Guy Sues Wikipedia & Craigslist For $1 Billion Because (He Claims) He Found Nudity On Both

from the pro-se-me dept

Mon, Nov 22nd 2010 11:30am — Mike Masnick

Admittedly, most pro se lawsuits (filed by an individual, without a lawyer) are complete junk -- and on any given day you can find some really silly lawsuits. But sometimes they're worth highlighting anyway, just for how amusing they can be. Eric Goldman alerts us to the following lawsuit, filed by one Russell Dan Smith, arguing that both Craigslist and Wikipedia should be barred from being available in the state of South Carolina, and that each should be forced to pay $500 million, with half going to the state of South Carolina (might help with the budget) and half going to Russell Dan Smith (might help with the monthly payments he has to make on his $10,000 Puma camper).

What, you might ask, should force both sites to be blocked in the great state of South Carolina, as well pay up a billion dollars, combined? According to Mr. Smith, both sites "have been and still do openly promote child prostitution and the distribution of child pornography." Also, "both defendants also promote adult prostitution and nudity designed to excite prurient interests in the people viewing it." How does Mr. Smith know this? Because, he notes, he discovered such things on both sites, but "not intentionally." You see, "the pictures came to him by way of his surfing defendants' websites for valid non-pornographic purposes." You see, "plaintiff does not and does not want to view such nudity as heretofore described." Understood, of course. And "for allowing such nudity of children and adults to be seen by those who do not want to see it, both defendants are liable of attempting to lure other persons to share in this crime."

Mr. Smith also highlights the fact that Craigslist sued South Carolian Attorney General Henry McMaster -- a lawsuit that was tossed out, but is being appealed. He claims that "there is a probability shown by the preponderance of the evidence that defendant Craigslist was a criminal organization suing the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina for no other reason than that the State had been investigating the organization and intended therefore to paralyze by fear of further action." Of course, as covered in detail at the time, McMaster had been threatening to put Craigslist execs in jail, for actions of its users -- actions clearly protected under Section 230 of the CDA, which other courts have highlighted. Craigslist's offensive lawsuit was not to "sue McMaster," so much as to get a declaratory judgment that it had done nothing wrong, so as to stop McMaster from continued grandstanding.

As one final point, it does seem worth pointing out that, on the documents filed, there is a note reading that "frivolous civil proceedings may be subject to sanctions...." Seems worth pointing out...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: lawsuits, porn, pro se, south carolina
Companies: craigslist, wikipedia

38 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2010 @ 11:37am

Here's an idea: If you don't like the content of a site don't go there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 22 Nov 2010 @ 11:49am

Re:
But God told me I was going to Hell if I didn't at least attempt to profit from ridiculous claims of someone else's supposed moral corruption! How will I afford decent real estate in Heaven if I don't store up treasures for myself on earth?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2010 @ 12:01pm

for the children
where is all this child prostitution I keep hearing about on craigslist? This guy claims to find it by accident, and I can't even find it when I'm looking for it. Oh, ummm, I mean, for researching a paper on that sort of thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DogBreath, 22 Nov 2010 @ 12:11pm

Lawsuits from crazies
Quick, someone do a records check to see if Johnathan Lee Riches got an early release and changed his name to Russell Dan Smith.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pickle Monger (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 12:22pm

Say, what?
Russell Dan Smith? Of the "Extraterrestrials and Sex" fame?
What, you might ask, should force both sites to be blocked in the great state of South Carolina, as well pay up a billion dollars, combined?
Probably because they can afford it, being extraterrestrials and all...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Grant Woodward, 22 Nov 2010 @ 12:29pm

Oh, SC
You know, I actually like living here. It's a beautiful state, and the Upstate's got a lot of smart, successful folks. Which naturally means that it's only idiots like Mr. Smith here that get the attention.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheStupidOne, 22 Nov 2010 @ 12:34pm

Nudity on Both
I've found nudity on craigslist, even pornography. I can't recall if I've seen any on wikipedia, but I'm sure I can. I bet I can even find under 18 yo boobies on there. Strangely though in both cases the company in question can't be blamed (safe harbors and all) and since the illegal activities in question would constitute a tiny fraction of the activity on each site then clearly someone should just grow up
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2010 @ 12:35pm

Just wait until this guy finds out about GIS...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2010 @ 12:36pm

Re: for the children
Welcome to the FBI watchlist AC.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 12:40pm

OMG!!!
Nudity on the internet? Can't be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gregory Kohs (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 1:05pm

One day...
While this particular case may be a lost cause, I think it's pretty clear that the pendulum is swinging back the other way from Section 230 provisions, as people begin to see how irresponsible websites can become about user-generated content, when you take away punishment for not behaving responsibly.

Anyway, the Wikimedia Foundation really ought to be sued, but not for this. Rather, they should be sued for the sweetheart contracts they hand out, no-bid style, to corporations that favor their own staff and trustees. (It's called "self-dealing", and thus far the WMF does a fairly good job of deflecting attention away from it, but it is an ingrained practice there.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pickle Monger (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 1:12pm

Re: One day...
Wikimedia Foundation is neither a public company nor a part of US gov't. Why should they be sued for the way they award the contracts unless it violates prior contractual obligations?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2010 @ 1:15pm

There's at least one nude underage girl on Wikipedia (it was a controversial album cover), and there used to be an erect horse penis somewhere. I'm surprised this is the first time they've been sued for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dishevel, 22 Nov 2010 @ 1:19pm

Re: Oh, SC
You AG got some face time as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 1:21pm

This can't be a real suite...
Suing because you found adult content somewhere on a website is ridiculous enough. But no one seems to be pointing out the obvious: 1 BILLION DOLLARS? There's no way anyone is taking this seriously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2010 @ 1:26pm

Oh yes, and there's poor Linu Medina.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lilburne, 22 Nov 2010 @ 3:27pm

To be fair to the guy
There is an awful lot of childporn uploaded on wikipedia, and a large number of active editors defending the right to hold it there.

Additionally the large and ever increasing number of porn images spill out all over wikimedia commons. Try searching for 'furniture' here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

and you are no more than a couple of clicks away from extreme porn content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rick, 22 Nov 2010 @ 3:40pm

Whats Sad
Is this dumb you know what will more then likely win, maybe not as much as he is asking for but I bet he wins something. Guess its time for me to go find my retirement law suit somewhere on the web, I am tired of working now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryan Diederich, 22 Nov 2010 @ 3:42pm

Dont forget.
Nude images of children arent neccesarily child pornography.

Those such as Linu Medina are scientific in nature, and dont count for that.

Craigslist may actually have child pornography on it, but Craigslist isnt reliable.

I think I might sue McMaster. You see, onI saw that there was a child pornography bust in South Carolina. McMaster shouldnt be allowing this sort of thing to happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chad, 22 Nov 2010 @ 4:33pm

It's kind of odd for someone to do this. He only makes $750/month? Sounds schizophrenic already.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2010 @ 4:38pm

Re:
This is an example of disorganized behavior in a man who receives SSI. He filled out the form completely which implies he actually believes what he's doing. Lot, computer. $100 in checking, $30 on hand... probably going to the liquor store right after submitting it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2010 @ 5:38pm

"..nudity designed to excite prurient interests in the people viewing it."
Are you kidding? Someone needs to drop this guy off at the nearest topless club. He's WAY overdue for a visit there.
;D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RandomGuy (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 6:40pm

Better add Google to the list too.

Hell, why not just sue "the internet"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2010 @ 7:17pm

Re: To be fair to the guy
Why do think the net was born?

Porn porn porn!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 8:12pm

There is nudity on the internets?

I demand to see it now! o_O
[ link to this | view in thread ]
apple repair new orleans, 22 Nov 2010 @ 9:23pm

This guy is thinking small time...
If successful, this guy will be the world's first trillionaire. He has he whole INTERNET to sue...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BearGriz72 (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 10:32pm

Re: One day...
"people begin to see how irresponsible websites can become about user-generated content"

How does that even make sense in your mind? User-generated content is the responsibly of the USER not the WEBSITE. The reason section 230 exists is to codify simple logic.

"Rather, they should be sued for the sweetheart contracts they hand out, no-bid style, to corporations that favor their own staff and trustees. (It's called "self-dealing", and thus far the WMF does a fairly good job of deflecting attention away from it, but it is an ingrained practice there.)"

{{Citation Needed}}
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2010 @ 12:34am

Re: One day...

While this particular case may be a lost cause, I think it's pretty clear that the pendulum is swinging back the other way from Section 230 provisions, as people begin to see how irresponsible websites can become about user-generated content, when you take away punishment for not behaving responsibly.

This makes no sense. There already is punishment for websites not behaving responsibly - it's codified into the law. There are certain policies a site has to enforce in order to maintain its safe harbor, including responding to DMCA takedown notices, and probably a few other things as well (registering?). I personally have yet to see this pendulum you're speaking of, so please share any examples you might have that don't involve grandstanding politicians.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hmmm, 23 Nov 2010 @ 2:20pm

remove the images...
replace images of "horse-penis.jpg" with a picture of this guy filing the lawsuit.....hilarity abounds!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Merlin, 24 Nov 2010 @ 4:24am

Sue Guy
Can I sue that Guy? Because his sue made me interesting in Wikipedia and now I suffer :(
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jo, 25 Nov 2010 @ 1:34am

Re: One day...
Wikipedia should be sued for being awesome, phenomenally successful and generally great.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jo, 25 Nov 2010 @ 1:34am

Re: One day...
Wikipedia should be sued for being awesome, phenomenally successful and generally great.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Dec 2010 @ 6:10pm

Re: Nudity on Both
I'm absolutely certain you can find under-18 boobies on Wikipedia. Even discounting the illustrations on "Blue-Footed Booby", both Wikipedia and the law understand that there is a difference between "medical illustration" and "child pornography".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2010 @ 1:12pm

If this were for real there would be jail time
If these sites weren't making every reasonable effort to follow the law then someone would be under arrest by now.

If this person hasn't forwarded his evidence to the police or to the people he's suing so the problem can be fixed, he's morally if not legally an accessory.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Russell Dan Smith, 24 Dec 2010 @ 6:38pm

Court case
I cannot comment on an open case, except as follows:
The state court bumped the case up to the Federal court and joindered it to a class-action case in Charleston, SC.

My regards to the begging head of Wikipedia, who started this whole thing. He will not be rid of me anytime soon. He had best watch his p's and q's, since I'm watching to grab him at every point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Russell Dan Smith, 27 Dec 2010 @ 6:52pm

Re: Re:
Anonymous Coward: I do not drink alcoholic beverages, and only a very few sodas. I take 32 pills daily to maintain both my mental and physical condition. I do not use illegal drugs. I drink several pints of water daily to assist in the necessary in absorption off the lithium I took.
In 1980 when I was released from the US Penitentiary, Leavenworth, KS, I formed People Organized to Stop Rape of Imprisoned People (POSRIP); that was later incorporated as Stop Prisoner Rape, and which is now Just Detention International. I am now the author of several books. Still, I am a truly vindictive individual ala galore. The person on Hardforum who threatened to murder me should think about saying such things, since the website would be responsible for pathetic threats.
Anyway, you now have plenty of information to research and find to be extraordinarily truthful.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
john lagrone, 6 Feb 2013 @ 1:36am

Re: Re: Re:
You sir are a damn loser
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RussellDan Smith (profile), 18 Oct 2021 @ 4:50am

Laughed the whole time I was reading this
It never happened, of course. But I loved the free advertisement. With my book out now ("Raped In Prison: A Horror Story", RoseDog Books, March 2021), plus as founder of Just Detention International (the only organization in the world solely involved with ending rape in prisons), I love being talked about. Even works of fiction like this one is free press, and I love it. Thank you!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]