking pussies as to be unable to cope with people saying mean things about them shouldn't cause everyone else to have to coddle their weak constitution.

    I hope every single person who even considers that NY law to be a good idea gets raped by a God Damn bear.

  4. G Thompson says:

    The stupids are strong in this lawyer/guy

    Also has anyone else read para60 in the ammended complaint where he is talking about Indecent Images (CP) in a CIVIL context? WTF!

    And yes I am going through the weird thing while trying to stop my brain from burning from all the stupids..

  5. Charles says:

    My favorite is "d. uncomfortably true".
    Nothing sends the thin skinned into orbit like uncomfortably true sarcasm.

  6. Norm Pattis says:

    It takes a long time to grow a pony tail

  7. C. S. P. Schofield says:

    I, sadly, know how this idiot got through his primary education without getting some sense knocked into him. i can even, sort of, see how he could get through an undergrad career at college. I thought that Law Schools were harder on Precious Little Snowflakes. I thought that if some sensitive twit like this turned up at law school, the delicate flame of his overweening ego would be snuffed out in cold blasts of professorial scorn.

    Sorry to see I was wrong.

  8. Rich D. says:

    As of this morning, according to the NYS Unified Court System's database, JR is not admitted to practice in NY, how is he representing his P.C., which is required to be represented by counsel.

  9. Rliyen says:

    Once again, this jackass proves my former co-worker, Traci, and her theory right.

    Traci's Theory of Legal Relativity: Law Degree. Common Sense. Choose one only.

  10. Skip Intro says:

    Pattis, at least, chose to reply in a reasonable way.

    And he admits he has a ponytail.

  11. Scott Jacobs says:

    C.S.P., he graduated from Touro Law School.

    Your belief system is safe.

  12. C. S. P. Schofield says:


    I'm not up on law schools. I take it that's one that advertises in the back of Spiderman comics?

    Or, maybe, should?

  13. Linus says:

    he may want a pony and a pat on the head

    Of COURSE he wants a pony. Who doesn't? Seriously. Aside from the mess, ponies are AWESOME.

    But Joseph Rakofsky doesn't DESERVE a pony. Sue me, Joe! I said something mean about you on the Internet!

    Seriously, I would LOVE to show up at a hearing to debate the merits of ponies and whether opposing counsel deserves one or not (hint: my position would be "not").

  14. Jason says:

    All this time, I thought I had missed out on the "being sued by Joseph Rakofsky" bus, so I didn't bother coming up with something insulting yet protected by the 1st Amendment. But now I learn that he's adding Defendants!!! Praise Geezus! It may not be too late after all.

    Too bad my brain cells are fried and I am totally incapable of coming up with something clever. So now I have to choose between waiting until inspiration strikes, or just saying something like "Joseph Rakofsky is dumb." Hmmm… What should I do?

  15. Scott Jacobs says:

    C.S.P. – Well, they certainly don't get very kind words at Above the Law

  16. NLP says:

    I finally figured out who he reminds me of: the Bourbons. They never learn and they never forget.

    By the way, the first time around Richard Borzouye and his wife were doing a lot of commenting about how they were standing by their friend, and refusing to drop him in the face of internet contempt and so on. I bet we hear a lot less of that from now on.

  17. Charles says:

    I see you trollin'. You hatin'. Tryin' to get you sued by 'kofsky.

  18. GDad says:

    I know this post is a little old for a comment, but this was the most recent post I could find that was most closely related to this.

  1. October 26, 2011

    […] also, Ken's post at The Tort of Internet Mobbing Is Perfect For Suing The Internet. Rate this: Share this:ShareEmailPrintDiggLike this:LikeBe the first to like this […]

  2. October 28, 2011

    […] reasons outlined by the great Ken at Popehat (and despite my own hellish experiences in junior high) I've been a bit uneasy about the […]

  3. November 7, 2011

    […] Ken at Popehat provides a witty rejoinder in his post:  The Tort of Internet Mobbing Is Perfect For Suing The Internet: […]

  4. November 11, 2011

    […] "The Tort of Internet Mobbing Is Perfect For Suing The Internet" [Popehat] […]