Court Says Section 230 Shields Twitter From Revenge Porn Bro's Stupid Lawsuit

from the guess-it's-back-to-running-laughable-political-campaigns dept

Former revenge porn extortionist and current pro se litigant, Craig Brittain, is one severely-narrowed complaint away from having his lawsuit against Twitter tossed. Brittain sued Twitter over the deletion of several accounts, including those he had whipped up for his Senate run.

The court's first pass at the lawsuit moved it to California, a venue shift Brittain explicitly agreed to each time he created another alt account. Terms of service say suing Twitter means suing in California, even if you're an Arizonan Senate hopeful with a closet that contains nothing but skeletons.

Contrary to Brittain's fervent and litigious belief, there's nothing illegal about deleting Craig Brittain's multiple Twitter accounts. Brittain's lawsuit tried to make it possible by treating Twitter as both a provider and a publisher, depending of which description worked out better for his arguments. The court decides to let Brittain have it both ways -- and lose both ways. (h/t Adam Steinbaugh)

As a service provider, Twitter cannot be held liable for third party content. It can also remove accounts without losing this immunity. Since this isn't about the removal of content, but rather the removal of accounts, Brittain tried to argue Section 230 immunity can't protect Twitter from this lawsuit because removing accounts (and their content) is an editorial activity. The court points out this has zero effect on Section 230 protections. From the decision [PDF]:

Under the CDA, a publisher’s activity generally “involves reviewing, editing, and deciding whether to publish or to withdraw from publication third-party content.” Id. at 1102. “[R]emoving content is something publishers do, and to impose liability on the basis of such conduct necessarily involves treating the liable party as a publisher of the content it failed to remove.” Id. at 1103. In other words, “any activity that can be boiled down to deciding whether to exclude material that third parties seek to post online is perforce immune under [CDA] section 230.” Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, 1170–71 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Publisher or provider, it doesn't matter. Suing a social media site for deleting accounts is a non-starter.

The Brittain Accounts qualify as “information provided by another information content provider.” Brittain expressly acknowledges that he, not Twitter, created and operated the accounts See Barnes, 570 F.3d at 1102 & n.6 (“The statute also tells us that this term ‘means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.’”) (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3)). Accordingly, the Court finds that all but Brittain’s antitrust claim are barred by Section 230(c)(1) of the CDA. Because plaintiff cannot cure this defect, the Court DISMISSES these claims with prejudice.

All Brittain can do now is file a complaint limited to the anti-trust violations he alleges. But the court's brief analysis of the single surviving claim suggests this will be a waste of everyone's time. The court says it's unlikely Brittain can even prove standing, since his claim is pretty much limited to him losing followers when his accounts were suspended or deleted. Brittain's lawsuit doesn't actually allege Twitter did anything illegal in terms of competitive practices.

Although Brittain’s complaint does not suggest that plaintiffs could allege an antitrust cause of action, out of an abundance of caution, the Court affords Brittain leave to amend with respect to this claim and DISMISSES Brittain’s antitrust claim without prejudice.

[...]

While the Court can understand the frustration which may occur if a person’s Twitter account is suspended, unless a legal cause of action can be articulated, a lawsuit cannot be sustained. Nor is the person entitled to discovery on the general issues upon which the complaint is based, unless a legal claim can be stated. Here, the complaint is fundamentally flawed.

The court also points out Brittain can't sue on behalf of his Brittain For Senate campaign committee. This committee of one must seek its own legal representation, which cannot be a pro se litigant named Craig Brittain. This seems unlikely to happen, so this additional will be removed from a lawsuit the only plaintiff remaining (Craig Brittain) is destined to lose.

Yeah, it sucks when a platform decides it no longer wants your free business. But it's not illegal, no matter how many of your hastily-erected Senate campaign committee Twitter accounts are removed by a private company.

Filed Under: antitrust, brittain for senate, cda 230, content moderation, craig brittain, section 230
Companies: twitter

Court To Revenge Porn Bro Suing Twitter: You Agreed To Twitter Picking The Courtroom Every Time You Created A New Alt Account

from the pro-se-at-life dept

Craig Brittain's $1 billion lawsuit against Twitter is still rolling slowly towards its inevitable dismissal. Bringing with him his usual legal expertise -- which includes badly misreading the Knight Institute v. Trump decision and asking for some weird hybrid judgment/injunction/perma-unbanning -- Brittain has so far forced Twitter to… move his case to another venue. (via Eric Goldman)

Twitter invoked the forum selection clause of its terms of service -- terms Brittain agreed to time and time again as he created new accounts only to have them permanently suspended later. The terms say Twitter can move your lawsuit to its preferred venue (California federal court) and if you don't like it, well… you can just not use Twitter and/or sue Twitter.

Brittain's attempt to avoid having his Arizona lawsuit moved to California contains some rather novel legal arguments. First, he claimed Twitter's terms of service were invalid because [checks filing] it doesn't contain the mandatory "option" of arbitration. Here's the court's take [PDF]:

Brittain asserts that the Terms are unconscionable because they contain no arbitration clause and “have changed over time without arbitration.” Doc. 27 at 4. But Brittain cites no legal authority suggesting that Twitter is required to include an arbitration clause in its Terms. Nor has he otherwise shown that the Terms are unconscionable or illusory.

Second, he claimed it would be impossible for him to continue his doomed lawsuit in another state because he has no way of getting to California. It may be true -- and forum selection does tend to create unnecessary expenses for plaintiffs/defendants -- but in this case it isn't because the federal courts are accessible by those with limited travel options.

Brittain asserts that his status makes it “gravely difficult” for him to participate in the litigation. Doc. 27 at 2, 5. He notes that he “is traveling primarily by bicycle and/or public transportation to file, upwards of 40 miles per trip[.]” Id. at 2. But the Northern District of California permits filing by mail, eliminating the need for Brittain to bicycle or use public transportation to file court documents.3 The fact that Brittain is a self-represented, indigent litigant is no basis for not enforcing the forum selection clauses. As noted, the private interests of the parties must be weighed in favor of the preselected forum. See Yei, 901 F.3d at 1087. Brittain has not shown that litigating in California “will be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that he will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court.” M/S Bremen, 407 U.S. at 18.

Brittain also claims millions of social media users would cry out at once and be silenced if Twitter was allowed to take Craig's unwinnable lawsuit to California. Brittain asserts… reasons.

Brittain further asserts that enforcement of the forum selection clauses would “contravene a strong public policy of the venue in which the suit was brought,” and “the public policy of . . . the District of Arizona is superior to that of the requested forum.” Doc. 27 at 5. He cites the purported “public interest of over one billion total users,” including “tens of millions who have been censored, deverified, or suspended by Twitter,” but draws no connection between the interests of those alleged users and Arizona public policy.

The court is not swayed.

Twitter notes, correctly, that Arizona public policy favors enforcing forum selection clauses. Doc. 30 at 8. “Enforcement of a forum selection clause such as the one[s] at issue does not contravene any strong Arizona public policy as Arizona courts routinely hold that forum selection clauses are presumptively valid and that the party claiming the oppressiveness or unreasonableness needed to invalidate such a clause must meet a heavy burden of proof.”

Brittain's lawsuit is still alive for the time being. He'll just have to lose it in California, rather than in front of the home crowd.

Filed Under: content moderation, craig brittain, jurisdiction, pro se, revenge porn
Companies: twitter

Revenge Porn Dude Craig Brittain Files Hilariously Bad Lawsuit Against Twitter

from the not-how-it-works-craig dept

Ah, Craig Brittain is back. Never quite satisfied to recognize that after the FTC sanctioned him, his name is the equivalent of Pustule Nickelback McHitler II, he's continued to lead his life of ridiculousness online, alternating between declaring himself a free speech hero and pushing to censor all his critics. And let us not forget his Senate campaign race in Arizona, which seemed to focus on Brittain's strategy of insulting lots of people while declaring it was obvious he was going to win. That went so well that at the end of May it was revealed that he failed to get enough signatures and thus is not on the ballot.

Apparently having some extra free time on his schedule, he has sued Twitter, pro se of course. It's a fun read, and extra amusing as it comes just days after Chuck Johnson's lawsuit against Twitter on sorta similar grounds was tentatively tossed out of court. At least Johnson had an actual lawyer file his suit. Brittain's lawsuit, of course, cites the Packingham decision that a bunch of people have been misrepresenting to claim that it says social media can be considered a public forum. Brittain combines his misrepresentation of that opinion with a misrepresentation of the recent decision that President Trump cannot block followers, in order to claim that Twitter can't kick off any political candidate.

This lawsuit implicates Twitter's responsibility as a public forum as recently ruled in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump et. al... where the honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald, Judge for the Southern District of New York, ruled that President Donald J. Trump must unblock all Twitter users, regardless of the content of their messaging, and also ruled that President Trump's Twitter space is an interactive public forum. The ruling also implicates that Twitter itself is a public forum space under the US Constitution, and thus all First Amendment Protections (must) apple to its use.

Yeah, that's not what that ruling said at all, but, I guess you get points for trying?

In regards to Knight First Amendment Center v. Trump, Defendant must reasonably provide access to that public forum space by unsuspending all users who are followers of President Donald J. Trump or any other public official or candidate, as well as any/all public candidates and officials, whether they are supporters, critics, or neutral to the points of view of the President of the United States or any other candidate or elected official.

Likewise, being as President Donald J. Trump is one of many politicians whose tweets create such a public space, Twitter must extend that same public forum to followers and critics of all US politicians and subsequently all journalistic outlets, in order to protect two-way freedom of speech established by the First Amendment.

Two-way freedom of speech? That's a new one. I'm sure the court will just accept this totally made-up, nonsensical concept, especially right after you totally misrepresent the findings of the Knight Center ruling (in which Twitter wasn't even a party and in which Twitter was not required to do anything). The lawsuit also contains many paragraphs of meaningless nonsense about how Twitter is not a neutral platform, which... has no impact on anything (even if some people -- including some actual Senators -- want to pretend otherwise).

Also, this (capitalization in the original):

The loss of the Accounts is a Crippling Blow to Plaintiffs and Others, and presents a Chilling Effect to the First Amendment and other Constitutional Rights, where a Crippling Blow shall be defined as 'an unconscionable and substantial loss with no defined legal remedy or recourse', and a Chilling Effect shall be defined as 'an action which suppresses similar/related rights including but not limited to the First Amendment rights to access and utilize a public forum for speech as well as the desire of other users to speak out against similar actions, for fear of action(s) such as censorship, suspension/ban, shadowban or downranking being taken against them as well'.

That's all one sentence. Try to say it in a single breath. It's fun. Anyway, this is also not how law works, and clearly there's little need to go step by step over how wrong this is... but I'll just note that when you define your own made up tort as one "with no defined legal remedy or recourse" you've basically just admitted that your entire lawsuit is bullshit.

Not to be missed is Brittain's discussion of who he is in the "Parties" section, in which he claims that "he has committed himself to reinventing and rehabilitating his life and image" and that Twitter was a necessary component to this. He leaves out the many people who he attacked (disclaimer: including me) with his account(s) over the years. Similarly, he tries to paint himself as "lifelong champion of free and even dangerous speech as a natural right" while (yet again) ignoring his repeated attempts to abuse the law to try to silence reports of his own history running a revenge porn site, setting up a fake lawyer to demand payments to get pictures off of that site, and the eventual FTC settlement concerning that whole effort. But really, it's the next part that's the most laugh inducing:

His accumulated total followers (over 400,000) have made him the most popular anarchist/libertarian thinker in world history, where anarchism is defined as 'self-government by peaceful and voluntary interaction and exchange', governed by the Non-Aggression Principle, defined as 'to not harm anyone or their property'.

Got that? He is the most popular anarchist/libertarian thinker in world history. Because he had 400,000 followers (and that's leaving aside news reports that claimed that almost half of Brittain's followers were fake). And make sure you don't miss out on the fact that Brittain is important because some wrestlers followed him on Twitter. That's in there too. It goes on like this for a while. There's also an impressively long section in which Brittain namechecks a bunch of other accounts that Twitter suspended for no clear reason, followed by even more examples where a bunch of people freak out and claim that they've been shadowbanned (even though it's unclear if they actually were). Incredibly, there are then 17 pages (which Brittain lists as a single paragraph in his filing) that repost an EFF brief in the Knight Center case that doesn't actually say what Brittain then pretends it says. This is not an appendix or an exhibit. It's just stuck there right in the middle of Brittain's complaint. This is followed by a lengthy treatise on the fact that President Obama used Twitter, which has no bearing on... well... anything.

At this point, you're on page 60 of the filing and you finally (finally!) get to the first actual cause of action which is, incredibly, "Violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution." Which, as we've already discussed (and other courts have already found) is nonsense. Twitter is not bound by the First Amendment. That only restricts government entities. There are a bunch of other claims as well, some more nutty than others -- but all of them pretty nutty. The antitrust claim is a personal favorite. The "proof" of monopoly power in that one? The claim that Twitter controls 25% of the US social networking market. Which, uh, is not the definition of a monopoly, but Brittain's suit claims: "Therefore, it can logically be concluded that Defendant is in possession of monopoly power." This statement is not explained any further.

Also: Brittain claims that Twitter is violating CDA 230. CDA 230, of course, being the intermediary liability protection statute that literally explains why this case is nonsense and will get tossed out. It's the part of the law that says Twitter can moderate its platform however it likes. But Brittain tries to twist that.. by claiming that because Twitter itself uses Twitter, it is now an information content provider, rather than a service provider, and therefore liable for third party content:

Defendant's protections under 47 U.S. Code §230 stem from its classification as an interactive computer service. However, the presence of @Policy and unequal treatment for its users, as well as the promotion of content it agrees with ("Moments" "Front Page") and the "downranking" of content it disagrees with (to include suspensions and shadowbanning) indicate(s) that Twitter is actually an information content provider. Thereby, Twitter should be declared liable for content which appears on its platform, until at which point it ceases to act as an information content provider, and acts solely as an interactive computer service.

Nice theory. Too bad it's been rejected by basically every court since 230 became law. Courts have (rightly) found that internet services can be both an interactive computer service and an information content provider -- such that they are liable solely for the content they produce, but not for the content third parties produce on their platform. But, Brittain apparently is unaware of the reams of caselaw on this... which I guess is not that surprising.

We'd be remiss if we didn't also mention Brittain's proposed remedies. It starts off asking for a whole long list of nonsensical injunctions and declarations, then lawsuit costs and attorney's fees (he's filed this without attorneys, of course) and then "such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper," which is normally where these kinds of things would end. But then he seems to remember that he wants money, so after all that he adds in a demand for $1 billion dollars. Well, at least I think that's what he's demanding. He calls it an injunction, which is not what you call a monetary award, and then has some sort of weird formula in which an injunction is summary judgment and it has to do with Twitter's valuation, because [reasons].

For an injunction in the form of an additional summary judgment for the Plaintiff, against the Defendant, in accordance with Defendant's valuation of over $25 Billion US Dollars, of no less than $1,000,000,000.00 US Dollars.

An injunction in the form of summary judgment in accordance with a valuation for a billion dollars? This is a word salad of legal nonsense.

Anyway, if the past is any indication, we eagerly await this "lifelong champion of free and even dangerous speech as a natural right" to now seek to have this article deleted from Google. But, we also eagerly await the "LOLwut?" response from the poor judge assigned this case.

Filed Under: cda 230, content moderation, craig brittain, first amendment, free speech, revenge porn, social media

Craig Brittain's Senate Race Page Reports Craig Brittain's Personal Account As An 'Imposter'

from the shitposting-is-coming-from-inside-the-house dept

Former revenge porn site owner Craig Brittain is now a Senate candidate in Arizona. He's not a viable candidate, mind you, not even with Arizona senator Jeff Flake recently announcing his retirement. But he has filed the proper paperwork and is now engaged in a charm offensive offensive offensive to win the hearts and minds of whatever demographic feels the public would be best served by someone who reacts to every perceptible slight with unhinged personal attacks.

As a former revenge porn entrepreneur, Brittain has a bit more pre-run reputation management to engage in than most candidates. Just shortly after his candidacy was announced, Brittain issued two bogus "privacy" takedown requests targeting videos criticizing his ridesharing vaporware and his voluntary interview with journalists about his revenge porn site operations.

Brittain followed this up with more reputation mismanagement, raining down insults on a Twitter user who dared to unfollow him. He's continued to poll the electorate in similar ways on Facebook, telling people they're wrong about everything if they don't agree with him, but especially about free speech and the concept of consent.

That's what's happening above ground. Behind the scenes at Facebook, Craig Brittain is engaged in more bogus takedown efforts, this time in an attempt to scrub the web of a string of insults he sent to a woman via Facebook Messenger. The following comes from Shooting the Messenger, with an assist by Asher Langton.

Earlier this week, social media expert Michael Palladino from Phoenix, Arizona, posted potentially damaging screenshots of abusive messages Brittain allegedly sent to a woman on Facebook last year.

"A woman I know got these messages early last year from a guy who is now running for AZ senate. He most likely doesn't stand a chance against Ward or Krysten Sinema but the fact that he's running at all is disgusting given the kind of guy he is. And now that Flake is out, he might get more media visibility. So it's important that this shit is known.

He has his supporters and their response to things like this is that he's the victim of some kind of conspiratorial hoax revenge machine, as if he would be so important as to catch the eye of the Illuminati or the Lizard People or whoever they think is responsible for their lives being shit. Or they agree with his views on women. Or they just don't care.

Applauding anti-politicians who "tell it like it is" and "don't care about being P.C." can easily become the shallow backyard pool that breeds diseased mosquitoes like this.

Enough is enough. Fuck this."

Palladino's post is no longer accessible on Facebook. Someone came by and nuked it, using Facebook's reporting options. Shortly thereafter, this was posted on Craig Brittain's Senate race page:

We've heard an impersonator is harassing people. Those messages aren't from us.

While it's adorable Brittain's pretending he's got some sort of Senate race team operating out of Brittain HQ, the simple fact is Brittain reported Palladino's post to make it go away. In the process, he has possibly nuked one of his own personal accounts, which Facebook may decide belongs to an imposter. The account referenced in the Brittain's takedown request belongs to none other than Craig R. Brittain.

As Sterling Jones points out, Brittain really shouldn't be reporting his own Facebook accounts as belonging to impersonators. I'm sure Facebook has compiled enough data to determine who actually owns the "Craig R. Brittain" account Craig R. Brittain For Senate now claims is a fake. This is ammo for FTC sanctions.

As part of his settlement with the FTC, Brittain is permanently restrained from misrepresenting himself in connection with goods or services.

So far, Brittain has used the account to push at least one (still nonexistent) ride sharing company and is engaged in a Senate run -- arguably a public "good/service," even if the list of candidates leaves something to be desired. There's no reason to believe the FTC will step in, though. And we really don't need it to. (Unless our schadenfreude reserves have run dangerously low.) It appears Brittain's perfectly capable of sabotaging his own future without government intercession.

Filed Under: arizona, craig brittain, revenge porn, senate campaign
Companies: facebook

Former Revenge Porn Site Operator Readies For Senate Run By Issuing Bogus Takedown Requests To YouTube

from the a-challenger-appears!-and-he's-problematic! dept

Everyone's favorite privacy activist -- former revenge porn site runner Craig Brittain -- is at it again. As the operator of one of the most infamous revenge porn sites, "Is Anybody Down?" Brittain's view on privacy seemed to be that if you ever sent anything on the internet you no longer had any privacy. As he told On The Media's Bob Garfield:

My eventual goal is that everyone will have public information posted about them, preferably naked, that it’ll be a normal thing. It’ll no longer be associated with stigma or shame or humiliation, but it will be normal, in about ten years.

He also had a history of mocking those who asked him to take down the nude photos that he had posted on his site. For example, this was posted to Brittain's site, and preserved by Adam Steinbaugh (Craig took down this and other posts after Steinbaugh wrote about them). What you see below is Craig literally responding "lol" to people freaked out that their naked photos were posted to his site without their knowledge or consent (while the image says "admin," Craig has publicly admitted he wrote and posted those responses).

These days Brittain's very concerned about privacy -- well, his privacy. A few years back, he suddenly became concerned about his personal info being spread around by notoriously salacious entities like… the Federal Trade Commission. Everyone who covered Brittain's settlement with the FTC for his porn site sins was listed on his bogus takedown notice over "unauthorized use" of photos of Brittain. Readers whose irony meters hadn't exploded immediately were advised to quickly take theirs in for recalibration.

Brittain laid relatively low after that, putting the next couple of years into his ride-sharing startup Dryvyng. When his start-up failed to start, Brittain apparently felt all the negative press about his past revenge pornmanship was holding Dryvyng back. The best way to turn that media frown upside down? More bogus DMCA notices. Again, Brittain's stated justifications for the takedowns were inadvertently hilarious. Here's what he wrote on the notice asking for the delisting of a Wikipedia article:

Slanderous, libelous and deliberately misleading Wikipedia entry designed to defame and libel me and my company. Please permanently remove this page (and all of Wikipedia itself, which is a left-wing hive for slander and libel) from Google.

So, that's the mindset Craig's critics have been dealing with. The mindset has shifted. A little. In possibly one of the illest-advised moves of all time, Craig Brittain has decided to run for senator in Arizona. He's picked up a few Trumpian notions along the way (you'll see those in a moment), although his "legalize marijuana everywhere" platform really isn't what's expected from someone hitching a ride on the Trump Train. This is going to clash with Arizona voters who like to hear everyone in the media being called "fake news" but also want MOAR COPS BUT HARDER and JOE ARPAIO DID NOTHING WRONG.

No one running for public office likes closet skeletons popping out at inappropriate times. The problem with Brittain is his skeletons are parading around the entryway, when not leaving the house completely to cruise the main drag.

The day after an article about Brittain's Senate run went live at the Arizona Daily Independent two YouTube accounts were hit with takedown requests for videos containing Brittain at his best/worst. One account hit was Adam Steinbaugh's. The videos targeted contained Brittain's interview with a TV station about his revenge porn site (including the interview where he admits to mocking those asking him to take down content from his revenge porn site, while also admitting that he no longer believes he should have mocked them).

The second account hit on the same day was Matt Jarbo's. His video featured Craig Brittain apparently being caught in the act of buying up paid testimonials for his (still nonexistent) ride-sharing service.

In both cases, the issue cited was… privacy. YouTube suggested blurring faces, etc. to comply but fortunately for both accounts, it did not delete videos or take them offline.

This is just a small part of Brittain's charm offensive. In the comments of the ADI article, Craig Brittain himself (d/b/a "People for Craig Brittain") has showed up to declare the whole thing "fake news." This is actually rather restrained for Brittain. The ADI article points to another piece on his Senate run announcement -- one in which he engaged with the electorate on Facebook by calling the more critical ones "piece of shit" and "whore."

(Craig appears willing and ready to insult all those who don't swear immediate, undying loyalty. One Twitter user made the mistake of following his campaign account -- and the greater mistake of unfollowing it -- and received a bunch of insults by DM for her troubles.)

I've reached out to Brittain's campaign headquarters to see if "they" have any comment on Brittain's abuse of legal processes and social media platforms to shut down criticism. Any comments I receive will be posted, probably in full.

[And here it is, along with Brittain's demand I print it verbatim. {Said demand also printed verbatim.}]

Full Comment, please print verbatim: "None of that happened - some of my many enemies (haters and losers) made up another fake news story, TechDirt is a fake news website, none of these are political questions and they have nothing to do with my US Senate run, this is a fake news story, the American People want to know about my positions on the issues - the real news is that marijuana will be federally decriminalized soon and the budget will be balanced. Make America Great Again.

For more information visit my website brittainforsenate.com".

Again please print in full, do not edit, thank you

"None of that happened." Hmm. Not even the DMCA notices with his name on them? Apparently not, according to Brittain, who responded to my further questions (and my point that people tend not to like Senate candidates who abuse legal systems and social media platforms to silence criticism) with a wall of text. I don't hate you, so I've broken it up into passable paragraphs. I have also added the bracketed, un-italicized commentary at a few key points.

I dispute and fully contest the assertion that any unwarranted or censorious DMCA or removal requests were sent. I have never attempted to censor anyone.

[Quick reality check from Brittain's own Twitter account:]

However, ​the illegitimate use [they aren't] of photographs containing my image in deliberate attempts to defame me constitute obvious copyright violations [they don't] and expose the hypocrisy and lying of people who continuously have harassed me and family on a criminal level for the previous 5 years, including sending death threats, multiple SWAT teams (SWATing), destruction of my property and that of my friends, who have hired individuals to stalk me on an illegal level and have paid anonymous and named teams of Twitter cyberbullies to send abuse to myself and my friends on a level which is fully illegal.

I have never abused the legal system, nor have I ever committed an unjust crime. I have a single violation on my adult record for Vehicular Eluding which happened in December 2002, almost 15 years ago. Any other attempts to knowingly and falsely portray me as a criminal are evidence of lies. As the legal principle goes, False in One, False and All, and so via my enemies lying via spreading false news of convictions that did not happen in order to inflict physical, emotional and financial damages upon myself and my family - including this 'story' which is a key example of fake news - the removal attempts are grounded in the principle of removing the rest of their equally defaming and illegal fake news, which is actually harassment and stalking and has inflicted countless monetary, emotional and physical damages upon me.

[Let's be perfectly clear here: Brittain is arguing a story about removal attempts he denied doing in his first comment -- but admits to here -- are "fake news" and that videos of him being interviewed about his revenge porn site operation are "defaming" and "illegal."]

You will never find a more vigorous defender of free speech, [see above] but it's important for news agencies - especially those funded by and/or operated by members of the US Government - like ABC, NBC, CBS and many others in the mainstream press - to be held accountable for damages they have caused by continuously and constantly lying.

There are no transgressions, I have not done anything wrong with the sole exception of Vehicular Eluding in 2002, 15 years ago, any other allegations are false, defamatory and grounds for a lawsuit, which I would easily win circa [?] Bollea v. Gawker if I simply had the money to hire Charles J. Harder. Sadly, the rigged system is very difficult for the average person to gain justice in and that is part of why I am running for office - to remove the barriers which legally entrench Fake News websites and prevent independent journalists and authors like myself to have full access to free speech. [LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOO]

Speech can only truly be free when it is absolute and that means that the FCC, FTC, and/or any other government agency that interferes with the ability or cost of publishing is fully repealed. These three letter groups are UNCONSTITUTIONAL and I will pass legislation to end all of them - thus fully eliminating the barriers against absolute speech.

It is incredibly hypocritical that I would be targeted for allowing other people to publish speech - all speech is equal, whether it's a nude photograph, a regular photograph, [someone else's nude photograph published against their will...] the work of Marquis De Sade, or the Bible (the Nazis burned all of these things. As a person of Jewish descent I am deeply against white supremacism and racism in any form). You are either 100% for absolute free speech - which includes removing all government obstructions to equal publishing that is equally heard, and doing so means removing the existing networks and putting them back on par with the average person's ability to speak - or you are against 100% absolute free speech, in which case you are against the Constitution and the 1st Amendment.

My opponents are exclusively "Free Speech, except speech I don't like" - I'm only against harassment attempts and lies. Therefore I merely issued corrections to the people in question - to reform defamatory statements, incorrect/lying statements and things intended to cause damage - not to permanently remove their speech but to correct it on a platform which regularly collaborates with the United States Government. Google would not exist without direct funding from the US Federal Government as well as the activities of the State which establish it as a monopoly in its field - monopolies must be put in check. Therefore, removal of videos from a website and a company which is in fact, a Federal Government Monopoly, cannot be censorious. [wat] They're welcome to host the same videos on their own websites, and as long as a single copy exists somewhere online, they're not actually being censored, they're being regulated. [This coming from someone who just ranted against all forms of regulation...]

These are the same people who said nothing when my wildly popular Twitter/Facebook (also Government-Aided Monopolies) accounts were censored for political speech, after railing at me for years, accusing me of being a censor. In fact, many of them celebrated and attempted to organize and press Twitter/Facebook to censor. Therein, as it is equal, if they suppose I am wrong, then likewise they are also wrong. If I am right, then perhaps we are both right. But it can't be one way and not the other. I merely wanted corrections to articles like this one - which is perfectly reasonable.

Ethical Journalism requires that the subject be part of the process, and I have not been part of the process for anything they've printed, which establishes that under the Society of Professional Journalists code of conduct as well as the FTC rules (which TechDirt claims to love but in fact is in considerable violation of, including failure to disclose affiliation with my political enemies, think tanks and corporations), these news agencies are way out-of-line by journalistic and regulatory standards, and are both allowed and encouraged to do so by the US government and donors with deep pockets.

In many ways, this is an example of anti-Semitism [dear god] that I've faced for my entire life, when I was bullied as a child, regularly involved in physical fights with my peers since Kindergarten until almost my 18th birthday, subjected to abuse and neglect of all forms by everyone except my parents, and as I endured things that many other people would consider unimaginable, I never dreamed that I'd grow up into an America dominated by an out-of-control globalist system that regularly and falsely defames me for my attempts to improve the system. [WTF] It is time to end the FCC, break up the speech monopolies and give access to true free speech - where the average person has the same ability to start up a satellite television network as any of the major players, or can easily form their own ISP or deregulated internet or variant - back to the American people who have been criminally prevented by my enemies and their donors of the ability to speak out on a grand level.

Again, if I had the money to hire Charles Harder (and possibly Hulk Hogan too, just to make it fun, Brother) - TechDirt, Gawker, and all of these similar fake news companies would owe me millions upon millions. [Have you spoken to any other Senate candidates lately about their recent litigation attempts?] I will fix the US legal system for all of my fellow Forgotten Men and Women. I will Make America Great Again. I will restore speech and access to the law.

One more time - everything I've said is true, everything else printed in unreliable and fake news TechDirt is a lie.
Arizona voters, I look forward to your support, check out my plan at brittainforsenate.com."

Filed Under: arizona, censorship, craig brittain, privacy, takedowns

Revenge Pornster Craig Brittain Issues DMCA Notices Demanding Google Delist Entire Websites, Including Wikipedia

from the Craig-has-apparently-been-stockpiling-stupid dept

Former revenge porn site operator/lawyer impersonator Craig Brittain is once again engaged in some DMCA abuse. A couple of years ago, Brittain issued bogus DMCA notices in hopes of whitewashing his past. Along with posts at Popehat, Vice, Huffington Post, Ars Technica, and Reddit, Brittain asked Google to delist the FTC's press release about its settlement with Brittain over his revenge porn misdeeds.

It didn't work, obviously. A new set of stories highlighting Brittain's sordid past swiftly filled up any gaps in the revenge porn purveyor's vanity Google searches.

Popehat reports Brittain has apparently learned nothing from his last Streisanding. Brittain is once again issuing bogus takedown notices -- this time on behalf of his alt-right ride-sharing pipe dream, Dryvyng. (Pronounced "dryheaving.")

Here's a bit more background on that particular "business venture" from Ken White:

More recently, Craig has embarked on two simultaneous paths: the path of a social critic and aspiring pseudo-journalist seeking investors to back his anarcho-capitalist critique of society, and aspiring CEO of Uber competitor "Dryvyng," a business devoted to the proposition that if you'd like a ride you ought to order one from a pathological revenge porn extortionist with a searing hatred of women and humanity in general. Craigbo has sought to raise capital for Dryvyng through disturbed and bigoted tirades at venture capitalists. Perhaps prolonged exposure to MRA rhetoric led him to believe that negging was a viable strategy for developing startup capital. Conclusion: nah, bro. Nah.

It's this "company" that Craig has issued the DMCA notices for. Apparently, he's none too thrilled at the lack of positive press for his hypothetical ride-sharing startup and has once again asked Google to delist all sorts of things he has no business asking to be delisted. Dean Jones of Shooting the Messenger is the person who originally discovered a handful of notices sent by "Dryvyng," all of which feature petulant commentary not normally found in legal paperwork.

Here's Brittain's attempt to nuke a Business Insider story about threats he made to VCs who turned down his offer to throw their money down a hole.

Business Insider is fake news and the "investor" was actually a paid internet troll. Internet trolls (who have no money to invest) deserve to get cussed out. Please remove this libelous, slanderous article about my company immediately.

Here's the note accompanying his request for the delisting of a Fusion story about Dryvyng:

Fake, slanderous, libelous article defaming me and my company and abusing copyrighted material. Fusion is a fake news website run by left-wing social justice warriors with the aim of defaming conservatives and libertarians.

Brittain doubled up on both of those requests by sending two more notices demanding the entire sites be delisted. But it really doesn't get any better/sadder than this one, targeting a Wikipedia article:

Slanderous, libelous and deliberately misleading Wikipedia entry designed to defame and libel me and my company. Please permanently remove this page (and all of Wikipedia itself, which is a left-wing hive for slander and libel) from Google.

In this case, the DMCA notice targets nothing about Dryvyng, but instead the site's article about Brittain's revenge porn site.

In every case, the accusation is internet libelslander, which can't be touched by DMCA notices. The reason is in the name of the notice itself: Digital Millennium COPYRIGHT Act. But when you're angry at the internet, any fill-in-the-blank form will do. Even if Brittain had used the proper paperwork, Google would be under no obligation to delist the alleged slander, thanks to Section 230 of the CDA.

It's no surprise Brittain's attempt to pass himself off as David Blade, Esq. went so badly. He obviously has zero legal acumen. If you're going to beclown yourself with bogus notices, at least try to do so somewhat competently. Sure, the outcome won't change, but at least you won't look like even more of an idiot than you already do.

Filed Under: censorship, craig brittain, dmca, revenge porn, takedowns

The Completely Nonsensical Differences In Punishment For Revenge Porn Kings

from the none-of-this-makes-sense dept

Earlier this week, Hunter Moore -- the guy who basically invented the concept of revenge porn with his "Is Anyone Up" site -- was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in jail along with a $2,000 fine... and he has to pay $145.70 in "restitution" to a single victim. Moore was arrested for violating the CFAA, and as we noted at the time, it may be one of the few legitimate uses of the CFAA. He didn't just run a revenge porn site, he hired a guy, Charlie Evens, who got a similar sentence a week ago, to hack into the computers of unsuspecting women, and swipe naked photos of them to put on his site. The sickening bit: that "$145.70" in "restitution"? That's how much Moore paid Evens (also, Evens is jointly liable for that money, meaning that Moore might not even pay it). It's difficult to understand why the $145.70 makes any sense at all as the "harm" caused to the anonymous woman "L.B." whose computer got hacked into.

As Sarah Jeong at Vice's Motherboard notes, the reason that Moore's sentence seems so light is because of the nature of the plea bargain he agreed to with the government:

The tiny amount of restitution has partly to do with Moore’s plea bargain. He pleaded guilty to counts 2 and 9 of the indictment (which had a total of fifteen counts)—one count under the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act, and one count of aggravated identity theft. Counts 2 and 9 relate only to one victim, L.B.

So because he's only guilty on those two counts, there's just that single victim. Even so, the tiny restitution seems a bit bizarre. It's also hard to square this CFAA "punishment" with a case like Matthew Keys', who was recently found guilty of sharing a password that resulted in a brief (40 minute) defacement of the LA Times website. Yet, in that case, it was argued that he caused almost a million dollars in damages, and will be sentenced next month (with the prosecution supposedly asking for something less than five years).

Meanwhile, it's still bizarre to compare the result of this case, with other similar cases. Kevin Bollaert, who created the similar revenge porn site "YouGotPosted" was originally sentenced to 18 years in jail, along with paying $15,000 in restitution -- though his sentence was later reduced to eight years in prison and another 10 years of mandatory supervision. That length of time seemed a bit extreme.

And then there's Craig Brittain, whose IsAnybodyDown website copied Hunter Moore's with a unique addition: creating a totally fake lawyer who you could pay to get your photos and information taken off the site (Bollaert copied this model from Brittain). Brittain just got off with a wrist slap, and has been busy trying to hide this fact with abusive DMCA notices, while at the same time hilariously trying to start an Uber competitor with his buddy and revenge porn collaborator, Chance Trahan, last seen pretending to be Daymond John. Trahan never got into any legal trouble for his role in the revenge porn business and, if you want to be amused, you should read his... er.... "interview" with Rolling Stone about it.

And then there's Casey Meyering, who ran WinByState (don't ask), which was another revenge porn site, that also copied Brittain's extortionate "pay us to take down your info" model, and was recently sentenced to three years in jail. It's good to see these guys getting punished, though the randomness in the punishment and sentencing seems problematic. Moore's sentencing, in particular, seems bizarre, considering that it involved the CFAA, at a time when the CFAA is widely abused to create HUGE punishments for things that many people don't think are all that bad. Moore, on the other hand, appeared to clearly violate both the spirit and letter of the CFAA for clearly bad purposes -- and gets off with something of a wrist slap in comparison.

Filed Under: casey meyering, cfaa, charlie evens, chase trahan, craig brittain, hunter moore, kevin bollaert, punishment, restitution, revenge porn

Another Revenge Porn Extortion Site Operator Going To Jail

from the random-sentencing dept

Sentencing revenge porn extortionists seems to be all over the place. Craig Brittain, who basically originated the extortionate process of not just running a revenge porn website, but combining it with a (pretending to be) separate "pay us and we'll get your naked photos taken down" service, had his wrists duly slapped by the FTC earlier this year. Shortly after that, Kevin Bollaert, who more or less copied Brittain's plan, got sentenced to 18 years in jail (which he's currently in the process of appealing). Hunter Moore, who is often credited with being the first one to set up a big revenge porn site (without the corresponding extortionate takedowns, but apparently with hiring people to hack into computers to get copies of naked photos to post), took a plea deal with somewhere between two and seven years in jail.

And, now, Casey Meyering, who also copied Brittain's plan -- almost exactly -- and who also took a plea deal a few weeks ago, has been sentenced to three years in jail (which he can't appeal, due to the plea deal). Adam Steinbaugh, who spends his spare time hunting down revenge porn operators, provides a bit of background:

In June of 2013, I documented how Meyering had ripped off an extortion scheme pioneered by another revenge porn site operator, Craig Brittain.  Meyering created Takedownhammer.info, copying Brittain’s Takedownhammer.com (word for word), and solicited payments to this “independent” service using a Google Wallet account clearly linked to Meyering’s drum-lessons business.

When Meyering was arrested in February of 2014, he was found in a Tulsa hotel room, drunk.  He subsequently told the court he was homeless, bankrupt, and had nobody to ask for financial assistance to hire an attorney.

It seems like the sentencing is all over the place with these guys. However, at the very least, it seems to have scared most revenge porn sites away from the US.

Filed Under: casey meyering, craig brittain, jail, kevin bollaert, punishment, revenge porn

Former Revenge Pornster Chance Trahan Reinvents Himself... As Shark Tank's Daymond John

from the highly-motivated-plagiarism dept

Chance Trahan and Craig Brittain, the "masterminds" behind revenge porn also-ran IsAnybodyDown, were never much for originality. To start out with, the site name was nothing more than a knockoff of revenge porn "pioneer" Hunter Moore's Is Anyone Up?

Like Hunter Moore, Trahan and Brittain made a living off the misery of others, hosting explicit photos assumed to be forever secret by those featured in them. All three resided in a particular subset of humanity, existing only to entertain and titillate another subset of humanity located roughly adjacent to these misery merchants.

And like Hunter Moore, these revenge pornsters ran headlong into the legal system. The FTC wrestled Brittain into an unfavorable settlement, while Trahan's supposed rebirth as an actual, presumably useful human being has gone unnoticed.

Or mostly unnoticed. Asher Langton noticed. Chance Trahan thinks he's enough of a draw that people will willingly pay him up to and including $70,000 to pretend to be someone else. Chance Trahan invites potential victims attendees to "look in the mirror" and "reflect success!" (Exclamation point in the "original.") But when Trahan looks in the mirror, he sees… Shark Tank's Daymond John.

Chance Trahan has copied -- in whole -- presentation FAQs and speaking topics [embedded below] from Daymond John's website, replacing little more than Daymond's name and logo with his own. [Original on top, Trahan's knockoff on the bottom.]



Yes, Chance Trahan is so inspirational he can't even bothered to compose his own AV instructions. He's the white Daymond John, only without the talent, drive or provable success. He's everything you could possibly expect from a former revenge porn site operator, including deeply hypocritical.

Much like Craig Brittain, Trahan has a deep -- if completely arbitrary -- respect for people's intellectual property. While the two may have built a small fiefdom using unauthorized photos, they're quick to deny that privilege to others. Brittain issued a DMCA notice a few weeks ago, aimed at delisting articles critical of him, including the FTC's own statement on his settlement. In his notice, he claimed the following, all without the slightest trace of irony:

Unauthorized use of photos of me and other related information. Unauthorized use of statements and identity related information. Unauthorized copying of excerpts from isanybodydown.com. Using photos which are not 'fair use'.

Trahan has made similar demands in the past. (h/t Adam Steinbaugh)

You are infringing Chance's intellectual property. Please consider this a notice of infringement and a demand that you cease and desist from using Chance and from using any and all intellectual property owned by Chance. Regarding the DMCA, all content of Chance that you use is copyrighted material for which you are using without permission of the copyright owner; namely, Chance. You are also using Chance's registered trademarks without permission.

Apparently, doing a name and logo swap isn't infringement. And neither is the use of others' intellectual property without permission -- like, say, in the context of a revenge porn site. Chance Trahan may be trying to reinvent himself as a brand-new, less-evil person, but so far, all he's done is reinvent himself as the Daymond John no one's interested in. The uninitiated may fall for this borrowed persona, but those familiar with Trahan's past will see right through his secondhand alter ego.

There's a lesson to be learned here. 98% of it is: don't be so fucking stupid. The other 2% is this: if you want to make amends for your previous wrongdoings, great. Just don't do it by trying to bury your past (Brittain) or by building a whole "new" persona nearly-completely based on someone else's work and success.

If this pair genuinely wants to go forth and do no (further) evil, that would be great. But so far, both have proven they can't even get out the front door without botching it completely. Fortunately, this time, the damage they're causing is mostly internal.

Filed Under: chance trahan, craig brittain, daymond john, motivational speaker, plagiarism, reflect success, revenge porn

Sanctioned Revenge Porner Craig Brittain Says That Google Is Nothing But Copyright Infringement

from the good-luck-with-that-theory,-craiggers dept

We already discussed how the disgraced revenge porn guy, Craig Brittain (aka Pustule Nickelback McHitler III), is now trying to get Google to disappear most articles about his FTC settlement. As we noted, in making sure that the public is well aware of what kind of person Brittain is, the FTC wrote up not one, not two, but three separate notices about Brittain's actions (revenge porn and then setting up a fake lawyer you could pay to "take down" the images you never wanted on his site in the first place).

Back in 2012 Brittain tried to abuse the DMCA to take down earlier criticism (from Popehat). He apparently didn't learn his lesson when that failed, which explains his recent attempt to do the same -- including arguing that the FTC's own writeups about its settlement with Brittain were infringing.

Over on Twitter, Adam Steinbaugh, one of the people who Brittain sought to censor with the DMCA, told Brittain that he could just send a DMCA notice straight to Steinbaugh or his host, rather than going after Google, leading to a fascinating and totally clueless discussion about how Brittain is really doing this because he thinks it's unfair that Google gets to build a search index, which he considers infringing. Uh huh, Craig, sure thing. If you can't see those images, Brittain says that he's "not interested" in everyone who wrote about his settlement using "his" "material," (still not clearly identified, by the way), but rather "Google's use of the material." Then he notes: "Google is piggybacking of of content creators, which really means that by default they should be paying for it."

Even ignoring the sheer... wrongness... of this "legal analysis," it's doubly hilarious in that it comes from a guy whose entire claim to "fame" is posting photos of people that are submitted to his website, for which he does not pay anyone for those works -- and, rather, tried to get people to pay him to take them down. Irony is a word that apparently Brittain is not acquainted with.

Oh, and I'm especially curious as to how Brittain believes that Google indexing and linking to the FTC's website is infringing and should be paid for, given that, as a work of the federal government, the FTC's statements on Craig Brittain are in the public domain.

At that point, I pointed out that he appeared to be ignoring multiple court rulings that have made it clear that Google's indexing is clearly fair use, at which point it became clear that Brittain had no idea that this issue has been well litigated in the past, and he's just wrong. First he insists that the courts were "acting improperly" and then asks if any of us "jokers" have written about this Perfect 10 v. Google case that apparently was a totally brand new concept to Brittain: Perfect 10 certainly has quite a reputation for legal buffoonery when it comes to copyright law. Is Craig Brittain getting ready to take things a step further?

Filed Under: craig brittain, dmca, fair use, revenge porn
Companies: google, perfect 10