Search Results for: randazza

Marc Randazza Wrote An Amicus Brief About Klingon, And It's Magnificent

So a while ago my friend and co-blogger Marc Randazza texts me. "If a 1 is 'I banged any chick I ever just winked at' and a 10 is 'I can recite hamlet in the original klingon,' how much of a Trekkie are you?"

Marc's been my friend for quite a while now so this text wasn't off-putting in the least. For the record, I told him a 6.

Marc needed some translation help. Why? Because he was writing an amicus brief for the Language Creation Society to argue that Paramount Pictures may have a copyright on Star Trek but it can't have a copyright on the Klingon language. The legal point is a fascinating one: if a language is created in connection with a copyrighted work of fiction, can there be a copyright on other use of the language, even if it's not to speak the lines from the copyrighted work?

This is not a case about Defendants using specific, previously used Star Trek dialogue, such as “Tea, Earl Grey, Hot”, but rather about precluding Defendants from creating original dialogue that happens to be in the Klingon language. Plaintiffs provide no authority supporting their assertion that Klingon (or any language) can be copyrighted. “[T]here is no Klingon word for ‘deference’”, and Plaintiffs are entitled to none. Norwood v. Vance, 591 F.3d 1062, 1074 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2010) (Thomas, J. dissenting).

Whether you like law, or language, or Star Trek, the brief is a joy. Marc continues to demonstrate that legal writing can be entertaining, irreverent, and persuasive at the same time.

Randazza gets PWNED by Troll

Some people in our audience do not know the finer points of trolling…

Wow… there I was, all proud of the article I just wrote about journalism licensing.

And five minutes after posting it, I get word that I've been trolled. Yep. The proposed law was a Second Amendment protest. I would love to say "I knew that all along." No, I did not. I failed to critically examine the story. Epically failed.

I thought about updating the post. No. When I get trolled and epically owned, I need to go to the box for two minutes by myself, and I feel shame.

I go free when you say I go free. I feel shame.

by Marc Randazza

Please Welcome Marc Randazza to Popehat

You may be entering a world of pain, readers.

You may be entering a world of pain, readers.

Long-time Popehat readers are familiar with Marc Randazza, First Amendment badass whose efforts to defend free speech are a frequent subject here.

Now we're very pleased to welcome Marc as a Popehat co-author. He may still blog at Legal Satyricon and CNN on occasion, but watch for his posts on First Amendment and cultural issues here.

Full disclosure: Marc is both a friend and a client, and has sometimes represented me as well. Though we may still occasionally cover his cases, the fact that he's a blogger here now will likely change the nature and tone of coverage, as as we tend to be more sparing in covering my cases.

Please join me in welcoming Randazza.

Roca Labs, Lacking A Hornet Nest Into Which It Could Stick Its Dick, Has Sued Marc Randazza

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.

Edited to add: Adam Steinbaugh explains why Roca Labs' attempt to evade the litigation privilege is so frivolous.

Marc Randazza Defeats The Very Sensitive Raanan Katz On Prior Restraint Issue

Remember Miami Heat owner Ranaan Katz? He's the easily offended fellow who goes around suing people because there's a mildly unflattering picture of him on the internet. Previously I wrote about how he sued a blogger who was relentlessly critical of him, threatened to sue the blogger's lawyers — including First Amendment badass Marc Randazza — for representing her, and eventually convinced a Florida judge of questionable judgment to issue a broad, unprincipled, and unconstitutional prior restraint against blogging negatively about Katz.

Sometimes the bad guys win, I said after that ludicrous injunction. But there's another apt cliche — it ain't over 'till it's over.

Yesterday the blogger, represented on appeal by Marc Randazza and Jeffrey Crockett, won on appeal. Their victory was won in part by the hard work of Darren Spielman and Robert Kain in the trial court. The Third District Court of Appeal for Florida issued a broad and helpful opinion soundly rebuking the trial court for its prior restraint injunction.

I've been talking about prior restraint in the context of the Roger Shuler story. The concept, at its heart, is that the law (both constitutional doctrine and the common law of most states) allows a court to punish some speech after it happens, but with very few exceptions doesn't allow injunctions prohibiting speech in advance. The Florida court was blunt about the impact of Florida law:

Injunctive relief is not available to prohibit the making of defamatory or libelous statements. See, e.g., Vrasic v. Leibel, 106 So. 3d 485, 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). A temporary injunction directed to speech is a classic example of prior restraint on speech triggering First Amendment concerns. Id.

The court noted a Florida exception — prior restraint might be permitted when the speech at issue is not just defamatory, but also constitutes a business tort like interference with business relationships. You can see how that could become the exception that swallows the prior restraint rule when the censorious plaintiff is a businessperson like Raanan Katz. Fortunately the court here demanded more than allegations; it demanded proof of interference with business relationships from the blogger's insults, and found that Katz had provided none:

However, as in Murtagh, the record before us fails to support an inference that Ms. Chevaldina’s blogs are having a deleterious effect upon prospective tenants. The temporary injunction should have been denied for a failure to show with reasonable certainty the elements of tortious interference, as there was no evidence of unjustified interactions with specific parties known to be involved, or likely to be involved, in an advantageous business or contractual relationship with the appellees.

(By the way, it's not clear to me at all that this Florida doctrine of "prior restraint is acceptable if you associate it with another tort in addition to defamation" meets constitutional muster, but this decision shows a court requiring actual proof of harm, which is a good thing.)

Moreover, the Florida court also found that the injunction below was overbroad — that is, it swept far more speech than what could be arguably defamatory, and prohibited far more than the rare cases permitting prior restraint have allowed:

The injunction under review prohibits Ms. Chevaldina from: “directly or indirectly interfering in person, orally, in written form or via any blogs or other material posted on the internet or in any media with Plaintiffs’ advantageous or contractual business relationships”; and “directly or indirectly publishing any blogs or any other written or spoken matter calculated to defame, tortuously interfere with, invade the privacy of, or otherwise cause harm to Plaintiffs.” This injunction improperly burdens Ms. Chevaldina’s speech more than necessary, attempts to enjoin future defamation, and fails to put Ms. Chevaldina on notice as to what she may or may not do under the injunction.

That language is key. As I said before, one of the main flaws with the unprincipled prior restraint order the trial court issued was that it was impossible for the blogger to determine what speech was prohibited, and the order effectively prohibited even truthful negative speech about Katz.

The court also overturned the injunction against trespass and stalking, finding that Katz had not submitted evidence of such activities, and rejecting the notion that blogging is "cyberstalking":

The appellees argue that Ms. Chevaldina’s blog posts constituted “cyberstalking” and therefore provided “incidents of violence,” i.e., stalking, as to justify an injunction pursuant to section 784.046. However, the appellees failed to introduce evidence that specific blog posts were being used “to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language . . . directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.”

This part of the ruling is important because overbroad notions of "cyberstalking" and "cyberbullying" are now a primary front in the war between free speech and censorship; it's common for censors to argue that unwelcome online speech about someone should be treated like repeated unwelcome communications to the person.

Finally, the Florida court ended with a helpful flourish, putting blogging into the the context of classic rhetorical tropes of free speech analysis:

Angry social media postings are now common. Jilted lovers, jilted tenants, and attention-seeking bloggers spew their anger into fiber-optic cables and cyberspace. But analytically, and legally, these rants are essentially the electronic successors of the pre-blog, solo complainant holding a poster on a public sidewalk in front of an auto dealer that proclaimed, “DON’T BUY HERE! ONLY LEMONS FROM THESE CROOKS!” Existing and prospective customers of the auto dealership considering such a poster made up their minds based on their own experience and research. If and when a hypothetical complainant with the poster walked into the showroom and harangued individual customers, or threatened violence, however, the previously-protected opinion crossed the border into the land of trespass, business interference, and amenability to tailored injunctive relief. The same well-developed body of law allows the complaining blogger to complain, with liability for money damages for defamation if the complaints are untruthful and satisfy the elements of that cause of action. Injunctive relief to prohibit such complaints is another matter altogether.

This is exactly right. Censors attempt to treat blogging as something substantively different that takes it outside classic free speech protections, but there is nothing new under the sun, and blogging gets the same protection as other speech.

This is a huge and embarrassing defeat for the thin-skinned and entitled Raanan Katz and his aggressively censorious lawyers, and a huge victory for Marc, Jeffrey, Darren, Robert, and free speech. Well done. DON'T SUE ME RAANAN.

"The Takedown Lawyer": Let's Help Marc Randazza Investigate A Scammer, Shall We?

I've been out of sorts of late, riven with the suburban fin de siècle, plagued with ennui, angst, weltschmertz. You know — moping.

There's only so many free speech cases I can write about in a week. Nobody pony-worthy is writing to me. I'm waiting for a couple of shoes to drop on the UST Development fraud investigation.

If only there were a nice juicy scam out there to chase . . .

Marc Randazza to the rescue!

[Read more…]

Marc Randazza, Whose Side Are You On?

In the great Man-Ape war, Marc Randazza was once once of humanity's most trusted leaders. Hell, like I said before, he declared the War on Apes.

So why is he now fighting for the intellectual property rights of the ape-kin, rights that will only be used to weaken humanity's will with the apes' seductive wildlife photography and reality television programming? Has he faltered? Has he weakened? Has he changed sides and betrayed us? Or, giddy with victories over copyright trolls and dog-shooting SLAPP-suiters, does he imagine that he has transcended right and wrong, friend and foe, Man and Ape?

Don't forget where you came from, Marc Randazza. Those apes may groom you, they may pound their chests and roar in a manner that appeals to your litigation style, and they may even display a better grasp of the First Amendment than the average state legislator. But always remember that you are not one of them. You're one of us, God help you.

Marc Randazza, My Weird, Scary Hero

We'd have covered the lawsuit filed by University of Miami law professor Donald Jones against the legal gossip site Above the Law yesterday, except that we were busy.  And everyone else got to it first.

Suffice it to say that the lawsuit was ridiculous.  It betrayed fundamental misunderstandings of law, and the nature of the internet on the part of its author. The best blogposts on the matter were written by Ben Sheffner, analyzing the demerits of the suit, and Eric Turkewitz, who played against type and provided wise, conciliatory counsel to the plaintiff, the sort of advice one might expect from, oh I dunno, a law professor.

(And by, "against type" I don't mean Turkewitz isn't wise.  I mean that his conciliatory advice doesn't play into the stereotype of a plaintiff's personal injury attorney, but I digress…)

The suit was dismissed, voluntarily and without prejudice, one day after news of it broke on the web.  We're pleased to note that Above the Law was represented by longtime Popehat friend Marc Randazza, who blogs on the First Amendment among other things at the Legal Satyricon.  Randazza got the case dismissed with one letter.

Randazza, an "adjunct" professor himself (meaning he actually practices law) has long maintained that the legal academy does a poor job of educating its students.  Non-adjunct, "academic" professors, tenured or not, are often so removed from the practice of law (at least as it relates to litigation) that they have little of practical benefit to offer the eager young minds who pay their exorbitant salaries.

I think this case proves Randazza's point.

We can never be too safe! (Update – Passenger banned for life)

How deplorable!

How deplorable!

We can never be too safe from awful speech. You know, speech with which we disagree. That kind.

This douchebag got on a flight and went on a 45 second triumphant rant about Trump.

“We got some Hillary bitches on here,” the man yelled. “Come on, baby. Trump!”

He then kept yelling, telling everyone that Trump is "president of every one of y'all" and if they don't like it, "too bad." The video is here.

Clearly the most dramatic reaction on the plane was an eye roll. One woman sarcastically said "we can't hear you."

Later, a flight attendant took Mr. Douchebag off the plane and told him that he wasn't allowed to act that way.

It seems to me that the Delta crew handled it just fine.

"Sir, don't be a dick on the flight anymore, or we wont let you fly."

"Ok, I won't"

There were no further outbursts.

Well, ok, there were. All over social media. This was a sign to the leadership of the National Association of Crybabies that this was the beginning of the concentration camps in America. This was their sign that The Deplorables were coming for them. You know, the same kind of hysteria that we saw when a guy whose middle name is "Hussein" came into office to take their guns and put them in FEMA camps.

People flipping the fuck out over nothing.

And, Delta couldn't leave well enough alone.

"We are sorry to our customers who experienced this disruption. We have followed up with the teams involved and all agree that this customer should not have been allowed to continue on the flight. Our responsibility for ensuring all customers feel safe and comfortable with Delta includes requiring civil behavior from everyone. The behavior we see in this video does not square with our training or culture and follow up will continue so we can better ensure our employees will know they will be fully supported to make the right decisions when these issues arise." (Delta Statement) (emphasis added)

I'm ok with most of the statement. Fine, you have to give everyone a tummy rub. And yeah, Mr. Douche was disruptive for 45 seconds. That's a fuck of a lot less than the stupid piece of shit who always winds up stopping the plane from boarding because she doesn't think the laws of physics apply to her suitcase — and then she looks at me like I'm gonna help her. See Rule 8.

Pre-flight screaming doesn't really bother me. Maybe because I live in Vegas, and most of the time I'm flying home after a long work week somewhere else, I'm sitting there while the Vegas-bound revelers pour themselves down the aisle after their celebratory pre-game at the terminal. You think this guy was obnoxious? Have you ever seen a bachelorette party pour itself onto a Vegas-bound plane? How about every guy in an Ed Hardy shirt who gets on a plane bound for Vegas or Miami? How about any flight leaving Miami for Boston for the Patriots kick the shit out of the Dolphins in an away game.

I was "that guy" once — on my way from Fort Myers to Houston for Super Bowl XXXVIII. I stumbled on the plane dressed in a Steve Grogan jersey and a velvet pimp suit and ran up and down the aisle screaming "I'M THE MOTHERFUCKIN PATRIOTS PIMP BABY!" The flight attendants gave me "the talk" too. Fucking fascists.

Where were we?

Right, so obnoxious shit on the plane. Big fuckin deal. I deserved the "sir, you need to behave in this little metal tube" talk when I was playing Patriots Pimp. So did Deplorable Dan. But that's the end of it.

Remember when we got all pissed off during the Bush years when people got kicked off of planes for wearing anti-Bush statements on their shirts? (like here) How about when someone found an upside down flag offensive? Black lives matter button kerfuffle?

In flight assholes are a problem. But, really? Would this be an issue if he got on the plane and screamed "FUCK THE DALLAS COWBOYS!" or "YANKEES SUCK!" So what's the problem here? That he called his political opponents "Hillary Bitches?" So fucking what? How about if he got on board and yelled "NOT MY FUCKING PRESIDENT?" Or how about if he started chanting "BLACK LIVES MATTER?"

I'm not defending the guy. Deplorable and Douchey Dan was out of line. I'm willing to bet that I would hate him. I base that on very little — just my own coastal elite asshole stereotyping. Between his clothes, his accent, and his "yeah, y'all" shit, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like him. I think what he had to say was fucking retarded. Had he been seated next to me and tried to give me a high five, I'd have responded with "don't touch me, I don't want to catch fuckheaditis."

But, the flight attendant handled it the right way. Delta should maybe have issued a statement — even the one it issued, minus the bolded part. His behavior was douchey, but hardly as bad as 90% of the prole trash motherfuckers who don't know how to behave on a plane. I'll take him over half the seat mates I've had in the past year.

UPDATE: And now, to prove how politically correct they are, Delta has banned Mr. Douche for life from Delta flights. Let that sink in. He said one offensive thing, one time, on a flight and now for the rest of his life he can't fly Delta.

And right now, I'm sure some sanctimonious fucking turdsucker will bob their head and say "well, serves him right." How about you order some shut-the-fuck-up as your in flight beverage? Really? Because if you think this "serves him right," then I can guarantee you that you have had your share of dumb shit to say, scream, whine, shout in your day.

I might not agree with Mr. Douche, but the only difference between him and anyone boarding a Friday night Vegas-bound flight in an Affliction shirt is that he shouted a political view that certain crybabies find offensive.

Well fuck you. I find your face offensive.

delta-flight