Disgraced Former NASCAR Boss, Brian France, Uses SLAPP Suit To Silence Parody Twitter Account
from the well,-that'll-solve-your-problems dept
Brian Z. France ran NASCAR for many years, though as a pretty obvious nepotism hire. His grandfather and father ran NASCAR before him. In 2018, France was arrest for driving while intoxicated and criminal possession of a controlled substance, causing him to take an "indefinite leave of absence," that became more permanent once he pleaded guilty to the DWI, and has an agreement that if he completes 100 hours of community service and doesn't get into any more legal trouble, the misdemeanor charges will be reduced to a "non-criminal infraction" later this year. France's time at the head of NASCAR came with some controversy regarding his leadership style -- so it was not that surprising that someone set up a parody Twitter account for him @DrunkBrianF.
France apparently didn't take kindly to being parodied, and hired some muckety muck lawyers -- Daniel Cohen, Kiran Mehta, and William Farley, from Troutman Sanders -- to file a blatantly obvious SLAPP suit in Connecticut Superior Court at the end of February, against John L. Steele, who apparently ran the account, going back to February of 2014. The lawsuit is, to put it mildly, ridiculous. It acts as if the concept of parody does not exist. Indeed, it insists that the intent of the @DrunkFBrianF account was to trick people into thinking it was really Brian France tweeting:
Since establishing the account in February 2014, the pattern of Steele’s conduct through @drunkbrianf makes clear the purpose and intent of maintaining the Twitter account: to harass, demean, abuse, belittle, and disparage Plaintiff while impersonating Plaintiff in a manner that is intended – and in fact does – mislead, confuse, and deceive others to believe that Plaintiff is responsible for the content and activity of @drunkbrianf.
Who the hell is going to look at an account that is literally called "Drunken Brian France" and assume that it's actually Brian France, and not a parody? The argument the lawsuit makes is that because the obviously parody account refers to Brian France in the first person it means he's trying to confuse people into believing it's really Brian France behind the posts, even though the multiple examples in the lawsuit are so blatantly parody, in that each one of them is designed to mock Brian France. Just a few examples directly from the filing:
The lawsuit acts all pearl-clutchy about the use of the 1st person. But that's how parody works, guys. You do an exaggerated and obviously buffoonish version. No one is thinking that the real Brian France would post this stuff. But, nope, France's lawyers insist:
These tweets and photographs, among others, reflect Steele’s ongoing efforts to deceive others to believe Plaintiff is responsible for the Twitter account and the account’s content.
Have these three lawyers literally never encountered parody in their entire lives? The complaint tries to argue that people are actually fooled by this, but they really only point to one single person, who seems generally confused, saying that if this is the real Brian France, they should stop tweeting like this. The second "example" Tweet is a DM exchange of someone just asking if he's really an alcoholic, and doesn't indicate one way or another if the person actually thinks it's Brian France. The third example is literally someone who is just against alcoholism in general, and asks the parody account to "drop the Drunken before your given name" because "alcoholism is a disease." That exchange doesn't even seem to know who Brian France is in the first place.
Either way, if parody fools some very, very foolish and gullible people -- such as the apparently ridiculously naive lawyers at Troutman Sanders -- it's still protected speech. But a lawsuit is a lawsuit, and this one claimed that the parody Twitter account engaged in "invasion of privacy" and "intentional infliction of emotional distress."
Even tough Connecticut has a decent anti-SLAPP law, a lawsuit is still an expensive and time consuming endeavor -- especially in the midst of a pandemic. The most recent filing in the case noted that the parties were "engaged in settlement discussions, and soon after the parody account tweeted and pinned a "statement" that certainly appears to be associated with the settlement:
Brian France was not and never has been associated, affiliated or in any way involved with this Twitter account or any of the content generated and/or posted by it. I will be permanently deactivating and deleting this account. I understand this account harmed Brian France and his family in ways never intended, and for that I am sorry.
And, to be clear: that's a bullshit resolution, but it shows how rich, powerful people abuse the courts with SLAPP suits to silence people, and they get help from law firms like Troutman Sanders in doing so.
Of course, if Brian France and his lawyers think they have a "victory" on their hands, they may find it to be a short-lived one.
WHEW!
Now THAT was a fucking bender.
I didn't do anything fucking stupid like sue a parody account while I was fucking tanked, did I?
— Not Brian France (@Not_BrianFrance) April 21, 2020
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: 1st amendment, brian france, connecticut, drunk brian france, free speech, parody, slapp
Companies: nascar
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Brian Zachary France, the former CEO and chairman of NASCAR who was arrested on and pleaded guilty to charges of driving under the influence, is an asshole who used the courts to silence someone’s speech because it wasn’t nice to him. Daniel Cohen, Kiran Mehta, and William Farley — lawyers from the firm Troutman Sanders — are assholes who have either never heard of parody or intentionally ignored its existence, and in either case they helped silence someone’s legally protected speech.
France, Cohen, Mehta, and Farley are all censors now. And I’ll be happy to accept whatever lawsuit they want to file against me for expressing my legally protected (and factually supported) negative opinion of them. Fuck ’em.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It is at least nice to finally see John Steele on the right side of a lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
'Why wouldn't they, everyone knows our client is awful.'
As bad as lawsuits like this are when it comes to free speech you can't help but chuckle at the side-effects from the tactic, as in an attempt to make their case seem reasonable they basically have to argue that blatant parody isn't because obviously their client is such a terrible person that someone seeing a parody account would see it as entirely within character for them and therefore accurately represent them.
As arguments against parody go 'our client is such a terrible person that it's impossible to parody them' is certainly an entertaining one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Babs, is that you?
And of course I had no idea who ANY of these people were until they started slinging lawsuits around.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So close
This almost makes me want to sign up for twitter so can follow @Not_BrianFrance. Almost.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So close
Don't worry, I'll follow him for you. ;-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ahhh....the Nunes Effect. The effect that is almost as virulent as COVID-19.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Gretchen, stop trying to make "Nunes Effect" happen. It's not gonna happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Public/Free-Legal-Information/Unauthorized-Practice-of-Law
In California, only attorneys can practice law. When someone who is not licensed to practice law provides services that can only be performed by attorneys, that is called the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). UPL is a crime.
It's well past time to file a formal complaint with the California Bar about whether or not this extensive "analysis" of lawsuits and litigants goes beyond simple opinion and into UPL. They would also have the power to investigate if an attorney is using someone to backchannel something that would get them in hot water by putting a nonattorney's name on the writing.
What's that they say in law about when to ask questions?
Stay tuned....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I think it sort of is, just not nearly as well as the Streisand Effect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wait, so it’s unusual for tough states to have anti-SLAPP laws? I always tought it was a show of toughness to protect free speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The above comment is a joke, and I misspelled “thought” intentionally. I am well aware they meant ”though Connecticut”.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sounds like you want to use the courts as a means of silencing the speech of others. How does that make you any less of a censor that France and his lawyers, again? 🤔
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
UPL is not free speech.
This website needs a full audit of its ties to the legal profession and hacker community. This IS forthcoming.
You have no fucking clue the legal hell that's about to rain down on this site, but you will, "Stephen."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Well, no, it isn't, because that would be a simply idiotic position to take. Not that anything's stopping you--if you seriously believe this is the case, file the complaint, don't blather nonsensically here about how someone else should.
Discussing a case is not practicing law. Commenting on a case is not practicing law. Giving legal advice to particular parties (which, though I am an attorney, I'm not doing here) is practicing law. Nothing I've seen here (and I've been following the posts since the days of Rakofsky v. The Internet, so I've seen a lot) is even in the same county with practicing law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Gretchen?
Go home autocorrect...you're drunk.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Ah, but you see they have wild and laughably pathetic conspiracy theories to go along with their attempted censorship, totally different.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: don't drink and tweet
"When someone who is not licensed to practice law provides services that can only be performed by attorneys, that is called the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). UPL is a crime."
Where I come from, driving drunk is also a crime...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Put up or shut up - what will it be?
My bet is on neither...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"It's well past time to file a formal complaint with the California Bar about whether or not this extensive "analysis" of lawsuits and litigants goes beyond simple opinion and into UPL."
In other words, Baghdad Bob, we're right back to that pet hobbyhorse of yours where only the avowed clergy gets to discuss bible interpretation?
"They would also have the power to investigate if an attorney is using someone to backchannel something that would get them in hot water by putting a nonattorney's name on the writing."
You've kept pushing the idea for a while now that somehow, anytime a Techdirt poster displays proof of reading comprehension it must be because of the google-backed cabal of lawyers and lobbyists all focused on undermining you, personally.
I'm just surprised you didn't lever a "but pirates!", "glory to eternal copyright", or "All hail paul hansmeyer and prenda law!" into the argument the way you usually do.
Did you fail to pull off a fraud lately and in a fit of pique just fired from the hip like that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"How does that make you any less of a censor that France and his lawyers, again? 🤔"
It doesn't, but bear in mind Baghdad Bob has often been whining about how any accurate debunking of his frequent forays into how law (mainly copyright law) ought to work according to him, MUST be the work of a cabal of google-backed legal eagles lurking behind the techdirt poster nicknames.
By now it's pretty much given that trying to shut people up is right up his alley. Just be happy he didn't threaten to swat people again, or call us all "aspies".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Didn't you just perform "analysis" of the law?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Openly admitting an intent to knowingly file a lawsuit with a fraudulent premise like that seems like a bad strategy, but that's par for the course for Jhon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Ah, good old John Smith. Well... not so much good. The old part certainly still applies, along with the part about being an impotent fuckwit. Still raging over Paul Hansmeier I see. This shit has been "forthcoming" since Otis Wright caught your bois trying to pull a fast one and you've never given up since have you? Bless your heart and your mailing list too.
Now run along or you shall be mocked a second time!
[ link to this | view in thread ]