In Dodging FCC Review, AT&T's Time Warner Mega-Merger Just Got Much Easier Under Trump

Daily Deal: Pay What You Want White Hat Hacker 2017 Bundle

First Amendment Lawyer Apparently Surprised That The First Amendment Covers Everyone

from the that's-how-it-works dept

Wed, Mar 8th 2017 9:23am — Mike Masnick

The Wrap, a Hollywood-focused online publication, has a somewhat bizarre article by First Amendment/entertainment lawyer Susan Seager. It's officially about California's anti-SLAPP law (which we've written plenty about) and how it's popped up in a bunch of cases in Hollywood over the past few years, protecting a number of people and companies from having to go through questionable lawsuits based on their speech. This is exactly what the law is supposed to do. But Seager, for some reason, seems to imply that the law should only be used for "small-town citizens" and shouldn't be used by larger players. The article goes through a number of example cases, and then notes:

The statute was not originally enacted to protect the entertainment industry. The California Legislature enacted the SLAPP statute in 1992 to protect mostly small-town citizens from expensive lawsuits brought by large developers and companies to chill the citizens’ protests and testimony against development in their neighborhoods.

The purpose of California's anti-SLAPP law (and many other state anti-SLAPP laws, not to mention the proposed federal anti-SLAPP law) is to get cases quickly tossed out of court when the cases pretty clearly are designed to stifle expression. And, yes, many early cases involved people protesting/speaking out against companies, but the principles of stopping speech-stifling go beyond that, and it's pretty clear that California (and other states) passed laws for this very reason. They're aware that being a defendant in a lawsuit -- even a highly questionable one -- can create massive chilling effects and can be a huge drain on time and resources. And thus, we've got Caliofrnia's anti-SLAPP law, designed to do two things: quickly get those cases dismissed before they get too onerous and to deter such lawsuits by including fee-shifting, making the plaintiff pay.

However, Seager seems surprised that California's anti-SLAPP law has been construed to apply to situations other than those "small-town citizens."

But in recent years the courts have interpreted the “public interest” requirement so broadly that it now applies to any lawsuit that targets speech about “any issue in which the public is interested,” according to a California appellate court.

“In other words,” the court said in Nygard v. Uusi-Kerttula, “the issue need not be ‘significant’ to be protected by the anti-SLAPP statute — it is enough that it is one in which the public takes an interest.”

These decisions mean that the SLAPP law covers pretty much anything created by Hollywood that is followed by a large number of people, whether in tabloids, social media, websites, or other sources of information.

I'm trying to figure out why this is a problem. I'm hardly going to be considered an apologist for Hollywood (have you seen what I've written about Hollywood?) but why shouldn't Hollywood also be protected by California's anti-SLAPP law? We should all be concerned about lawsuits designed to stifle anyone's speech without any legitimate basis. And while I frequently point out how Hollywood seems to have no problem stifling speech through over-aggressive use of copyright, that doesn't mean I won't stand up and argue it deserves just as much protection under the 1st Amendment as anyone else -- and that's why, of course, California's anti-SLAPP law should apply to them -- and it does.

On top of that, while I think that Hollywood has strayed quite far from its roots, historically, Hollywood and the MPAA were strong defenders of free speech, and owe much of their business to a strong First Amendment. It's unfortunate that they've since become very opportunistic about it, choosing to only defend free speech principals when it directly impacts their bottom line, while being quite happy to whittle away free speech rights with stronger copyright or other tools of control. But, given most of what Hollywood does is expressive, there's no reason why anti-SLAPP laws shouldn't apply fully to them, just as they apply to everyone else.

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: anti-slapp, california, first amendment, free speech, hollywood, susan seager

84 Comments

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

Reader Comments

The First Word

“

History #Fail

The law says that anyone could bring a SLAPP motion to get rid of a lawsuit if they could show that they were being sued for exercising their right to speak at government hearings or exercising their right to free speech “in connection with an issue of public interest.”

Yes, that was true in 1992 when California first passed the SLAPP statute.

But in recent years the courts have interpreted the “public interest” requirement so broadly that it now applies to any lawsuit that targets speech about “any issue in which the public is interested,” according to a California appellate court.

Seager declined to share which case, so I decided to find it myself: Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula, 159 Cal. App. 4th 1027, 1039, 72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 210, 218 (2008).

The Nygard court noted that the legislature amended the statute in 1997, adding a directive to construe the statute broadly “to address recent court cases that have too narrowly construed California's anti-SLAPP suit statute.” (citing Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1296 (1997–1998 Reg. Sess.) for July 2, 1997, hg., p. 2.)).

The bottom line: Courts weren't construing the SLAPP statute broadly enough, so the legislature told them to broaden the interpretation. The Nygard court did:

The Legislature expressly rejected this limited view of the anti-SLAPP statute when it amended the statute in 1997 and, thus, we will not adopt it here.

Good for them. If Seager wants to change the law, she is free to use her right to petition. She is not free to re-write history.

—TechDescartes

”

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 8 Mar 2017 @ 8:24am

"I'm hardly going to be considered an apologist for Hollywood"
Do you smell that distinct charred meat scent? I think some brains fried trying to process this article.

Ahem. Much like the ACLU went to the rescue of some KKK members because as obnoxious dipshits they are, it's precisely when the worst types need the First that we should stand by them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David (profile), 8 Mar 2017 @ 7:01pm
  
  Re: "I'm hardly going to be considered an apologist for Hollywood"
  Meat? There is mostly fat in Hollywood Brains! Much like SPAM.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Mar 2017 @ 9:32am

We should all be concerned about lawsuits designed to stifle anyone's speech without any legitimate basis.

Unless, of course, someone's whole modus operandi is to stifle people's speech through SLAPP actions. Then their only concern is how fast they can bankrupt someone before a anti-SLAPP motion gets in front of a judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 10:47am
  
  Re:
  How does SLAPP stifle one's speech?
  
  Are you implying that suing others based upon trumped up charges in order to stifle their speech is itself a form of speech and it needs protection from government censoring? Where does one stop with this circular bullshit?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Mar 2017 @ 11:08am
    
    Re: Re:
    
    How does SLAPP stifle one's speech?
    
    A strategic lawsuit against public participation (a "SLAPP action") is a lawsuit filed only to silence someone's otherwise legally-protected speech. SLAPP actions function as a threat: "Retract your shit or I will sue you into oblivion." Anti-SLAPP laws exist to stop such lawsuits before they get off the ground; some anti-SLAPP laws in various states provide for the recovery of legal fees — a consequence meant as a deterrent.
    
    SLAPP actions are, like abusive DMCA takedown notifications, an attempt to leverage the power of government — in this case, the judiciary — against legally protected speech. They are not deserving of "protection from government censoring", as they are not a form of protected speech or expression.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 4:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Perhaps you mis understood the question.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 5:24pm
  
  Re:
  Hey, pink pussy hat guy (Steve. T. Stone, personal Nazi assistant to Madonna) have you ever considered that you are ALREADY in front of a judge? Say something worthwhile, my double delusional friend. You can do it, just try Harder!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 5:36pm
    
    Re: Re:
    And I just wonder - what is it that gets my posts zapped so no one can see them? Is it my insults? Doesn't seem to be. Lots of those flying around. It's American Values, isn't it, Michael Masnick. When I speak to American Values, you make my post disappear, right? Well, that's telling. Let me write that down in my little diary. That's incredibly effective in court, did you know that? In AMERICA! YAY! GOD BLESS AMERICA!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 5:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You know, I mentioned this before, but it is worth mentioning again. Keep a diary, my American friends. Write down your frustrations about not being able to post your AMERICAN comments on THIS WEB SITE (you socialist shitbags). Just a simple notebook will do, get it at any supermarket. Date your entries, make them consecutive, and write down how you felt bad by not being able to participate on this SOCIALIST SHITBAG website run by Michael Masnick. Then, come meet us in court. The judge will let you read from it, no kidding, it really works. DIARIES, Americans, USE THEM! YAY!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 5:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hey, I just checked with the REAL judge, we accept FOREIGNER diaries here! Very cool, no. I know there are a lot of you that can't post here, and you're frustrated, and can't even speak to your frustration. Write it down in a diary, seriously! It's deadly evidence against these shitbag socialists, it really sticks in court, trust me. You might not want to put a lot of other personal feelings in it (like any fantasies or stuff like that, I've been burned, I know), just keep it focused on Michael Masnick and how bad you feel about THIS SOCIALIST SHITBAG WEBSITE! America! Great country! (Miss you Melania)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 6:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You know, Alexander (I think it was him) said something to me in a dream the other day, and I didn't understand it, but now, reading this post (that was from me, right? sometimes I forget) it's kinda making sense. He was mumbling something about Wikipedia, which I don't really get. I use Websters, always have, always will, wrote it, actually. Well, not me, another long dead ancestor, did I tell you about him? His first son, if I remember. Anyway, back to the point: How about a Wikipedia page of TECHDIRT CENSORSHIP? When he said it, I just didn't get it, but maaaaaybe. Well, actually, I know squat about Wikipedia, I think I already mentioned I'm a Webster (well, from a great distance, of course, don't want to claim too much). TECHDIRT CENSORSHIP WIKIPEDIA (how do I do that, and how many contributors will I get? Actually, I'll never know here, because of TECHDIRT CENSORSHIP! TECHDIRT CENSORSHIP!) NOW I KNOW why I wasn't sure that was Alexander, you rascal, John Webster! It was you! Huuu that explains a lot. I'll write about that later.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 6:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You know what I find haunting, I mean like, same as my dreams, haunting, you know, old dead people giving me advice and stuff like that (you understand haunting, right, we practice a lot of it here in the Great Commonwealth of Massachusetts) what I find haunting is that my old posts are like little wisps. Haunting, They're there, but dead, buried, with just a little gravestone over them. Not even a flattering one. Have you guys ever rubbed gravestones? We do a lot of that here. Hunt them up in the woods, high in the hills (with my mom, my real one) take a piece of paper, charcoal, and BAM a Xerox copy of a real headstone. I saw one once that said the dead mean fell off a hor? Have you guys seen that? Sounds like whore, right? It was a horse, but I believe he ran out of funds, kind of like the expression arm and a leg (did you know that, that's how paintings were priced here). Anyway, even that poor bugger got a better headstone than I got. Just little wisps of dead posts, buried somewhere, with no one to speak for them. Sad, haunting, no? Let's cheer this place up! FREE SPEECH FREE SPEECH!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 6:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So that brings me to my point (at long last, are you excited)? Let's change the tradition of killing comments, shall we? I think if you really find them offensive, at least give them a headstone worthy of the time and effort invested by the original author. Be a little kind, a little charitable, try to remember something worthwhile about the comment, respect, you understand me? Even comments deserve respect, no just to be buried without a headstone at all, and no one to preside over their burial. You just wait until Cabbage Night, your buggers, we have rituals around Halloween, and we BURN AND DROWN AND STONE GODLESS HEATHENS LIKE YOU. Oh, right, sorry, my mistake. WE USED TO BURN AND DROWN AND STONE HEATHENS LIKE YOU, not any more. And think about this - we take such things very seriously, if you don't comply with our demand for better headstones, my offspring will HUNT DOWN YOUR HEADSTONE AND OBLITERATE IT. How about that, eh? Pretty good threat, no? And I can do it! (probably not, but you get my point, right?)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 6:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So my dastardly plan has become obvious, right? I plan to talk to my self, happily (any one else can jump in if they want) and organize my little wispy shameful and cowardly headstones into groups, kind of like that little stocking stuffer, you remember? German tradition, I think, has 24 little windows, and you have to open them one by one, each day (don't go too fast, mom will use the ruler!) and then BAM Christmas! That's what it's going to be like for Charles Harder when he opens these up in court. My brilliant ideas, told to myself (I'm a good listener), in order of brilliance, to be savored and enjoyed, even if they are hidden. And then BAM (well, BAM is coming, I'm working my way up to that).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 6:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So, let's see, how can I improve upon my last comment, already very insightful. How about this? I'll give you an example of a headstone for the comment above. What is it really about? A plan, a Christmas tradition, something from German culture, and Charles Harder. How about this for a headstone "Here lies a plan, dead before it's time, but optimistic and hopeful. It's demise was assured by the naming the One Who Shall Not Be Named". What do you think, any votes for this? Oh, I forgot, this is a socialist shitbag forum that represses any American ideas, even burying your foes with respect and a kind word. You know, I think even the Indians (the American Indians) were better that you guys. Tush (that's the sound of spitting)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 6:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So you might be thinking, what kind of delusional nutcase with such obvious historical education and natural writing skills has the time to post, again and again, feverishly, seemingly without end, on this little puppydog socialist shitbag website? Well, I'm glad you asked that question, and in return, I pose THIS question: Can you imagine how obsessed Alexander Hamilton must have been to take his pistol with his disagreement and face Burr? Wow. That's obsessed, right? And he's dead now. Well, realistically, he would be dead now in any case. But he was dead before his time, because of his hatred for Burr. Not a good outcome, I'll be he wishes he could have a do-over. I certainly do, as well as most of my ancestors (honestly, not all of them). So, the family kind of made a vow - no more standing in front of people you hate with a gun. Other changes occurred since then, too, no more burning, stoning, that kind of thing. Anyway, back to my point. Hatred is a family traditional, especially when people are frauds and liars, as is Michael Masnick, and besmirch your family name. I feel hatred, but I express it with really good writing and well planned attacks of HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE. Do you guys get that? This is history. Mike is going down, and we're all here to watch it. One post, then another, and then BAM (oh, that's where that comes from, it's you, Alexander, a haunted memory of your mistake no doubt). Let's change not. Not BAM. Sorry about that, let it slip out. And then POOF! Techdirt is GONE! YAY! God Bless America!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 7:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, I just can't tell you how much this is helping me. I've been using BAM all my life, and I never really connected to the BAM Alexander Hamilton felt when either he shot in the tree (his shot, shoulda been in the ground, buddy) or Burr's shot, which hit him in the belly. Wow, that's deep. BAM. I feel it, man, I've been feeling it all my life. BAM. It's a warning, right? I has meaning, right? I really need to think about this for a while. Maybe a little sleep would be good, really, wow. BAM. I'm going to miss you, my subtle reminder of the tragic death of my long dead relative. Focus, self, focus. Poof, not BAM. Poof, not BAM....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 8 Mar 2017 @ 7:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Uh-huh. Speed kills, Del.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 7:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Welcome, Great Editor of Insightful! You are the JUDGE of insightful, right? You give awards and everything, you are kind of like royalty around here, right? Wow, thank you, I am humbled by your consideration. Regarding your comment concerning "Speed", I assume you are making a reference to DRUGS. DRUGS ARE BAD, I think we should all be clear about that. BAD. Except marijuana, of course, that doesn't count. That's ok, pretty much everywhere. Speed is a DRUG. DRUGS ARE BAD! Just ask my friend, President Donald J. Trump, the Magnificent. He'll tell you. His words are really worth listening to, even more than mine. So, here's my entry in the "Insightful comment of the week" - A Free Society, Free From Deleted Posts On TechDirt, Is Worth Fighting For. Hmm? What do you think? Insightful? Give me a chance.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 7:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have another one - how about this: WHEN YOU GIVE IDIOTS EDITORIAL RIGHTS (rights to hide speech) AND MONEY FROM SOCIALISTS, WHAT DO YOU GET? TECHDIRT!
        
        How about this: SOCIALIST PROPOGANDA IS BASED ON SILENCING OTHER SPEAKERS - always has been -
        
        Or maybe: THIS IS ALL SOCIALIST PROPOGANDA BECAUSE REAL SPEAKERS ARE SILENCED AND HIDDEN FOR NO GOOD REASON OTHER THAN TO DRIVE A SOCIALIST AGENDA
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 7:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And let me just ask you this: when the POST EXECUTIONER comes around, do you have any voice at all? For example, if you thought a post was insightful, and then the POST EXECUTIONER wanted to bury it under a nameless headstone, do you get a voice? Do you vote? Who votes exactly? I've brought up voting here (a very American idea) and no one suggested voting. Can I see a show of hands? Do you get it? Your "votes" are hidden from your own public without any explanation at all to anyone. You are TOTALITARIANISTS, you get that? Stand up for something, man. You can write, I read your profile. Are you PROUD to be a ranking member here? Honestly. MORE INSIGHTFUL POSTS! NO MORE DELETED POSTS!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 9 Mar 2017 @ 12:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, it's not often you get to witness someone literally losing their sanity, but here we are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 7:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Come on now, Gwiz, don't be shy. I see you have left 4,248 comments on TechDirt, way more than me. And, you hand out awards, making you part of the "management" of this web site. That gives you special insight into the inner workings of this very web site, am I correct? Kind of a Material Witness, if you understand my meaning. Actually, not kind of FOR SURE a Material Witness. Let's get you to come here to Massachusetts, shall we? Charles, can we get Gwiz and me in front of the judge to pitch my case? Sometimes they hear from real people that are effected by the terrible and undeserved shame that this web site dishes out unfairly. I (and all my ancestors) were injured, and I wouldn't mind at all to say so right in front of the judge. And, I think you should talk to this guy, too, who is part of their repressive, evil, nasty, unfair, uncouth, un-American socialist shitbag propaganda machine. You might have to convince him a little, I dunno, give him some money or send him a subpoena, that kind of thing. Let's get this all out in the open, shall we, my NEW favorite MATERIAL WITNESS (MW for short)? NO MORE TOTALITARIAN REPRESSIVE CRAPPOLA FROM THESE NOT VERY GOOD PEOPLE! (I'm trying to edit down my vile, now that I understand BAM. Terrible, that)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 8:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        OK, well, anyway, I promised you 24 posts today, before the POST EXECUTIONER made his rounds, right? I'll bet it's Gwiz (good name, Gwiz you'r DEAD, post. Gwiz, you're INSIGHTFUL, post), but who knows? It's all big secret! Anyway, Christmas, remember, 24 posts, each hidden in a little paper window that you have to open one by one. That's me! I love this game. You know, one of my children wrote to me, and told me I was a blogger. And then I thought about, and you know what, she's right! I never did it before (honestly, just look for this kind of writing about Hamiltonian, Gulick and Webster lore, you won't find it for at least 100 years). But here I am, blogging! Great. So, first things first (c) Copyright 2017 by The Crazed Hamiltonian. Just so you know, that's an OPEN SOURCE copyright, by my proclamation, the Crazed Hamiltonian. Let it go forth and multiply (I mean in a good way). Anyway, back to my point, this stream of comments. I promised 24, right, with the last ones really special, right? And what do we do on Christmas that's really special, children? Think about it: think back to your best childhood memories, tucked up a little high in the Appalachian mountains, with the smell of pine trees and a crackling fire, little snowflakes (not you democrats - though it fits, because democrats are unique idiots, each one - that's the difference between them and us, anyway) you remember, Christmas. And what is the most important point of Christmas, children? (have to wait until the next post now, open it tomorrow)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 10:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        OK, Children, It's Christmas! Yay! And before you open your eyes, I'm going to put something on your lips, I want you to kiss it gently (no, not THAT, you pervert, the ring). What's that? That's only a Hamiltonian/Freemason thing? Rats. Missed my point altogether, then. (By the way, did you see "National Treasure", circa 2004, Nicholas Cage - all true, every bit of it, and we still have it all - no tax!) Anyway, lets try again: Its Christmas Children, and what do we do on Christmas? That's right, we PRAY! And who do we pray to? That's right, the JUDGE. (hey, it's not really Christmas, this is my Christmas, and we really do pray to judges here in Massachusetts. Fervently) So, all together now (you can do it later, when you read it, it still works) We Pray Thee, Honorable Judge of the Great Commonwealth of Massachusetts, that you may hear our plea. These foreigners from California are really hurting our good names, and we want them to stop. Judge, since you have (almost) the power of the Almighty, here's what we'd like you to do. You remember "Stranger in a Strange Land" (Isaac Asimov 1961) where Michael Smith could apply just a tiny bit of force to a secret corner of pretty much anything, and send it into another dimension, with hardly any effort. Judge, we'd like you to do that to TechDirt. We summarize our prayer as follows, Judge: TechDirt, Poof (repeat). Try it everybody, in the privacy of your own special place. Place yourself in a posture of supplication, breath slowly, clear your mind of all malice (like Michael Smith, how the Martians taught him, you remember) and chant "TechDirt, Poof (repeat)". Yes, you can say repeat, it saves a lot of time (we're all busy, right). But try it, my friends. Pray with me, it's Christmas, after all. (Sleigh bells in background): Techdirt poof (repeat)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 11:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        O you often hold long conversation with the voices in your head?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 11:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        My gosh, well, yes, pretty much all the time, actually. Thank you for noticing. But everyone is like me, right? You know, I was thinking, you know anything about cryptography? I had some dream with one of my dead relatives telling me about confusion and diffusion, and how to apply the two mathematical concepts in combination to create really secret stuff. We do that a lot, us Freemasons. Rats, don't think I'm supposed to say that. Anyway, I've been applying some of my very special confusion and diffusion techniques to those words that President Donald Trump says when he's around Melania. You understand, right, just those words that he says near her. I think I can prove he's speaking in a secret code, using the techniques I outlined above. If you take all the letters in the words, then create a matrix, apply the letters to the matrix repeatedly, and then add just one number, he's saying (wait for it) FOOP TRIDHCET. Get it? So, anyway, that's pretty clear to me, I think he has given my knighthood consideration, and will grant me my boon after my first achievement, as know he has made clear. OK, President Donald Trump the Magnificent, I'll do my best.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2017 @ 12:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And, as long as the young flowers of my thoughts, little yellow daisy thoughts they are (Daisy, Diasy,..) are still alive, vibrant, and open for all to see and enjoy, I would like to share one more (I think insightful) thought with all of you. You remember Sharik, my nasty name of a dog? Here's what I'm trying to say. We all have masters. We need them to function in an organized society. In the TechDirt lawsuit, the judge really is their master, no kidding. He can take anything he wants from them, he's a very powerful man, confirmed by the US Congress. Don't respect him at your own peril. I respect him, hell yes. And I respect police, and soldiers, and even TSA workers and politicians (well, that's a case by case thing). I respect so many people, that my respect extends even to people I don't know, like the Email inventor. It's called "benefit of the doubt", and it has an important place in our society. Respect. Think about the respect you hear in this forum. Not that much, right? That's when someone has to say "bad dog!". Who is that at the moment? That would be the judge in the case in court. But actually, we all need to respect each other. When we see people acting with too little respect, we should point it out, like I try to do with Sharik. If he would give me some more opportunity, and not mow down my ideas with the grim reaper of comments, they would have more chance to flower, and they would grow in and slow soaked up and replaced his shit (oops, but powerful metaphor, no?) with lotus flowers (that's for you, Mike) Anyway, Respect, that's the point of outing outlayers like Michael Masnick. He doesn't seem to feel like normal Americans feel, and now we're going to try to teach him some respect. Hard to do, I'm afraid, with any bad dog. I am still hoping for "Techdirt poof". Time will tell. Just keep in mind, there are two sides to most issues, including this one. He only lets you hear one. What does that say about him? Answer: it says he will lose in court.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2017 @ 2:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You know, someone on this very forum asked me recently how pathetic I can be. I've done my best in the post above. The young little yellow daisies, singing softly in the spring sunlight in the Berkshire hills of Massachusetts, guilty of nothing, beauty for all to share, for free, in the open. That's the power of ideas, inspiration. I hope my pathetic daisies might inspire the grim reaper of posts (who was he? GWiz) to spare this one post, so other people may enjoy it, and reflect upon it here in this beautiful countryside, in my mind. Strike it if you must, grip reaper of posts, perhaps pity can not sway you, and I will have to take another tact. Boy, you guys are incredibly suppressive, don't you think? You're just not very nice. Daisies! Come on. You're freaky scared of ideas.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2017 @ 3:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I take it back. I can do better. Combine the Daisy metaphor above to the prayer metaphor above that. THEN, keep in mind that is an actual plaque in the Berkshire Hills with my grandfather's name, he was big in the Audubon society, and mentally place these daisies next to this plaque. THEN consider that my prayer to the judge was heartfelt, which it actually is. It's real RELIGOUS EXPRESSION (would you deny me that, too?)THEN imagine that I am opening my shirt, exposing my heart, putting it between that vile comment reaper tool you have and these comments, and am ready to DIE before you take these comments. More pathetic, yes?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2017 @ 6:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't have to keep anything in mind. You refuse to substantiate proof of your identity - which for some reason demands ridiculous amounts of respect - and expect others to jump through countless hoops before you start giving hints. Screw that. If this is the sort of loon Shiva has in his corner of support his case is dead on arrival.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wendy Cockcroft, 9 Mar 2017 @ 7:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Please let's report and move on. That's what our friend the red button is for. Trolls crave attention.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2017 @ 7:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, but I'll be short. We crave "Techdirt Poof". That's all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2017 @ 7:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And I'll tell you another little yellow daisy idea, since you did speak up. Be fair now! I get to say a few words. So, what about this. Don't you think when two people have a dispute a reasonable question for a judge is to say who the heck are you anyway, and what's your point. In this case, I believe the Inventor of Email says "Hey, I'm whoever, and I invented Email, and I'm mostly an OK guy". And then someone else says "Well, I'm a foreign socialist, and I say he didn't". Ok, well, then, hmm.. he might think. And he could as the foreigner socialist: are you claiming you invented Email? And the foreigner socialist says "no, but, well, but I can PROVE that HE Didn't. BUT, your honor, trust me, here some old references, you read them, you figure out what Email means, and what he said, and what I said, and then tell him he's WRONG and HE SHOULDN'T BE HEARD BECAUSE I AM RIGHT!. That's basically your case, right, Mike? If I were judge, I think I would say, ok, Mr. Foreigner Socialist, come to my court and argue your point. I have no idea why you want to argue this point, since it seems to impact you not at all. But, we are kind and understanding here in Massachusetts (you get that inside we are violent psychopathic killers, I mean just look at history) so come argue here. Good idea, no?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 9 Mar 2017 @ 7:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "here some old references, you read them, you figure out what Email means, and what he said, and what I said, and then tell him he's WRONG and HE SHOULDN'T BE HEARD BECAUSE I AM RIGHT"
        
        Due process, accessing your right to a fair trial and documented facts are now evil socialist plots now? Wow...
        
        I shouldn't mock the mentally ill, but this is entertaining.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2017 @ 7:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        PaulT, my good friend, I am the one arguing for a fair trial, do you get that? Michael Masnick is arguing for dismissal, do you get that? I think you're mixed up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2017 @ 7:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You know what I heard? I heard that the Inventor of Email guy is related to Ghandi! I don't know if it's true (can't remember where I heard it, might have been the same dead grandfather in my dreams), but that would be something, wouldn't it? You remember "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Inspiring, no? Sends shivers up my back. Yay for Ghandi!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 9 Mar 2017 @ 8:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike is asking that he doesn't have to go to court because he utilised his freedom of speech and called a documented liar a liar. He's using the legal system of the USA to defend against abuse by people who would rather he not have the ability to expose fraud.
        
        You are calling this socialist. I'm sure this makes some sense to you, presumably because you don't know what the word actually means. Perhaps in between responding to yourself with delusions, you could pick up some book or site that deals in facts. Oh, sorry, those facts are "socialist" as well, aren't they?
        
        Please continue showing how poorly hinged your mental faculties are, it's amusing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 9 Mar 2017 @ 8:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Good thing we have wide screens to fit threads like this one. I'd think the guy is just some plain troll wanting to unleash some hell in the comments. He has succeeded in a quite amusing way. I wonder if Mike is going to use the ban hammer or if he is as entertained as we are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2017 @ 8:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are obviously a scholar and a gentleman, thank you. My plan is to post every day, forever. Kind of "Ghost of articles past", if you get my meaning. (imagine a really eerie voice) We're coming for you, Michael Masnick (chains rattling). Think on your phony authors over the years - think on your phony (and permanent) IMAP records - think on your phony and misleading legal opinions - think.. Ya know what we want, Michael. TechDirt Poof (repeat)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 10 Mar 2017 @ 12:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "TechDirt Poof (repeat)"
        
        Out of curiosity, what is this phrase meant to mean? I may have missed somewhere in your schizo rambling when you first stated this term, but I just assumed that you accidentally misspelled the word "proof". You've now written this repeatedly, so I have to ask - are you deliberately trying to use an outdated slur for a gay man to attack Mr Masnick? Or, is there some other random association you're trying to make?
        
        Neither possibility makes you look good, but it would be nice to understand what you're attempting to attack him with now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2017 @ 8:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Can I just say one thing, you seem like a reasonable guy. Don't you think that Mike having a "ban hammer" is really terrible? I mean, it's hard to make friends here, especially for someone new. I'll bet that Email guy just didn't have the patience for it, like many others. But, if you read the articles it sounds like real conversation about a topic, when it absolutely is not. It's fake conversation, the whole thing is fake. When someone holds a "ban hammer" and then exhausts detractors, what do you have? Something really weird and one sided, but doesn't look it. If you want that, fine, ban away. But quit saying rude stuff about other people, and then not let hem speak. That's just wrong. And misleading. And false advertising, since you're promoting products. And unfair competition, because people compete in the space you are speaking in. Those are good laws to use for this stuff in California. If you want to wallow in this place, have it, but how about a little respect for the rest of the world? We're decent people, too, at least most of us. Ghandi was.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2017 @ 9:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And I would just say, Michael Masnick, that arguing a SLAPP case in front of a judge is really hard to do when you yourself are banning speech. Trust me on this, they think about just these kind of ironies. I am the one arguing FOR public participation, you get that? You are acting AGAINST it here, by burying my posts without even a (suitable, respectable) marker. Get it? Public participation. I am arguing FOR IT. You are acting AGAINST it. That will not fly well in front of the JUDGE. Just saying. Quit impeding public participation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2017 @ 9:21am
        
        SLAPP HAPPY HAHA FROM A HAMILTONIAN
        Wait a minute, does that mean you didn't actually know what I was doing? I've been arguing FOR public participation EVERY DAY since you filed your answer. I read your answer, understand? And I planned EVERYTHING (well, actually, it kind of came to me as I went along). Anyway HAHA I'm a Hamiltonian and the Capital is going to DC! Oh, wait, that's not my point. I am a Hamiltonian and I have been toying with you better than a WEEK, arguing FOR pubic participation and documenting that YOU YOURSELF ACT AGAINST IT! I even used my good family name to persuade others to engage in public participation. And, I'm a little tired now, see you later. Made my point, I think.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Mar 2017 @ 9:23am
        
        Re: SLAPP HAPPY HAHA FROM A HAMILTONIAN
        
        I have been toying with you better than a WEEK, arguing FOR pubic participation and documenting that YOU YOURSELF ACT AGAINST IT!
        
        You are free to participate in a public conversation with Mr. Masnick. But he has no legal obligation to host your side of the conversation, and you cannot legally force him to host your comments. To my knowledge, there is no law or legal precedent that would let you do that. Feel free to prove otherwise, though, Mr. Ayyadurai.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2017 @ 9:28am
        
        Re: Re: SLAPP HAPPY HAHA FROM A HAMILTONIAN
        You mean the Email guy, right, the guy related to Ghandi. Well, you seem legally versed, riddle me this. If your friend Mike deletes PUBLIC POSTS that say something nice about his opponent who is IN COURT WITH HIM and the judge KNOWS, then .. Not so good, right? SLAPP for Mike, no SLAPP for me, no real slapping, you understand, it's a metaphor. Or a homily. No maybe not, it's symbolism, that's it. OK?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Mar 2017 @ 9:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: SLAPP HAPPY HAHA FROM A HAMILTONIAN
        
        If your friend Mike deletes PUBLIC POSTS that say something nice about his opponent who is IN COURT WITH HIM and the judge KNOWS, then .. Not so good, right?
        
        He is not deleting comments. All your flagged comments are still there to see, so long as you can muster the effort to click a link on each one.
        
        Mr. Masnick is under no legal obligation to host your comments. He and the Techdirt moderation staff can hide or delete them at any time, for any reason. You are not being silenced, as you can go make these exact same comments elsewhere.
        
        Feel free to prove #2 wrong, Mr. Ayyadurai.
        
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2017 @ 9:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: SLAPP HAPPY HAHA FROM A HAMILTONIAN
        Well, I just haven't persuaded you yet, have I? I'm not him, buddy. Blue eyes, promise. Very fair skin. Used to be blond hair, now a little white, not so bad, kinda like highlights. That's me. Not Him. Understand?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2017 @ 9:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SLAPP HAPPY HAHA FROM A HAMILTONIAN
        And come on, did you read his Answer? California wants to protect California speakers with California law (California is another country, right?) Oh, maybe not yet, but it WANTS TO BE, it already said that, publicly. I think they're going to call it Maxico, what's white I heard. Some kinda deal with the Mexicans, which pretty much do all the work there. I dunno, crazy argument in my opinion, talking about speech in another country, especially Maxico, really? COME TO US MICHAEL MASNICK! We'll give you a square deal, promise.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 10 Mar 2017 @ 12:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "And I would just say, Michael Masnick, that arguing a SLAPP case in front of a judge is really hard to do when you yourself are banning speech. "
        
        You're arguing with someone who's not in this conversation again. To repeat - do you post on Facebook addressing Mr. Zuckerberg every time, or is this the only site where you think the owner has to personally respond to every conversation.
        
        But, in your scenario, it would be required to show that speech is banned (not that it matters in reality, but bear with me). The problem is - no speech is being banned. Your insane ravings are not banned or censored. They are hidden from view at the request of the community you're talking to, but they are not censored. I read and responded to one of your hidden comments quite easily. Your hero, however, is very much trying to shut this entire site down because someone correctly called him a liar, based on easily documented proof.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2017 @ 8:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I am truly humbled. Could you speak to President Donald Trump the magnificent on my behalf (you know what I'm talking about, right? The token? From Melania?) Please?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 10 Mar 2017 @ 12:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "you know what I'm talking about, right?"
        
        No, I really don't, but your obsessive worship of that family is intriguing. I always wondered how mentally unstable someone would have to be to support them. Now I know.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Mar 2017 @ 9:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        
        I am the one arguing for a fair trial, do you get that? Michael Masnick is arguing for dismissal, do you get that?
        
        Mr. Ayyadurai is not asking for a "fair trial" to prove he is the self-proclaimed "inventor of email"; he is asking for Mr. Masnick to be silenced because Mr. Masnick claimed Mr. Ayyadurai is not the "inventor of email".
        
        But since you seem to think a "fair trial" will somehow exonerate Mr. Ayyadurai, there is something you will want to consider here: To prove any charge of "defamation", Mr. Ayyadurai will have to prove that Mr. Masnick lied. That means Mr. Ayyadurai will have to produce proof that he had a hand in the development of the standards and protocols that govern the worldwide electronic messaging system that we all know today as email. If Mr. Ayyadurai had a hand in developing the ARPANET messaging system (which eventually evolved into and was widely adopted as email) or any of the three major email protocols (SMTP, IMAP, and POP3), he would need evidence to prove as much. If he cannot provide such evidence, he would need to provide evidence that his "EMAIL" program influenced the development of those things. If he cannot provide that evidence, Mr. Masnick would seem to have the high ground — as he would be telling the truth, which is the best defense against a charge of defamation.
        
        But this lawsuit is not really about a "fair trial" or Mr. Ayyadurai getting his day in court. It is about Mr. Ayyadurai and his legal team trying to force either bankruptcy or a settlement out of Mr. Masnick so as to silence a critic. If Mr. Ayyadurai could prove Mr. Masnick a liar, he should have done so already; since he cannot, I have to assume Ayyadurai is the liar in this situation. Especially since all the historical records of the development of email say as much.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2017 @ 9:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Blah blah blah every idiot makes this argument. If you can't afford to defend your good name, maybe it's because you don't have one. Or maybe you picked a fight with the wrong guy. You know what we say here in Massachusetts? Na, I dunno either, but I've heard all that before. Doesn't play in front of a judge, trust me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Mar 2017 @ 9:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Show me evidence that Shiva Ayyadurai had a hand in developing the ARPANET electronic messaging system or the three main email protocols. If you cannot do that, show me evidence that his "EMAIL" program influenced the development of the ARPANET electronic messaging system or the three main email protocols. If you cannot do that, stop wasting everyone's time — including your own. (You do know that you cannot ever get back the time you have spent spamming these comments, right?)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2017 @ 9:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Time, I love time. Can you get time back? I've been working on that, I'm an inventor, you know. I'll tell you the truth - I hate him, that Michael Masnick. He wrote some really unflattering things about me, didn't check with me, my secretary, anyone, just wrote away. False stuff, too. I've been upset about for some time, and you can probably tell by my mental imbalance. I'm getting better now, though, thanks to caring people like you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Mar 2017 @ 9:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        
        He wrote some really unflattering things about me, didn't check with me, my secretary, anyone, just wrote away. False stuff, too.
        
        Prove he said anything false about you that is not an expression of opinion, Mr. Ayyadurai.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2017 @ 9:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Steven, trust me, I am not this other guy. Kinda funny name he has, don't you think? Hard to believe he's related to Ghandi - did you ever hear he was related? I'm starting to have my doubts, if you think I'm him. Wow. I don't sound like Ghandi at all. I wish I did, I mean, I love the guy. Amazing what he did, no? Starved himself, and made the British suffer. Incredible. Anyway, not me, my friend, I am a HAMILTONIAN. (nothing personal buddy, but different gene pool - love Ghandi though, did you get that?)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Mar 2017 @ 9:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        
        I am not this other guy.
        
        No, you are Shiva Ayyadurai.
        
        No one outside of maybe the Prenda assholes or Charles Carreon has enough of a reason to continually come here and insult Mike Masnick or Techdirt. (Not even "out_of_the_blue" takes his hit-and-run trolling to this level.) You have continually referenced the impending lawsuit filed by Mr. Ayyadurai against Mr. Masnick as if you have more than a passing familiarity with it. The same goes for Mr. Ayyadurai's lawyer, Charles Harder. You extoll the virtues of America and toss around the adjective "American" as if you are someone who bought into a load of "America is #1" bullshit. Your incessant need to use the "American" label and capitalize whatever noun it is meant to label (e.g., "American Inventors" instead of "American inventors") is a typographical tic that is present in several of Mr. Ayyadurai's social media posts (that are not about shilling someone else's bullshit). The continual usage of "socialism" and "socialist" as an attempt to scare people out of conversation, the repeated attempts at creating "I'm so clever" not-really-clever insults for Mr. Masnick, your refusal to reveal your identity, and your refusal to answer a direct question all speak to a mixture of a person holding onto a lot of hatred and the well-known "basement-dwelling troll" stereotype.
        
        I can make no other conclusion besides "this specific anonymous poster is Shiva Ayyadurai, who had no hand in inventing the electronic messaging system that evolved into the email system now present around the world".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 9 Mar 2017 @ 9:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        
        To prove any charge of "defamation", Mr. Ayyadurai will have to prove that Mr. Masnick lied.
        
        The bar is actually higher than that.
        
        Since Ayyadurai, by his own admissions, is a "public figure" (he asserts in his complaint that he is a "world-renowned scientist, inventor, lecturer, philanthropist and entrepreneur") he must prove "actual malice" by Mike & Techdirt using "clear and convincing evidence", which his complaint clearly lacks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 9:45am

But in recent years the courts have interpreted the “public interest” requirement so broadly that it now applies to any lawsuit that targets speech about “any issue in which the public is interested,”

So . . . we have what the people are interested in, and human interest stories, which is what humans are interested in, and the public interest, which no one is interested in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- I.T. Guy, 8 Mar 2017 @ 11:02am
  
  Re:
  Very interesting.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 10:00am

@ "whittling away free speech rights with stronger copyright"
Your characteristic deliberate conflating.

No one's "free speech" is reduced simply by not being able to use content someone else has made. -- That include parts, "fair use", or whatever: all that you're itching to object over, those are NOT essential to YOUR free speech. -- Because "free speech" pretty much by definition must be your OWN, not simply copying.

And of course, by "free speech", Techdirt actually always means links to infringing content for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Mar 2017 @ 10:50am
  
  Re: @ "whittling away free speech rights with stronger copyright"
  
  No one's "free speech" is reduced simply by not being able to use content someone else has made.
  
  A reviewer of media being unable to quote part of a book or use clips from a movie as part of their review strikes me as a "stifling of speech".
  
  "free speech" pretty much by definition must be your OWN, not simply copying
  
  I cannot think of a single legal precedent that has ever said such a thing, so I would love to see you produce a reference to such a precedent.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 5:25pm
    
    Re: Re: @ "whittling away free speech rights with stronger copyright"
    Hey, how about TechDirt ERRADICATING MY FREE SPEECH?! Does that count (it does here), you pink pussy hat wearing Nazi sympathizing Madonna lover!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Mar 2017 @ 2:08am
      
      I could do a simple two-word reply, but then I would get flagged.
      Okay, once again, from the top and without the insanity involved.
      
      Steve. T. Stone
      
      "Stephen", actually. Right there in the name field and everything. Kinda hard to miss.
      
      You can do it, just try Harder!
      
      "I get it. It ain't makin' me laugh, but I get it."
      
      what is it that gets my posts zapped so no one can see them?
      
      It is the fact that you offer nothing meaningful or worthwhile to any given conversation, regardless of whether the conversation is about the article itself. The majority of your posts ramble on and on as if written by putting down the first thing that comes into your head. The community sees your posts as having no actual value — or appearing to be no better than a spam comment — and flags them. When enough flags get raised, your comments become hidden. Those who click the link that makes them visible can still see your comments, but there is a reason they are hidden, and the text prior to that link makes this clear.
      
      That's incredibly effective in court, did you know that?
      
      It is not illegal to criticise America. I am a born-and-raised American, and I criticise this flaming dumpster fire of a country all the damn time. No arrests or lawsuits yet.
      
      you socialist shitbags
      
      "Socialist" and "socialism" are not end-of-line passwords, you know. Those words do not automatically stop the conversation. And they do not frighten me or anyone else here. (Shit, I think a few people here might even be…you know…Bernie Sanders supporters.)
      
      The judge will let you read from it, no kidding, it really works.
      
      I cannot imagine why a judge from any part of the judiciary would care about you somehow being unable to post comments (that clearly go through) on a privately owned, privately maintained website that you cannot legally force to host your speech. But hey, you do you.
      
      How about a Wikipedia page of TECHDIRT CENSORSHIP?
      
      The irony here is that for such a page to exist, it would need credible evidence of censorship, and if something is censored…well, that evidence would be pretty hard to find, right? (Also: The "notability" hurdle would need to be cleared and that is just not going to happen.)
      
      my old posts are like little wisps. Haunting, They're there, but dead, buried, with just a little gravestone over them.
      
      And the engraving reads, "This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it". I admit, it is no "Drafted into the Skeleton War", but it has its own kind of charm.
      
      Let's change the tradition of killing comments, shall we?
      
      Nah, fam, we good.
      
      if you don't comply with our demand for better headstones, my offspring will HUNT DOWN YOUR HEADSTONE AND OBLITERATE IT.
      
      Are you sure you want to be saying such things at a time when Jewish cemeteries in America are being desecrated by way of the destruction of headstones?
      
      That's what it's going to be like for Charles Harder when he opens these up in court.
      
      You do realize that you are right on the line of admitting you are Shiva Ayyadurai, right? I mean, why else would you continually bring up Charles Harder, the impending legal action against Techdirt, and the American court system as if you were intimately familiar with all three?
      
      (And for the record: Shiva Ayyadurai did not invent the electronic messaging system that became email.)
      
      Tush (that's the sound of spitting)
      
      Nah, it is usually more of a "ptoo".
      
      what kind of delusional nutcase
      
      Your words, not mine.
      
      well planned attacks of HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE
      
      You are spamming nonsense in the comments section of a tech-focused blog.
      
      WHEN YOU GIVE IDIOTS EDITORIAL RIGHTS […] AND MONEY FROM SOCIALISTS, WHAT DO YOU GET?
      
      A Bernie Sanders fansite.
      
      SOCIALIST PROPOGANDA IS BASED ON SILENCING OTHER SPEAKERS
      
      So Mr. Ayyadurai's lawsuit against Mr. Masnick is socialist propaganda?
      
      if you thought a post was insightful, and then the POST EXECUTIONER wanted to bury it under a nameless headstone, do you get a voice? Do you vote?
      
      Yes, you get a vote. Those buttons at the top-right corner of a comment allow you to vote on whether you think a comment is insightful or funny. They also allow you to flag a comment as "abusive/trolling/spam". The whole point of the system is to allow the commenter community a degree of control over what comments are deemed worthwhile to a given conversation. If your comments are continually hidden, this means enough of the community has deemed your comments as worthless. If you do not like this, you have two options: make better comments or leave.
      
      You might have to convince him a little, I dunno, give him some money or send him a subpoena, that kind of thing.
      
      Judges do not generally issue subpoenas for somewhat-anonymous Internet commenters unless there is a valid legal reason to do so. ("They hurt my feelings" is not a valid legal reason.)
      
      Just so you know, that's an OPEN SOURCE copyright
      
      Now you really have lost your mind.
      
      foreigners from California
      
      I know about the whole "CalExit" thing, but last time I checked, California is still part of the United States. (Of course, if it were its own country, it would not be part of the American legal system. That might render certain lawsuits as null and void.)
      
      But everyone is like me, right?
      
      No.
      
      I respect so many people, that my respect extends even to people I don't know, like the Email inventor.
      
      Then respect him enough to ask him these questions three:
      
      What proof does he have that his invention had anything at all to do with the development of ARPANET's electronic messaging system, which would eventually evolve into the email system everyone uses to this day?
      
      What proof does he have that anyone saw his program and used anything within it as part of the development of email?
      
      What proof does he have that he had a hand in the development of either the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP), the Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP), or the Post Office Protocol (POP3) — standards that govern the sending and receiving of email?
      
      Just keep in mind, there are two sides to most issues, including this one. He only lets you hear one.
      
      If you want to present your side of…whatever issue you have with Mr. Masnick, do that instead of posting a bunch of worthless nonsense. If you can do that, your words will be judged accordingly. As it stands now, your words already are being judged accordingly — as worthless nonsense that deserves only to be flagged by the community.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Wanderer (profile), 9 Mar 2017 @ 5:29am
        
        Re: I could do a simple two-word reply, but then I would get flagged.
        
        if you thought a post was insightful, and then the POST EXECUTIONER wanted to bury it under a nameless headstone, do you get a voice? Do you vote?
        
        Yes, you get a vote. Those buttons at the top-right corner of a comment allow you to vote on whether you think a comment is insightful or funny. They also allow you to flag a comment as "abusive/trolling/spam". The whole point of the system is to allow the commenter community a degree of control over what comments are deemed worthwhile to a given conversation.
        
        Sometimes the same post gets enough votes to be marked both ways: with the ! for Insightful, and the "click here to show it" hidden status of trolling.
        
        I've actually flagged a single post with both votes myself, at least once in the past...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 10:52am
  
  Re: @ "whittling away free speech rights with stronger copyright"
  Do those blinders actually help ?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 10:54am
  
  Re: @ "whittling away free speech rights with stronger copyright"
  A quick way of stiffing speech is to prevent people quoting other peoples speech, as that is how they explain, justify or provide an authoritative view in support of their speech.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TechDescartes (profile), 8 Mar 2017 @ 11:18am
  
  Re: @ "whittling away free speech rights with stronger copyright"
  Under that standard, you aren't allowed to make this comment. It's been made before.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 8 Mar 2017 @ 11:31am
  
  Re: @ "whittling away free speech rights with stronger copyright"
  
  No one's "free speech" is reduced simply by not being able to use content someone else has made. -- That include parts, "fair use", or whatever: all that you're itching to object over, those are NOT essential to YOUR free speech.
  
  If I am unable to quote your comment (ie: Fair Use) so I can properly rebut it within context so that anyone reading it isn't confused, then yes, my Free Speech rights are infringed upon. How do you not realize that?
  
  I see that you quoted the line from article that you are referring to in your comment title, so apparently you also value Fair Use.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 11:31am
  
  Re: @ "whittling away free speech rights with stronger copyright"
  The one time Mike defends Hollywood and you still manage to shit the bed. Bravo sir, bravo.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 5:27pm
    
    Re: Re: @ "whittling away free speech rights with stronger copyright"
    I FLAG THIS COMMENT! WE AMERICANS AGREED THAT THE USE OF PROFANITY SHOULD BE AVOIDED WHENEVER POSSIBLE. TAKE THIS SHIT DOWN! (unavoidable here)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Uriel-238 (profile), 8 Mar 2017 @ 1:06pm
  
  Public Domain and Fair Use
  Heh, I was going to say, now all we need is to get our lawyers and legislators to realize that the public domain and fair use exceptions are both part of the public interest.
  
  For whatever copyright and IP systems were meant to do once upon a time, now all they do is lock up speech so it is no longer free.
  
  And superfluous lawsuits are pandemic to IP.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 10:04am

Once again, Orwell calls it!
"but some are more equal than others"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 10:08am

Just because Hollywood rarely, if ever, brings any merit while it's on the attack doesn't automatically mean it lacks it when on the defensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AricTheRed, 8 Mar 2017 @ 10:12am

Shocking, Just Shocking!
A lawyer complaining about lawyers not being able to get paid for un-necessary lawyering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TechDescartes (profile), 8 Mar 2017 @ 11:15am

History #Fail

The law says that anyone could bring a SLAPP motion to get rid of a lawsuit if they could show that they were being sued for exercising their right to speak at government hearings or exercising their right to free speech “in connection with an issue of public interest.”

Yes, that was true in 1992 when California first passed the SLAPP statute.

But in recent years the courts have interpreted the “public interest” requirement so broadly that it now applies to any lawsuit that targets speech about “any issue in which the public is interested,” according to a California appellate court.

Seager declined to share which case, so I decided to find it myself: Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula, 159 Cal. App. 4th 1027, 1039, 72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 210, 218 (2008).

The Nygard court noted that the legislature amended the statute in 1997, adding a directive to construe the statute broadly “to address recent court cases that have too narrowly construed California's anti-SLAPP suit statute.” (citing Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1296 (1997–1998 Reg. Sess.) for July 2, 1997, hg., p. 2.)).

The bottom line: Courts weren't construing the SLAPP statute broadly enough, so the legislature told them to broaden the interpretation. The Nygard court did:

The Legislature expressly rejected this limited view of the anti-SLAPP statute when it amended the statute in 1997 and, thus, we will not adopt it here.

Good for them. If Seager wants to change the law, she is free to use her right to petition. She is not free to re-write history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 5:28pm
  
  Re: History #Fail
  Can I SLAPP Michael Masnick for taking down MY SPEECH?! I want to SLAPP him! Hard! Even More! HARDER!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - orbitalinsertion (profile), 8 Mar 2017 @ 8:09pm
    
    Re: Re: History #Fail
    All that speech, the speech that was not there, yet you somehow replied to in a thread, repeatedly? That speech? The pontificating on acid speech?
    
    Sure, anyone can file a lawsuit. Have fun with that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 10:18pm

Fuck me, not only is out_of_the_blue back and dumber than ever, he's brought along his unholy lovechild between him and Shiva.

If this is the sort of brain that the Alexander Hamilton Institute produces our new troll can keep his one million dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 10:44pm

> I'm hardly going to be considered an apologist for Hollywood...

Oh, sure. And Obama's not the leader of ISIS either, right? Sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2017 @ 11:07pm

Of course she doesn't get it
She didn't become a First Amendment Lawyer because of a love for it, she became it because she wanted to find loopholes and weaknesses in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mel, 9 Mar 2017 @ 6:13am

Uses of Anti-SLAPP
In the continuing story of Ted Rall and the LA Times (http://rall.com/2017/03/07/rall-v-la-times-lawsuit-update), the second move in the case was an anti-SLAPP suit by the Times against Rall. In legal wars of manoeuvre, a suit, any suit, is just another kind of suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]

In Dodging FCC Review, AT&T's Time Warner Mega-Merger Just Got Much Easier Under Trump

Daily Deal: Pay What You Want White Hat Hacker 2017 Bundle

Follow Techdirt

Essential Reading

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Read the latest posts:

read all »

Techdirt Deals

Report this ad | Hide Techdirt ads

Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Friday
19:39	Important Announcement: Techdirt Is Migrating To A New Platform (0)

First Amendment Lawyer Apparently Surprised That The First Amendment Covers Everyone

from the that's-how-it-works dept

Reader Comments

History #Fail

"I'm hardly going to be considered an apologist for Hollywood"

Re: "I'm hardly going to be considered an apologist for Hollywood"

Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

SLAPP HAPPY HAHA FROM A HAMILTONIAN

Re: SLAPP HAPPY HAHA FROM A HAMILTONIAN

Re: Re: SLAPP HAPPY HAHA FROM A HAMILTONIAN

Re: Re: Re: SLAPP HAPPY HAHA FROM A HAMILTONIAN

Re: Re: Re: Re: SLAPP HAPPY HAHA FROM A HAMILTONIAN

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SLAPP HAPPY HAHA FROM A HAMILTONIAN

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re:

@ "whittling away free speech rights with stronger copyright"

Re: @ "whittling away free speech rights with stronger copyright"

Re: Re: @ "whittling away free speech rights with stronger copyright"

I could do a simple two-word reply, but then I would get flagged.

Re: I could do a simple two-word reply, but then I would get flagged.

Re: @ "whittling away free speech rights with stronger copyright"

Re: @ "whittling away free speech rights with stronger copyright"

Re: @ "whittling away free speech rights with stronger copyright"

Re: @ "whittling away free speech rights with stronger copyright"

Re: @ "whittling away free speech rights with stronger copyright"

Re: Re: @ "whittling away free speech rights with stronger copyright"

Public Domain and Fair Use

Once again, Orwell calls it!

Shocking, Just Shocking!

History #Fail

Re: History #Fail