Paul Alan Levy reports that the D.C. Circuit has applied the refinement reflected in Shady Grove of the Erie doctrine to preclude application of state anti-SLAPP laws to cases where jurisdiction is premised on diversity of citizenship.
I was perfectly clear.
That was literally gibberish.
Fine. Fine. I'll explain. Will that make you happy?
Too bad. I'm doing it anyway.
This crazy litigant goes to 11.
Roca Labs, you may recall, is the weight-loss-goo purveyor that is belligerent, litigious, and sensitive to criticism to a pathological degree. Last month I wrote about how they require their customers to sign no-criticism contracts, and had sued PissedConsumer.com for carrying negative reviews. Yesterday I lit the Popehat Signal to seek help for customers Roca Labs has targeted with vexatious litigation — including, in what no doubt is just a big coincidence, one of the witnesses against them in their first litigation.
Can Roca Labs push the envelope more? Yes they can.
Today Marc Randazza — counsel for PissedConsumer.com in Roca Labs' frivolous suit — filed an updated notice of related cases in the PissedConsumer case. That updated notice revealed that Roca Labs has now sued Randazza himself for his activities defending PissedConsumer.com.
The complaint itself — which I have uploaded here — brings the crazy and brings it good and hard. It was penned by Roca Labs' latest attorney, one Johnny G. DeGirolamo, a 2009 law school graduate and 2011 bar admittee, whose website is www.inlawwetrust.com. No, really. His site offers a flattering headshot of a smiling advocate, and it was a very good choice to use that picture rather than, say, his booking photo.
Roca Labs, through Johnny G., accuses Marc of interference with economic advantage and defamation per se1, demands a declaration that Randazza is wrong and he is libel, and moves for an injuction telling Marc to shut up. Yeah, good luck with that.
But that ain't all. The complaint is a model of prissy pearl-clutching. Johnny G. is aghast that Randazza has provided legal services to adult entertainment companies. Goodness gracious! Johnny G. is horrified that Randazza has been "an outspoken advocate for Phillip Greaves, the author of 'The Pedophiles Guide to Love and Pleasure.'" To be more accurate, Randazza has been an outspoken advocate for the First Amendment issues presented by Greaves' case, but it's not surprising that a First Amendment distinction is lost on the sort of attorney who wold represent Roca Labs. Johnny G. is cheesed off at Randazza's catchphrase murum aries attigit, which apparently suggests a level of aggression that is upsetting to a company that flails around suing its customers for criticizing it. In short, Johnny G. — bless his heart — does his best to make Marc Randazza sound terrible, and only wind up making him sound knowledgeable about free speech.
On to the substance of the claim, if I may use the term very generously. Roca — through Johnny G. — asserts that Marc has been defaming Roca Labs during this litigation by making statements to the press (or, as Johnny G. puts it, to "webzines") and then putting those same statements in court pleadings. They imply he's trying to cloak his statements to the media with litigation privilege by repeating them in court filings. This theory is . . . odd.
Moreover, Johnny G. and Roca Labs are conspicuously vague about exactly what statements are defamatory, and exactly how. Other than complaining that Randazza defamed Roca Labs through a very clearly satirical tweet on Halloween, there are few specifics. Roca Labs complains that Randazza's purpose is to "mock, ridicule, humiliate, harm, and continue his war against ROCA," but that's not very specific. Roca Labs complains about statements in articles by TechDirt and tries to attribute them to Randazza, but doesn't explain exactly what Randazza said and exactly how it was wrong. That lack of specificity is probably deliberate — if Roca Labs admitted they were mad over the term "snake oil," they'd have to confront the fact that the phrase is obviously protected opinion. See, e.g., Phantom Touring v. Affiliated Publ'ns, 953 F.2d 724, 728, 730–31 (1st Cir.1992) (holding that description of theatre production as “a rip-off, a fraud, a scandal, a snake-oil job” was no more than “rhetorical hyperbole”). Moreover, in some parts of the complaint Roca Labs is attacking statements that are clearly, objectively true based on Roca Labs' own court documents. For instance, Roca Labs angrily quotes a paragraph in which TechDirt accused them of trying to silence customers. Which is what they are doing.
Finally, the complaint attaches a motion for a temporary injunction, in which Johnny G. demands that Randazza cease and desist saying mean things about Roca Labs, retract prior mean things, and remove any online content about Roca Labs. At this point I have to admit that I don't know whether Roca Labs and Johnny G. are powerfully stupid, breathtakingly cynical, unapologetically unethical, or all three. Despite the fact that they are suing a renowned First Amendment lawyer, despite the fact that they are demanding an injunction silencing him, despite the fact that they have lost a similar injunction request in which Randazza schooled them on the First Amendment and prior restraint issues, and despite the fact that it is clear those issues will arise again, their motion makes no mention whatsoever of the overwhelming First Amendment and prior restraint issues presented by their demand.
Roca Labs is mistaking aggression for strategy. Randazza, by filing his notice of related case, has alerted the federal court hearing the PissedConsumer.com case that Roca Labs is flailing around suing opposing lawyers, which will not go over well. Roca Labs has hired what appears to be an improbably matriculated Muppet to champion their case, despite a patent lack of qualifications. Roca Labs thinks that suing Marc Randazza to shut him up is going to end well. They should have asked Raanan Katz or Crystal Cox how that would turn out.
I'm calling it: Roca Labs has achieved Prenda status.
It's time to light the Popehat Signal to find pro bono assistance for citizens threatened with a bogus and censorious lawsuit.
The cartoonish villain of this story is Roca Labs, whose belligerent attempts to silence critics inspired my post last month. Roca Labs, you may recall, produces a pink slime that one is supposed to eat to suppress the appetite. Roca Labs is pathologically adverse to criticism, and therefore has hit upon an increasingly familiar tactic — they require at least some of their customers to sign contracts promising not to criticize them at all. Based on those contracts, they filed a lawsuit against Pissed Consumer.com, a gripe site that printed complaints by their customers. Their quasi-legal flailing became more desperate when First Amendment heavyweight Marc Randazza took up PissedConsumer.com's defense.
Now Roca Labs has crossed the Rubicon from mildly entertaining legal buffoonery to outright despicable abuse of the system calculated to suppress not only the right to free speech but the right to petition the government. As TechDirt first reported, Roca Labs has now sued — in Florida — three of its customers from other states. What's notable about these three customers? One of them provided witness testimony in Roca Labs' lawsuit against PissedConsumer.com. Roca Labs has previously complained about many different customers exercising free speech, but now wantonly targets just these three consumers, one of whom just happened to be a witness against them.2 Roca Labs is demanding damages, attorney fees, and an injunction prohibiting these consumers from criticizing Roca Labs. As Techdirt points out, Roca Labs' attorneys rather comically assert that the defendants' criticisms are "defamation per se" because they agreed in advance contractually that they would be. That's not how it works, dipshits.
Roca Labs isn't a full Prenda yet, but by God, it's trying.
Those three defendants need help. Even when a suit is patently frivolous and vexatious, defending it — particularly in a distant state — is ruinously expensive. That's Roca Labs's purpose — not to win on the merits, but to silence critics through cynical abuse of the legal system. These three defendants can't afford to hire lawyers in Florida. If they don't get help, Roca Labs wins through manipulation of a broken system.
You can help. If you are a lawyer admitted in Florida, you can act, at least, as local counsel. If you are a lawyer in another state, you can help Florida counsel. If you're just someone with a voice on the internet, you can help get the word out about Roca Labs and its contemptible behavior, and help these people find pro bono legal assistance. (Some sort of fundraising campaign, at least for costs, is also a possibility, though the defendants should get independent legal advice about that.) You can also get the word out about the unethical and repulsive behavior of the attorneys who filed this suit, Nicole Freedlander and Paul Berger of the "Hurricane Law Group." Berger has also been involved in threatening bloggers and witnesses.
And finally, please help circulate and promote this question: why would any sensible person consume a weight-loss product from a company that sues customers who criticize its safety, value, or efficacy? Does that sound safe to you?
By the way, this is not the end of Roca Labs' bizarre behavior — stay tuned for more.
Last year I wrote about how vexatious litigant and unrepentant domestic terrorist Brett Kimberlin filed a blatantly frivolous RICO suit in federal court in Maryland seeking to silence and retaliate against those who had criticized him.
Now the American Spectator, a conservative magazine, has ignominiously surrendered to him.
Many were suspicious the Spectator had reached some agreement with Kimberlin when he abruptly dismissed the American Spectator from the RICO case. He did so without serving the Spectator and with prejudice — meaning that he cannot re-file the claim. Those suspicions were confirmed when articles about Kimberlin disappeared from the site. As Lee Stranahan first reported, past articles about Kimberlin on the site have mysteriously disappeared. Most don't seem to be cached anywhere, with the exception of this one by Robert Stacy McCain, the Spectator's co-defendant in the RICO case.3 Most are just gone.
Settling a lawsuit is generally a business decision. When clients tell me they don't want to settle because of the principle involved, I explain that the justice system is terrible at sorting out principles. It is very good at putting people in jail, and mediocre and inefficient at moving money from one person to others (mostly to lawyers), but it's a terrible vehicle for vindicating right or wrong. Generally settling a lawsuit — even a vexatious one — is a rational economic decision by a defendant, taking into account a broken system and the ruinous cost and distracting nature of litigation.
But the American Spectator is not most defendants, and Kimberlin's RICO case is not a typical vexatious lawsuit.
The American Spectator purports to be a magazine — it purports to be about journalism and vigorous expression of opinion. It's true that it's highly partisan, but not unusually so. It's sort of a Salon for people who think Hilary Clinton killed Vince Foster. De gustibus non est disputandum. But it relies upon free speech. The First Amendment is essential to its operation. Indeed, even this week it was urging defiance to what it saw as Democratic Party threats to free speech:
Will we keep the First Amendment safe from Harry Reid? asks @jpcassidy000. http://ow.ly/BEsKy
Moreover, the Spectator has traditionally urged defiance in the face of politically motivated defamation claims. Such exhortations to resist "liberal" "tyranny" are common to the Spectator. And any publication — from the New York Times to somebody's LiveJournal page — relies for any credibility upon the proposition that it will say things even if some people do not like them.
But the American Spectator caved, and removed content.
Was it about the expense of litigation? True, it's expensive. But as far as I can tell the American Spectator never sought pro bono help from any free speech networks. Even though I experienced considerable difficultly when I sought pro bono help for the individual codefendants, it is very likely that an entity like the Spectator would have been able to find free or reduced-cost help, perhaps from ideological allies. And bear in mind that some of the individual co-defendants, even though they are not lawyers, have been vigorously and successfully litigating against Kimberlin pro se.4
Did the American Spectator have doubts about the merits of the case? Did it think Kimberlin might have a point? If it thought that, it is not competent to evaluate such things. Kimberlin's Second Amended Complaint is vague and ambiguous about his claim against the Spectator:
Defendant The American Spectator published numerous defamatory articles by Defendant McCain and then removed them. Defendant McCain complained to the editor and the articles were then republished in February 2014 with different urIs. The sheer number of articles published by the American Spectator about Plaintiff demonstrates malice an intent to harm him and his business prospects. For example, in one, titled "Terror By Any Other Name," Defendant McCain imputes that Plaintiff was involved with swattings . . .
The complaint goes on to quote one of the stories at length without specifying what is false or defamatory about it.
As I have written before, the claims are patently frivolous. Some of the scrubbed articles rely on published court opinions and newspaper articles to tell Kimberlin's history. Others discuss his lawsuits seeking to quell speech. One of them quotes my analysis of why epithets used against Kimberlin are protected opinion. Moreover, even if the American Spectator honestly (but stupidly) thought that some portions of one or more of the articles were defamatory, that does not explain or excuse them scrubbing all mentions of Kimberlin from their web site. Vexatious and censorious litigants frequently demand that all mention of them be removed; actual journalists or commentators worth reading don't do it.
Most litigants settle. But some litigants are, or should be, different. Their cowardice in the face of frivolous litigation impacts everyone. Universities — which rely on free expression — are different, which is why it was unacceptable for the University of St. Thomas School of Law to pay money to vexatious litigant Joseph Rakofsky rather than defend the right to write about public court proceedings. Any institution that bills itself as a "magazine," that has pretenses to journalism or commentary, is different as well. American Spectator has a journalistic and social obligation to defend itself and therefore defend free speech against censorious litigation. By surrendering and scrubbing content, the Spectator has abetted and encouraged abuse of the legal system and emboldened people like Kimberlin to sue to remove speech they don't like. They've betrayed their purpose. That's unacceptable.
It would be inaccurate to say that the American Spectator will lose credibility generally as a result of this decision. Its breathless partisanship and assorted oddities limit its credibility to its target audience of the like-minded. Doing this will wound its general credibility in the sense that the Weekly World News would hurt its credibility by doing a very one-sided hit piece on Bat-Boy. But this surrender will, and should, eviscerate its credibility with its target audience and its readers. First, how can it be taken seriously as an institution willing to speak truth to power if it caves to a frivolous lawsuit by a domestic terrorist?5 Second, how can they be taken seriously as a conservative institution that will question liberals, when they yield to a blatant attempt to abuse the legal system to retaliate against conservative viewpoints?
No. They're done.
A number of serious thinkers and good writers have written for the Spectator over the years. It's possible for a serious person to write for an unserious publication. (I have to keep telling myself that, since I wrote a couple of things for Salon.) But at some point it's fair to ask a writer why they are associating with a particular publication. I propose that we begin to ask that of anyone writing for the American Spectator — by email, by Twitter, by whatever medium available. Take, say, Ben Stein. You're an in-print and on-screen tough guy, Ben. Why would you continue to write for an institution that acted this way? Just asking.
I wrote to the American Spectator and its Managing Editor seeking comment, but did not receive a reply. I would like to ask them some questions. Did they even attempt to find someone to offer a vigorous First Amendment defense? Did they pay Kimberlin money — money he will use to sue other critics? If they think they faced liability risk, what particular statements of fact do they think were false? And is this going to be a thing now?
Attorney Mike Meier used to be only a little bit infamous. A few sites like Fight Copyright Trolls criticized him, painting him as someone who used to decry copyright trolling but then switched sides and became a copyright troll.
But those posts were relatively obscure.
Then Meier, whom one senses did not come to the law via rocketry, came up with a cunning plan: he sent DMCA notices complaining about blog posts criticizing him. There were several problems with these notices: (1) he sent them to the sites' registrars rather than their hosts, (2) he used them to complain about defamation, which is not covered by the DMCA, and (3) he complained about uses of his images that were clearly, on their face, fair use.
The natural and probable result of Meier's flailing attack was widespread infamy. His targets Fight Copyright Trolls and Extortion Letters ridiculed his hamfisted efforts. Those posts were picked up, and gleefully discussed, by far bigger sites including The Consumerist, BoingBoing, TorrentFreak, Techdirt, and others. The number of people who have read negative things about him has gone up by a couple of orders of magnitude. Some of the past unpleasantness he has experienced — like the time a federal court excoriated him in a sanctions order, or the time he stipulated to a reprimand by a state bar — have reached a far wider audience.
But Mike Meier's legal threat was not foolish just because it exposed his behavior to more readers. It was foolish because it exposed him widely as a fool. People hire lawyers they trust. They want to be able to rely upon their lawyer's advice, and to make difficult decisions based upon that advice. But who would trust the advice of a lawyer who would engage in a legal tactic that is so foreseeably self-destructive? If Meier had sent the DMCA notices on behalf of a client, I would call it rank malpractice and tell his client to consider suing him. In 2014, minimal legal competence requires an attorney to anticipate and understand the Streisand Effect.
Atavistic metamorphosis proposes that cancer cells are cells that have reverted, evolutionarily, to their ancestral, independent status as unicellular organisms. It is from there that cancer only occurs in plants and animals/humans (multicellular organisms). This also explains why cancer does not occur nor can be induced experimentally in unicellular organisms such as bacteria, fungi and protozoa.
Rain, Rain, falling down
Grey sky shadows, and my sad heart
. . . and so on.
Now, I am not personally offended by improbably-breasted women in comics. I recognize them for what they are: a cultural signal, like golf pants or McDonalds' Golden Arches. Their presence on a book or comic cover signifies that you will encounter nothing unfamiliar or unsettling therein. Anatomically incorrect breasts are the dogs-playing-poker of fantasy art.
Back in February I wrote about a rather despicable lawsuit filed by Japanese-American plaintiffs seeking to remove a statue in Glendale, California commemorating the "comfort women" — women enslaved as prostitutes in World War II by Imperial Japan. The plaintiffs argued that Glendale's statute interfered with the United States' diplomatic relations with Japan, thus violating the Supremacy Clause. I'm pleased to report that United States Judge Percy Anderson — not a judge you want yelling at you, for what it is worth6 — has dismissed the case without leave to amend.
The plaintiffs, you might recall, were represented by megafirm Mayer Brown. This resulted in really awful publicity from Mayer Brown, not just from pipsqueaks like me, but from Above the Law and Marc Randazza. Mayer Brown soon substituted out of the case in favor of a rather smaller firm. Meanwhile, defendant the City of Glendale – ably represented by their City Attorney's Office and by competing megafirm Sidley Austin — filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the plaintiffs were clearly incorrect in arguing that Glendale's comfort women statute interfered with the United States' international relations. The motion is top-notch work; I've uploaded a copy here.
In his ruling, Judge Anderson found that the plaintiffs had not alleged any specific facts — as opposed to conclusions — supporting the notion that a city's monument could interfere with national diplomacy. Absent such facts, the complaint failed. Judge Anderson echoed the argument made by many critics that the plaintiffs' theory would make a wide swath of public monuments vulnerable to litigation:
Any contrary conclusion would invite unwarranted judicial involvement in the myriad symbolic
displays and public policy issues that have some tangential relationship to foreign affairs. For instance,
those who might harbor some factual objection to the historical treatment of a state or municipal
monument to the victims of the Holocaust could make similar claims to those advanced by Plaintiffs in
this action. Neither the Supremacy Clause nor the Constitution’s delegation of foreign affairs powers to
the federal government prevent a municipality from acting as Glendale has done in this instance . . . .
Judge Anderson therefore dismissed the federal claim and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim. He also found that the City's anti-SLAPP motion was without merit because it was directed to a federal claim: generally speaking state anti-SLAPP statutes can only be used against state claims. That ruling spared Judge Anderson the more difficult question of whether a municipality has speech rights covered by the anti-SLAPP statute.
This is the right result. Plaintiff's claim on behalf of reactionary Japanese political interests were only the appetizer; the main course would have been suits against many Armenian Holocaust memorials, brought on behalf of the Holocaust-deniers of Turkey. Citizens, through their local governments, ought to commemorate history as they see fit.
[Update: see resolution at end of post]
Peak Internet of Colorado offers ISP services to the Pikes Peak region. Russell Petrick tried their services and was disappointed. He says that their speed was consistently below the benchmark they advertised. When Petrick complained, he says that Peak Internet told him he was getting above their stated minimum speed, so he should be happy with the 12 Mbps he was getting, even if it didn't reach the advertised 20 Mbps top speed.
Petrick complained online on Yelp and elsewhere. Peak Internet, an American company that values American ideals like freedom of speech, recognized Petrick's right to complain and responded forthrightly to the complaint. No, wait, Peak Internet strongly disagreed with Petrick's complaints so it responded online with specific facts and circumstances showing how particular elements of Petrick's complaints were untrue.
Wait, no. I forgot. This is America. So Peak Internet sued. They hired attorney Ryan J. Klein of Sherman & Howard and filed a complaint against Petrick in Teller County District Court for defamation and defamation per se. The complaint is here.
Peak Internet's complaint is bare-bones and notably vague and ambiguous. This is how it explains the basis for accusing Petrick of defamation:
The defamatory statements made by Petrick about Peak Internet include, but are not limited to, false statements about the speed of services provided by Peak Internet and responses to complaints about alleged issues with the speed of services provided by Peak Internet.
Notably, Peak Internet does not specify exactly what part of what Petrick said that was false, or exactly how it was false. Remember what I always say: vagueness in defamation claims is a hallmark of meritless thuggery. Here, Peak Internet has used vagueness as a strategy to (1) obscure whether it is suing based in part of protected statements of opinion, (2) hide exactly which statements it contends to be false, avoiding early proof that the challenged statements are true, and (3) increase the costs and pressures of litigation on Petrick to shut him up and deter others from criticizing Peak Internet. You can't tell from the complaint, for instance, whether Peak Internet's argument is "our speeds were never that slow that often, he's lying" (which might be a valid defamation claim) or "his arguments are unfair because these speeds are above the guaranteed minimum speed and we don't promise the top speed all the time" (which would be an invalid attack on a protected opinion).
Peak Internet's ploy may not play out the way they hoped. Already a local news station ran with the story, allowing Petrick to highlight what appears to be well-documented evidence supporting his complaints about the speed.
I wonder: did attorney Ryan J. Klein explain the Streisand Effect to his client Peak Internet before filing the lawsuit?
It's not clear to me whether Petrick has counsel. If he wishes, I would be pleased to light the Popehat Signal to find pro bono counsel. Meanwhile, I think the story of an ISP that sues its customers over criticism is one that needs a little more attention. Do you agree? Have at it.
Thanks to tipster Carl.
Updated to add: commenters here and on Twitter point out that Peak Internet has gotten four abrupt good reviews on July 30 (the day after the local news story), all from first-time reviewers, all praising Peak Internet. No doubt a coincidence.
Mr. Petrick has sought my help. I am lighting the Popehat Signal.
Mr. Petrick is disabled and does not have funds to hire an attorney to defend his free speech rights. Is there a lawyer out there who can help him in Teller County, Colorado?
We have the right to free speech — in theory. In practice, companies like Peak Internet, and lawyers like Mr. Klein, can trammel that right because the system lets them. It can be ruinously expensive to defend even the most transparently bogus and censorious case. To fight this trend of companies suing to remove bad reviews, we need people to step up. Might it be you? If not, will you help spread the word?
Good Update: I am reliably informed that Peak Internet and Mr. Petrick have resolved the case satisfactorily and Peak will be dismissing its case with prejudice — meaning permanently. Congrats to Mr. Petrick, a nod to Peak Internet for making the right decision after the wrong one, and thanks to several Colorado lawyers who offered to help.
It's time for the Popehat Signal — the call for pro bono assistance for a blogger threatened with frivolous and censorious litigation. This time the victim in need of help is Stephanie Yoder of www.twenty-somethingtravel.com. She needs your help to face a thoroughly bogus and repugnant threat by multi-level marketing scheme "WorldVentures."
Ergun Caner was angry.
There he was, a successful man of God: a published author, Dean and President of the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School, a sought-after inspirational speaker. Suddenly, crass miscreants laid him low. Critics pointed out he told puzzlingly inconsistent stories about his background. Though public records and his own book suggested that he emigrated from Sweden to Ohio at the age of four, in his inspirational speeches he claimed he had been raised in Turkey, learned of America only through television, and trained as an Islamic jihadist.
Perhaps the story of a foreign jihadist converting to Christianity was more inspiring than the story of an Ohioan converting.
Liberty University conducted an investigation and removed him. But though he found new employment, Egun Caner did not view the matter as resolved. He hungered.
In 2013, he filed a federal complaint in Texas against Jason Smathers and Jonathan Autry, men who posted to YouTube two videos of Caner's . . . shall we say imaginative public presentations. Caner claimed violation of a purported copyright in the videos. He sought damages, attorney fees, and an injunction against posting of the videos.
In other words, Caner sued someone for posting proof that he had been telling inconsistent stories about his background — that he is a fabulist.
Jonathan Autry agreed to take the videos down — no doubt because of the ridiculous expense of a lawsuit. That wasn't good enough for Caner, who continued to demand more concessions. That, as it turned out, was a very poor decision. Autry and Smathers, very ably represented pro bono by Josh Autry and Kel McClanahan, filed a strong motion to dismiss, arguing that (1) Caner could not demonstrate that he had a copyright in the videos, and (2) the posting of them to prove Caner's mendacity was classic fair use.
Caner and his attorney did not take this motion very seriously, I think. I would call their opposition brief nasty, brutish, and short, but it's not substantive enough to be nasty or brutish. It's a feeble two-page gesture that ignores most of the motion's arguments.
United States District Judge Norman K. Moon was unimpressed. He granted the motion and dismissed Caner's case in an extremely thorough (and no doubt very embarrassing to Caner) written opinion.7 First the court noted that Caner had conceded that he never filed a copyright application for one of the videos; that's a prerequisite to maintaining a copyright suit. Second, the judge agreed that the posting of the video was classic fair use, because it was a critical non-commercial use designed to impact discussion of Caner's dishonesty. The court made short work of Caner's thoroughly ridiculous arguments: that the defendants were not protected by fair use because it was the work of a "vindictive" "cyber terrorist", that the defendants were "not qualified" to offer criticism of Caner, and that fair use only protects "appropriate criticism from people that are qualified to render those opinions i[n] the market place and exchange of ideas in academia and elsewhere.” This is too much whaarbaargl.
But we haven't even gotten to the good part yet.
Autry, as the prevailing party in a copyright litigation, filed for attorney fees. Last week, in a devastating opinion, Judge Moon granted $34,262.50 in attorney’s fees and $127.09 in costs to Autry's attorneys, agreeing that Caner's litigation conduct warranted it. The review of Caner's conduct is brutal. The court ruled that Caner (1) pursued the case after Autry took the videos down, (2) demanded, as a condition of settlement, that Autry's young children sign a non-disparagement agreement, (3) delayed the case, (4) failed to seek discovery, opposed the motion to dismiss on the grounds that he needed to take discovery, but could not articulate what discovery he needed, (5) contradicted himself, (6) made unreasonable legal arguments without any support (like the "you must be qualified to criticize" argument), and most importantly (7) filed the case to silence criticism:
In this case, Plaintiff filed a copyright infringement suit to stifle criticism, not to protect any legitimate interest in his work. He and his counsel prolonged this litigation, costing Defendant and his attorney valuable time and money. Defendant’s counsel has set aside other
profitable matters to attend to this meritless litigation, and deserves compensation for doing so. Likewise, Plaintiff should be deterred from seeking to use the Copyright Act to stifle criticism in
A-W-E-S-O-M-E, that spells Judge Moon.
Caner has failed utterly, has been exposed for his censoriousness, and has had his dishonestly much more thoroughly documented and widely publicized than it would have been if he had not been such a vindictive jackass.
This should happen more often. As I suggested yesterday, intellectual property claims are increasingly abused to silence criticism. Judges ought to avoid their normal squeamishness about attorney fee awards and hammer the plaintiffs in meritless and censorious cases.
Please join me in congratulating the victorious pro bono team.
I bring good news: top-notch work by generous and dedicated lawyers has produced a free speech victory in Texas.
Last year I lit the Popehat Signal seeking help for J. Todd DeShong, a blogger and AIDS activist. DeShong, a longtime critic of the nutty and conspiratorial junk science occasionally directed at AIDS issues, ran afoul of Clark Baker, an ex-cop and full-blown AIDS denialist who offers "expert" "witness" services. You may recall my description of Baker's phone call to DeShong's mother:
I interviewed Mr. DeShong's mother, a sweet lady with a spine of Texas steel. She told me about how Mr. Baker called her out of the blue and ranted at her. Mr. Baker angrily denounced her son, and told her that, as a police officer, he knew about dangerous people, and that Ms. DeShong should fear that her son would kill her in her sleep. He also threatened that he was arranging for doctors Mr. DeShong had criticized to sue him for defamation. Ms. Deshong pointed out that such a suit would bring no joy; Todd DeShong is not a rich man. "But you have money, right? You have a house, right?" responded Mr. Baker, implying that he might put her assets at risk. "He thought he could intimidate me. He didn't know who he was dealing with," said Ms. DeShong, who sounds like a good person to have at your back.
Baker sued DeShong in federal court in Texas over DeShong's criticism of Baker's AIDS-denialist rhetoric and his "expert" "witness" service the HIV Innocence Group. Baker claimed that DeShong's criticism was not only defamation, but violation of the HIV Innocence Group's trademark rights in its name. Baker's motive may have been mixed: he may have wanted to silence DeShong, but he may also have wanted to use the federal suit to pursue his conspiracy theories about AIDS researchers. I cannot say what his lawyer was thinking, if he was.
Such federal litigation is ruinously expensive to defend; DeShong couldn't afford a defense and Baker might have succeeded in silencing critics through abuse of the legal system. Fortunately, lawyers who care about free speech rode into the breach: D. Gill Sperlein, Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen, Gary P. Krupkin, and Neal A. Hoffman filed motions to dismiss (attacking the thoroughly specious trademark claims) and a strong motion under Texas' relatively new anti-SLAPP statute.
Last week the dream team won. United States District Judge Sam R. Cummings granted DeShong's motion to dismiss the trademark claims, and then refused to hear the state law claims and dismissed them. The court's ruling held the line on a key free speech concept: using a company's name to criticize it does not violate the company's trademark in the name. Baker had claimed that sites like "HIV Innocence Group Truth" violated trademark rights and were part of an effort to destroy him by discrediting him. But Judge Cummings pointed out "[n]o reasonable person would take one look at DeShong's website and believe that Baker authorized its content." Moreover, the court explained, trademark law doesn't protect a company from criticism. The Lanham Act protects a competitor from profiting from the misuse of another company's trademark; it does not protect a company from vigorous and even ruinous criticism employing its name. Judge Cummings also rejected Baker's argument that DeShong violated trademark rights by using a URL likely to dominate search results for "HIV Innocence Group." That theory, too, would have allowed the Bakers of the world to abuse the Lanham Act to prevent criticism.
I suspect Paul Alan Levy, who has done a lot of important work protecting "gripe sites" and critics from bogus trademark claims, had a strong hand in winning this issue.
Having dismissed the federal trademark claim, Judge Cummings declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims like defamation, finding that state issues (like application of Texas' anti-SLAPP statute) would predominate over federal issues. Therefore he didn't reach the anti-SLAPP motion. That's an increasingly common approach by federal judges in such cases; it's what the judge did in the censorious Naffe case in which I was co-counsel.
Baker has appealed, and could conceivably re-file his censorious screed in Texas state court. If he does, the dream team's work on the anti-SLAPP motion is already done, and I suspect Baker will find no joy before a Texas state judge. I'd lay very good odds that Baker will lose his appeal. Meanwhile, I hope that DeShong's legal team seeks and recovers legal fees from Baker based on winning the Lanham Act claim. The suit was contemptible and represents exactly the sort of case in which federal courts should use their statutory power to award attorney fees to deter such abuse of the system.
Please join me in expressing admiration and thanks to Gil, Paul, Neal, and Gary. Their generosity with their time and talents didn't just help DeShong's free speech: it helped yours. Contributions like theirs are essential to defending free speech principles in a broken system that allows unscrupulous clients and lawyers to silence dissent by inflicting ruinous defense costs. They are heroes.
UPDATE: Mr. Steyn advises me through Twitter that he has declined appeal of the Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss, because he wishes to conduct discovery against Dr. Mann. That makes the video below something of a wretched abortion, but as the other defendants in the case (Rand Simberg, National Review, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute) are moving forward with the appeal, I leave the video unaltered and unedited. My apologies to Mr. Steyn.
Doe v. Burke is an important decision, handed down last week, on the District of Columbia's Anti-SLAPP statute. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that an anonymous "John Doe" defendant, sued for libel over internet comments concerning an attorney in a high-profile lawsuit, could immediately appeal the District Court's denial of a motion to quash a subpoena aimed at discovering his identity. The Court went further, and dismissed the suit against Doe entirely. You may read the Burke decision here:
This is a significant case. Defamation plaintiffs thinking of using D.C. as a venue for strategic lawsuits against public participation should think twice. We've previously covered D.C.'s Anti-SLAPP law, extensively, in the lawsuit filed by climate scientist Michael Mann against journalists Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg. You may find our coverage here, and here. As Steyn, Simberg, and their co-defendants are appealing the denial of their Anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss against Mann, we've invited a guest who is expert in the law of defamation to comment on the case: