Questionable DMCA Takedown Notice Filed Over Post Calling Lawyer Out For Copyright Infringement

from the carl-david-ceder-is-a-bad-lawyer dept

Today's the day for bogus DMCA takedowns by clueless lawyers trying to hide embarrassing information, I guess. Earlier today we had a story about a legal exec at Sony Pictures issuing a completely bogus DMCA takedown over his salary info being included in the Sony Hacks email dump. And now we turn to Carl David Ceder, a young criminal defense lawyer in Texas. If you recognize that name, it might be because a much more well-known and established criminal defense lawyer, Scott Greenfield, wrote a few blog posts about young Carl a few years ago, when he discovered that Carl had been beefing up the content on his professional website by simply plagiarizing the content of other, more established legal bloggers, and posting it as if it were his own thoughts. To put it mildly, Carl did not respond well to this and sent a few barely comprehensible rants blaming everyone but himself, and never actually apologizing for copying someone else's content wholesale.

Now, there are lots of ways to deal with this kind of thing. One could admit it was a mistake, but that doesn't seem to be in Carl David Ceder's nature. And, of course, around here, we're certainly willing to consider fair use arguments for copying material, though Carl presents none, and, indeed, it appears there's little fair use claim he could make for what he did. There's a pretty strong argument that he engaged in both plagiarism (claiming someone else's work as your own) and copyright infringement, and from his response, didn't appear to understand either issue, or why some people were concerned about it.

But, today, about a year and a half after Greenfield's original post, it appears that Carl David Ceder has discovered copyright law, but for all the wrong reasons. He sent not one, not two, but three DMCA takedowns for Greenfield's original post. Here's the first one that gets some pretty basic stuff about copyright law wrong: So, let's start with the basics. Carl thinks he's found a way to get back at Scott, but he's wrong, because it appears he doesn't understand copyright law at all (given his actions earlier in copying content and then lashing out at everyone, perhaps this is not a surprise). First off, the specific copyright claim is not to Scott's overall post, but rather that Scott used Carl's awful headshot in the post, as part of his mocking of Carl.

Now, there are lots of things wrong with this. First off, using an official headshot in reporting on someone is not copyright infringement. It's fair use. This is actually an issue that's come up in court multiple times, and it's always considered fair use. There was the case a few years back of a gripes site that used professional headshots and got sued for infringement. In that case, it was determined that the use of the headshots was fair use and that the lawsuit was clearly a SLAPP suit designed to silence the site. More recently, in a more political context, a judge ruled that using a political headshot on a blog post was also fair use. So, the claim of copyright infringement here is already pretty damn weak.

Perhaps more importantly, as Carl David Ceder seems to directly admit in one of the DMCA takedown notices, he doesn't even hold the copyright in question. Instead, he got the photo taken at his local JC Penney photo studio (classy!), and they retain the copyright, but have granted him a limited license to use the photo. From one of the DMCA notices:

A website that your company hosts (according to WHOIS information) is infringing on at least one copyright owned by my company. An photograph of myself, that has a valid copyright by Lifetouch Portrait Studios Inc (“Lifetouch”) – which I have expressed permission to use, as an authorized user, to reproduce, distribute, and display my photograph.This copyrighted material was copied onto your servers without permission. “Lifetouch” only gave authorized permission for me to use it – they were the photographers when I took this professional headshot. Please find the original document indicated this has a valid copyright, and it is being used in violation of copyright laws, and is infringing on valid copyright laws that apply to the contents of what is in this post. It is noted on the copyright authorization form, that ”Federal and State copyright laws provide that the author of a work is the owner of it. Copying a work WITHOUT the author’s permission is a violation of the law. The only permission given is to the owner of the CD given with the images on it.” The copyright authorization form expre ssly states, “Any other copying is a violation of the copyright law and may subject the violater to criminal and civil prosecution.”

If you'd like, you can also see the full copyright authorization notice. It's a pretty typical authorization notice from these kinds of studios, but Cedar seems to miss out on the fact that while it is giving him a license to reproduce or display the image, that does not necessarily give him the authorization to issue a legal threat over it as he is not the copyright holder. Nor does it appear that he is officially representing the actual copyright holder. Instead, he just quotes some of the authorization, which he appears to totally misunderstand. In giving him a non-exclusive license, Lifetouch still retains the actual copyright, and thus is the only one who can issue such a takedown or take any legal action over the photograph (which it shouldn't do because it's clearly fair use anyway).

And while it's unlikely that Lifetouch gave anyone else a license to use Ceder's image, he doesn't actually know that. Greenfield certainly didn't need a license (it's fair use), but he simply assumes that because Lifetouch gave him a non-exclusive license, it didn't give one to anyone else. Yet he has no evidence of that at all.

Finally, while Ceder quotes the silly and misleading copyright language on the authorization form, that language was meant for him and not for others. That language has no actual impact on Greenfield's use, which again is clearly protected fair use. Besides, that copyright notice is pretty bogus. Even referencing state copyright laws makes no sense, because photographs are strictly covered by federal copyright law, not state copyright laws (which, other than the rare exception of pre-1972 sound recordings, basically doesn't even exist any more). And, again, using a headshot in a blog post with commentary about the person is well-established fair use, so the bogus claim that any copying is infringement is just wrong.

But, really, it's especially silly and ridiculous that this is coming from a guy who pretty clearly did infringe someone else's copyright in copying their entire article, and he's now using his total misunderstanding of copyright to claim that any copying is infringement.

So, hopefully either Greenfield will file a counternotice or the legal team at CloudFlare will reject such a bogus takedown notice (fwiw, CloudFlare probably doesn't host the site anyway, and could only pass on the notice to the actual host). And Carl David Ceder remains on display as a lawyer who doesn't seem to get copyright law at all, and also has a habit of reacting badly to people calling him out for his own bad behavior. Trying to censor Greenfield's post calling him out is pretty ridiculous. Abusing the law by filing a bogus DMCA takedown, falsely representing himself as the copyright holder (or representing the copyright holder), is even more problematic.

Oh, and finally, I emailed Ceder using the email address he included in the DMCA takedown notice which he said was there to email him if CloudFlare wanted "further information." I asked him a few questions about the notice, but the email immediately bounced back, saying that it was an "alias" that was not found on Office365. But... then Carl emailed me back anyway (suggesting that the email does work, but he also tried to set up some sort of alias that failed), claiming he had no idea what I was talking about and didn't even know what the DMCA was. This seems... difficult to believe. The DMCA notice appears to come from his email, and has his signature file as well. It links to a version of that JC Penney copyright authorization that was uploaded to a Scribd account today on an account named "CarlDavid Ceder." I also called him (voicemail) and emailed again asking how, if this wasn't him, someone else got their hands on this copyright authorization and is now going around pretending to be him and filing questionable DMCA notices on his behalf. In response, he did not answer this question, but again insisted that he has no idea what I'm talking about. I guess it's possible that someone is trying to make him look bad by filing a bogus DMCA notice, though that seems like an awfully weird con -- and it's still not clear how that person would have gotten access to the JC Penney document. The other alternative, I guess, is that Ceder hired one of those online reputation management companies, and they're doing this. But, even if that were the case, then why wouldn't that company include one of its own email addresses as the "further information" email in the DMCA takedown notice (unless that's what the broken email alias is supposed to be). Either way, the Occam's Razor most likely answer is that Ceder did send the takedown, and didn't want to admit it to me, but I'm open to other possible explanations. Seeing as none has arrived as of yet, I believe the existing story stands.

Update: In a series of emails since this post went live, Carl has insisted that he has not read the post, but insisted that he put this matter all behind him, and wanted me to make sure I mentioned that he's now Facebook friends with Dan Hull -- the individual whose work he initially copied -- and also a fan of Brian Tannebaum, another legal blogger we've mentioned here in the past (I'm not even sure what his complaint with Tannebaum is about). He has not yet explained how this DMCA notice was sent (though he insists he doesn't even know what it is). So now I've mentioned both points. It still doesn't explain the DMCA notice at all. Anyway, here's what Carl David Ceder wants me to make sure I put in my post:

In your post, did you mention any of the nice things I mentioned about Dan Hull and Brian Tannebaum? Or did you leave that out. I would like to talk to you in person - because you are being very unclear with your e-mail messages. If you are going to write something about this, I would appreciate you mentioning how, without any time to reflect on how to respond, my first reaction was how me and Dan Hull and have not only reconciled, but have put this matter way behind us. Brian Tannebaum was related to the matter that happened years ago - and I hope you mentioned how I spoke only positively about his new book, and also the e-book he wrote long ago about clients. As a reporter, I hope you did cover the whole truth and all the facts, including the ones mentioned above. I'm not exactly sure what you are accusing me of honestly, but what I do know is I was trying to communicate this matter was put behind me literally years ago. And based on what I said about Hull and Tannebaum, what motive would I have to do something that would bring to the forefront something that happened literally years ago. I still haven't read your article, but I do hope if you did mention things from our correspondence, you reported the whole truth - and did not choose to selectively decide only to include things that would create better fodder for a story where there probably isn't one. Also, I'm not sure if you are an attorney and just blog, but if you are in the legal field, you no doubt realize how time consuming a trial that I am about to begin in two days can consume almost all of your time. As I type this, I am going to interview a potential witness to fully prepare. You seemed to indicate that whatever was done was recent. Look up the Collin County court records and the name of the person I have a trial set for Wednesday. It's a 2nd degree Felony charge with huge ramifications that hinge on the outcome. In your analysis, I hope you considered how unlikely it would be for an attorney to have time to do whatever it is you think was done. I spent almost all of Sunday (yesterday) at the Collin County jail prepping my client for testifying. This is also public record - check the Collin County jail list. You will see where I've spent my time the last 72 hours or so.

So there's that. Don't let it be said that I didn't give him a chance to present his side.

Filed Under: carl david ceder, copyright, dmca, headshots, scott greenfield, takedowns

We Have The 'Criminal Charges' Patrick Zarrelli Claims He Filed Against Our Writer, And They're Not What He Thinks

from the that's-not-a-criminal-case dept

Earlier this week, we noted that "website reputation management" dude, Patrick Zarrelli had sent us a large packet of papers claiming that he had "filed criminal charges and bar complaints in seven states" against a group of people, including our own Tim Cushing, because Tim had written a blog post making fun of Zarrelli for a spectacular failure in trying to get certain articles about the lawyer Gary Ostrow removed from the internet. You can read all the details at previous posts, but Zarrelli claimed that he was filing "criminal charges and bar complaints" against Cushing and a small group of lawyers -- Scott Greenfield, Mark Bennett, Brian Tannebaum and Sam Glover -- who had all made fun of Zarrelli's ridiculous claims.

As we noted in our original post, the cover letter made these (typo-riddled) claims, but the large packets of paper, showed no details, no explanation of any laws broken, no legal filings, no lawsuit, no "criminal charges" and no "bar complaints." All that it included were stacks and stacks of paper printouts of screenshots of blog posts, blog comments, tweets, Facebook comments and a few profile pages. I hadn't had them scanned originally, but after a bunch of people asked for them, I had a poor, overworked colleague of mine here at Techdirt scan them all in. And, then, the good folks over at PINAC were kind enough to reach out to the Ft. Lauderdale police and get a copy of the "Incident/Investigation Report" that it had on the matter.

In my original post earlier this week, I noted that "it sounds like he may have just whined to some law enforcement folks in Florida who probably filed it in the garbage file where it belongs" and indeed that appears to be the case. These are not "criminal charges." These are Patrick Zarrelli wandered into the Fort Lauderdale Police Department and told someone in the lobby basically "but people on the internet are being mean to me!" and they wrote it all down (not even spelling Zarrelli's name correctly) and almost certainly then did absolutely nothing with it. The filing also spells Tim Cushing's name as Tim Lushing. Here's the crux of it:

Contact was made with the reportee Patrick Zayrelli in the FLPD lobby. Mr. Zayrelli advised that he works for Dependable Website Management which is a cyber bullying and reputation management company. He says that his client Attorney Gary Ostrow hired him because a group of attorney`s were attacking his character and tarnishing him reputation on line due to an incident that occurred with him years ago.

Mr. Zayrelli stated that his company contacts the parties and ask them to take their posts down, which is what he said he did when he called all the listed attorneys but each one of them became defensive and started cursing at him. He was especially concerned because according to him, one of the attorneys Brian Tannebaum who practices in Miami told him that he would have BSO deputies arrest him.

Mr. Zayrelli said that the next day after he called the attorney`s all of his social media accounts (facebook,twitter) were all filled with negative posts about him by all of the attorneys and some had even posted pornographic material on his facebook

The report itself lists Zarrelli's client, Gary Ostrow, along with all of the previously named folks, and one more: a lawyer named Dan Hull, whom we hadn't previously seen connected to all of this, but there he is. Notably, the report says there are "0 Victims" and doesn't list anyone's name as a victim (probably because there was no crime). Hell, it lists Ostrow in the same part as with all of the people Zarrelli was complaining about.

There's not much of a story here other than confirming what we originally suspected: there are no "criminal charges." Whether or not there are "bar complaints" I imagine we'll have to wait to find out. And, again, if Zarrelli is seriously contemplating filing a civil suit in Florida, as he had claimed, he really ought to familiarize himself with Florida's anti-SLAPP statute, because I can assure you that every one of the people he is threatening are deeply familiar with it, and will certainly make use of it to get Zarrelli to pay any of their legal fees for filing a bogus lawsuit.

Anyway, the complaint and all of the contents of the envelope that was sent to us are embedded below. Zarrelli appears to have made a horrible "reputation management" person, and an even worse internet lawyer.

Filed Under: brian tannebaum, dan hull, first amendment, free speech, gary ostrow, mark bennett, patrick zarrelli, police, reputation management, sam glover, scott greenfield

Patrick Zarrelli Claims He's Filing Criminal Charges Against Us Because He Doesn't Like Our Post About Him

from the dude:-do-you-even-first-amendment? dept

So... a week and a half ago, we published an article, written by Tim Cushing, discussing the rather poor decisions of a self-proclaimed "reputation management" guy named Patrick Zarrelli. Zarrelli, it appeared, had been hired by Florida attorney Gary Ostrow, to improve his reputation, but instead, Zarrelli proceeded on a course that seemed more likely to destroy his own reputation, and potentially drag Ostrow further down with him.

The background: Ostrow, back in 2012, put out a ridiculous press release, claiming that he was "taking on all celebrity criminal cases in Florida." The press release was so ridiculous and silly that it resulted in mocking and scorn from lawyers online, including Scott Greenfield and Mark Bennett. Apparently, three years later, Ostrow decided he wanted those posts to disappear from the internet. As we've seen, trying to make things disappear from the internet is generally a bad idea that has a history of backfiring spectacularly, often generating renewed interest in that which you wish to delete.

It tends to be even worse when you attempt to delete the content in the most ham-fisted manner possible, which appears to have been Zarrelli's strategy. He called up Greenfield and Bennett, and did a weird passive-aggressive combination of threatening them with totally baseless legal threats, and a weird sort of "hey we're all buddies, let's just take this content down" ridiculousness. If you haven't, you really need to listen to the voicemail that Zarrelli left Greenfield. I could describe it, but no description could do that voicemail justice. It includes a bunch of nonsense legal terms ("hot news exemption"?), a bizarre attempt to "trade" website design if Greenfield will take down the article ("let us improve your blog for you"), threats ("it's not going to be fun for you") and a bizarre listing of his family tree of "high-end lawyers."

All this resulted in more blog posts from Bennett and Greenfield. Another attorney, Brian Tannebaum, apparently also was on the receiving end of ridiculous threats from Zarrelli.

Throughout it all, Zarrelli kept publicly (on Facebook and Twitter) putting up a show of bravado, and a few times suggested that the reason that everyone was pissed at him was because of some sort of "lawyerly bravado" that he felt they believed they needed to show before capitulating -- rather than the truth: which is that these lawyers know Zarrelli has no legal basis for his claims, and they have little time for censorious jerks who are threatening them with bogus legal threats.

Now we get to the rule of holes: when you're in one, stop digging.

We had thought that, as with many such cases, Zarrelli might calm down, get a little perspective and move on with his life -- possibly in a different business than "reputation management." But, apparently, he (unwisely) chose plan B.

Yesterday afternoon a large envelope stuffed with hundreds of pages of paper showed up at my office, which appears to be a hilariously stupid threat that he's suing basically everyone who made fun of him. If you can't read that "cover page," here's what it says:

Dear Tech Dirt [sic] Team,

A writer of yours named Tim Cushings [sic] is using your website to harass, stalk, libel, and cyber bully me online. We have filed criminal charges and bar complaints in seven states. We are now in the process of filling [sic] a federal lawsuit in Florida. Due to your companies [sic] high page rank, there [sic] attack articles about me dominate the search results. They are even above my own Facebook page.

Thank you,

Patrick Zarrelli

And, as you can see, there are large packets for the lawyers mentioned above -- Scott Greenfield, Mark Bennett and Brian Tannebaum, as well as one for Tim Cushing, who is listed together with Sam Glover (I have no idea why). Each "cover page" lists a "criminal case #": "Criminal Case #15-172076FLPD." I can't wait to see what criminal law it violates to "rank better than my Facebook page in search results," but I get the feeling that the Florida police won't be doing much with this.

Beyond the misspellings, the cover letter is just ridiculous. It doesn't actually make any request to us. It doesn't say that anything has actually been filed against us, or Tim directly, despite the clear attempt to imply as much. There is no effort to (as you're kinda required to do) name what actual statements constitute violations of the law (he can keep looking, 'cause he's not going to find any). Also, "harass, stalk, libel, and cyber bully." Dude, he wrote an article about you fucking up. That's not harassing, stalking, libeling or cyber bullying. That's called reporting, and it's damn well protected by the First Amendment. Whatever "criminal charges" he thinks he's filed are not what he seems to think they are. Individuals don't file "criminal charges." That's law enforcement's job. It sounds like he may have just whined to some law enforcement folks in Florida who probably filed it in the garbage file where it belongs. Obviously, he's not filing "bar complaints" against us or Cushing, since Cushing isn't a lawyer. He very well may have against the lawyers listed, but those will all go nowhere fast.

If he's seriously contemplating "filling [sic] a federal lawsuit in Florida" -- well, then he should have had his lawyer contact us, rather than himself -- and he might want to acquaint himself carefully with Florida's brand new anti-SLAPP law, which we would almost certainly make use of in seeking legal fees for filing a bogus lawsuit whose sole purpose was an attempt to stifle Constitutionally protected speech.

Oh, and you might wonder what's in all the pages in those packets. It is not -- as you might think from the cover pages -- any actual lawsuit or bar complaint or anything of the sort. It is not any actual demands or explanation of what laws he thinks we broke. Rather, each packet is just pages upon pages of screenshot printouts of the articles that we wrote, the comments on those articles, and comments found on Twitter and Facebook where people were mocking Zarrelli.

Dude: let it go. You messed up and people made fun of you for it. There's nothing illegal about that (in either the criminal or the civil sense).

Update: After a bunch of requests, we've scanned in the full packets. You can see them below:

Filed Under: anti-slapp, brian tannebaum, criminal charges, defamation, free speech, gary ostrow, mark bennett, patrick zarrelli, reputation management, sam glover, scott greenfield, threats

Reputation Management Bro Destroys His, And His Client's, Reputation With Threatening Phone Calls To Defense Lawyers

from the 'I'll-kill-us-both-or-die-trying!' dept

I have to assume the so-called "reputation management" business is working for someone, but so far all we have to go on are the spectacular flaming wreckage left behind by fools who insist on punching above their weight.

Late in 2012, Florida attorney Gary Ostrow ostentatiously announced he was now willing to represent as many criminally-charged celebrities as would have him. Shortly thereafter, he was mocked by other attorneys who were far less narcissistic or needy.

Months passed and Ostrow was forgotten, as the world does not suffer from a lack of litigation-related stupidity. Unfortunately, it appears Ostrow refused to quit picking at the scab covering his self-inflicted Google wound. Unless Patrick Zarrelli is performing some pro bono work, Ostrow hired this motormouth to clean up his search results. (From Zarrelli's Twitter profile.)

What persuaded Ostrow to hire Zarrelli cannot easily be determined by examining his reputation management "firm's" website. Despite claiming to be for businesses which "only accept the best," the company claims to offer "management plans... renowned for their well roundness, effectiveness, and tech savvy," custom-fit rep management solutions for "just about any budget even for charity’s and start-ups," and -- to ensure it's not duped by botnets -- a free quote with a captcha that requires potential customers to prove "Your a human."

(Zarrelli -- despite his extensive, unproven background in web design, SEO wizardry and reputation management -- still seems to find the subtle differences between "your" and "you're" have eluded his otherwise pristine business acumen. [Also "to/too," "hear/here" and pretty much every other homonym he banged out on his keyboard during his Facebook ranting/Twitter self-emasculation.)

On top of that, his rep management skills skillz seem to include the creation of fake positive reviews.

Combative management takes steps to fight back against poor reviews by flooding the internet with positive reviews of your company. Even though negative statements cannot be erased, we can make them almost impossible to find, buried under glowing positivity and reviews that will bring customers flocking to you. We’ll push those negative results straight from the first page of search results into places that no one will ever look.

This is Gary Ostrow's savior.

YOU'LL FULLY BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.

Apparently believing himself to be the first person to walk the internet, Zarrelli began calling up lawyers who had written pieces critical of Ostrow's celebrity legal services and making a bunch of vague, but completely stupid threats. The first person he called was New York defense attorney Scott Greenfield, who -- like everyone else he contacted -- knows his way around the First Amendment and bogus threats.

When Zarrelli called and launched into his pitch of his mad internet skillz and how I would have to take down posts about Ostrow or face his wrath, a bar discipline complaint, I told him to “go for it, asswipe.” My tolerance for stupid is limited these days.

Zarrelli is nothing if not persistent. Unwilling to take "go for it, asswipe" for an answer, he called up other lawyers who had written about Ostrow -- again, lawyers who also had limited tolerance for idiots and idiotic threats.

Apparently, after I hung up on him, he called Dan Hull (who called to share his fun trolling this kid, who informed Hull that he was going to destroy his firm) and Mark Bennett, threatening him as well with a grievance if he didn’t succumb to Zarrelli’s overwhelming power.

Greenfield has the recording of Zarrelli's long-winded threats posted to his site. It's definitely worth a listen, especially as he claims his websites have "25 million views" and name-drops relatives like anyone cares. (Also, "my family is riddled with high-end lawyers." [?])

Bennett, however, was First to Post.

Well, actually second. In a breather between threatening phone calls, Zarrelli took to Facebook to air his complaints to a more receptive audience. The full thing is worth a read, but here are some of the better bits.

Never encountered such a rude, unethical shady bunch of attorneys in my life. These guys literally wrote a negative article about a colleagues press release, just so they could tag in an arrest from his past to it, in an attempt to enter his search results and steal his business.

[...]

The thing that's interesting about attorneys like this, is that they think they understand the internet and its laws, even though what they actually know about the internet could fit into a thimble. The truth is they were out of law school before the internet was even invented!

[...]

[I[n the real world they have a better understand of our complex laws and can use that to their advantage to bully people.

However on the internet, this means absolutely nothing, since the internet essentially is governed by no one. Moreover the internet is one of the most well documented places on the planet, and if you know how to read the code you can track and map out anything.

The internet's innate ability to thoroughly document stuff is coming back to bite Zarrelli. He's nuked his Facebook post, but it has been archived and screenshotted. His threatening phone calls have been posted to a blog with a high page rank, as well as Soundcloud. Everything is indeed well-documented -- something Zarrelli clearly overlooked when "engaging" others on behalf of his client.

Anyway, Mark Bennett took to his blog to detail his "discussion" with Zarrelli. His words were no kinder than Greenfield's.

I don't play well with extortionists, so I told Zarrelli to go ahead and file his grievance. I may have dropped an f-bomb or two—Gary, don't you hate it when people threaten to do stupid things instead of just doing them? I know I do.

Anyway, Gary, I thought you'd like to know that some stupid asshole calling himself Patrick Zarrelli is going around trying to fuck up your reputation while claiming to be your agent. Despite the judgment errors in your past (which are legion—we all make mistakes), I doubt that you are dumb enough to hire this Zarrelli character to try to push me around.

Zarrelli also called attorney Brian Tannebaum, offering up the same litany of vague threats and stupidity. Then, he briefly engaged with his critics on Twitter, offering more threats, some half-hearted braggadocio and -- finally -- something that sounded like a playground bully suddenly realizing his supposed victims aren't actually scared of him.

to late millions have seen it im suing you tomorrow. your a bad lawyer and person. leave me alone!!!!

Bennett has also published a follow-up post that's going to do little to change Bennett's reputation as a "bad person" who should just leave the person who picked the fight "alone."

You are not a "professional." You are a born loser trying to muddle by, a socially retarded 36-year-old man-child with a string of failures who is still trying to figure out why the world has stopped handing things to him on a silver platter.

A professional in the reputation management business might have performed a little due diligence before threatening lawyers who a) know the law and b) are used to being threatened by stupid people. Someone who claims to know the SEO world inside and out might have realized attacking influential blogs and websites is about the worst thing you can do for a client's "reputation."

Greenfield wrote a blog post about you this morning. One post. The only time he has mentioned your name. He published two hours ago. When I google your name—just "Patrick Zarrelli" —Greenfield's posts comes up in the #5 slot, after your carefully cultivated social-media pages. When I google "Patrick Zarrelli reputation management" it's the first hit. Nobody had to do any SEO to make that happen; I hadn’t linked to it until just now.

It's just Scott's blog, which Google absolutely loves.

Scott's blog has Google Pagerank 6. You do not have anything that compares. His post about you will be at the top of Google search results by the end of the day, and it will stay there for as long as you want to keep playing.

Zarrelli is finished in the reputation management business. I wouldn't shed any tears, though. He clearly didn't belong in it. Ostrow's reputation has also taken another hit, despite (presumably) paying Zarrelli to patch it up. Instead of helping his client, Zarrelli burned both of their reputations to the ground with a few short phone calls and utilized the power of social media to salt the earth. Well done, Mr. Zarrelli. Time to switch to Career Path B.

Filed Under: gary ostrow, lawyers, mark bennett, patrick zarrelli, reputation management, scott greenfield, threats
Companies: dependable website management

Lawyer Threatens Another Lawyer With Defamation Lawsuit If Old Blog Post Loaded With Facts Isn't Removed Immediately

from the libelslander dept

After pretty much vanishing from the public eye, Paul Ceglia's (he of the "I own 50% of Facebook" lawsuit) former attorney, Dean Boland, has resurfaced. Considering his handling of the issue that has prompted his reemergence into the public eye, he would have been better served by staying off the Google radar.

A few years back, Dean Boland made a good point in court, but made it badly.

Attorney Dean Boland purchased innocent pictures of two juvenile girls from a Canadian stock-image website, then digitally modified them to make it appear as if the children were engaged in sexual conduct.

Boland was an expert witness for the defense in a half-dozen child porn cases and made the mock-ups to punctuate his argument that child pornography laws are unconstitutionally overbroad because they could apply to faked photos.

This resulted in a $300,000 judgment against Boland as the result of a lawsuit brought by the two people whose images were used to create the mocked-up child porn. Scott Greenfield offered his commentary on the issue, using the above quotes from a Wired article. He also added additional commentary based on the Sixth Circuit Appeals Court ruling, noting that Boland had entered into a deferred prosecution agreement.

Boland is now objecting to both of these quotes from Greenfield's 2012 article. In an email sent to the lawyer, Boland is demanding the removal of facts under the theory that they're somehow defamatory.

Mr. Greenfield:

Your article at this link contains false and defamatory statements that I am demanding be revised or the entire article removed.

By way of summary, you cite to a Wired article and quote as follows: “Boland was an expert witness for the defense in a half-dozen child porn cases and made the mock-ups to punctuate his argument that child pornography laws are unconstitutionally overbroad because they could apply to faked photos.”

This quoted statement is false. The exhibits were not used for that purpose at all. This statement is false and defamatory and is causing me professional financial harm which is calculable.

This statement in the article is defamatory and false: “As a result, in 2007 he found himself the defendant in a deferred federal child-porn prosecution in Ohio….” I have never been involved in any prosecution, never been a defendant in a criminal matter and have maintained good standing as a lawyer in Ohio with a no discipline record. I did not enter into any agreement called a “deferred prosecution agreement” nor even words to that effect. This statement is false and defamatory and damaging to my professional reputation.

“Given that Boland was prosecuted (even though it resulted in a deferred prosecution)” Again, this is a false statement. I was never prosecuted for any conduct in this case nor any other. I never entered a deferred prosecution agreement with the government. This statement is defamatory and causing me real, financial harm which is calculable.

I am demanding that this article be revised to correct these and other errors or removed entirely within ten days. Please advise as to your decision so that I can proceed accordingly if a satisfactory result is not obtained.

Dean Boland

Greenfield notes that Boland originally approached him earlier and in a much less litigious fashion, asking him to consider removing it because the issue was long since settled. While Greenfield was sympathetic, he pointed out that coverage still existed elsewhere, including at Wired -- the article Greenfield had quoted from.

By approaching me as a human being, rather than a dumbass, I was sympathetic to his problem. But it wasn’t that simple, as mine was only one of a number of posts about him and his child porn problems, including Courthouse News and the ABA Journal. So there was no point in my removing a post (something I’m loath to do) if the others remained.

Apparently, Boland is having no success asking anyone to remove articles pertaining to the 2012 appeals court decision. Perhaps his plan was to threaten the smallest fish in the internet pond first. But going after another attorney isn't the wisest move, even if an individual seems more likely to respond favorably to legal threats than larger entities like Wired and the Wall Street Journal.

Boland's threats, however, have at least two insurmountable problems. First, the supposedly defamatory material in Greenfield's post is actually direct quotes of other sources, including an appeals court decision. But that's just the beginning. Even if Boland had managed to find defamatory material in Greenfield's 2012 blog post, he'd still be out of legal options.

When I received his threat yesterday, I sent it off to Marc Randazza, who was also sympathetic to Boland for having suffered the indignity of his stupidity. He sent a nice, very lawyerly, letter explaining the law to Boland and why his threat was mind-numbingly stupid on every level.

The funny part is that Boland is so clueless that he doesn’t realize that he failed the most basic of all legal issues, that he’s blown the one year Statute of Limitations, even if there was defamation. There isn’t, but his bluff doesn’t pass the smell test of a first year law student.

Protip: Don’t send a threatening email to a lawyer that conclusively proves your incompetence. It rarely ends well.

And that could have been the end of it. If Boland hadn't insisted on doubling-down on his dumbassery, it might have remained between him, Scott Greenfield and Marc Randazza. But he refused to back down, despite his legal threats containing not a single bit of credibility.

Rather than appreciate Randazza’s display of kindness, Boland came back with the sort of response one would expect from someone who gets their legal advice from Reddit, that Randazza’s letter didn’t prove that the statements were true.

"Your prompt response, while detailed about the law, is devoid of evidence that the claims made in the article are in fact accurate or true. This is not surprising since they [sic] statements within the article are not in fact true. As of my notice earlier today, your client is now on notice that the article contains materially false statements. Should he persist in leaving the post online, unedited or corrected to conform the statements to the truth, I will have no choice but to seek court intervention to accomplish that result."

I assume Boland is referring to the very special Internet Court of Moon Law, which generally seems to be receptive to bogus legal arguments predicated on a person's stubborn belief that they are right despite all evidence to the contrary.

Because of this, Boland's connection to a bizarre fake child porn case isn't going to sink to latter pages of Google search results any time soon. It's one thing to ask nicely for a favor. It's quite another to baselessly demand internet denizens bend to your will. The first tactic may rarely result in granted favors, but it's far less likely to result in the mass exhumation of corpses you hoped would stay buried.

Filed Under: child porn, dean boland, defamation, free speech, scott greenfield, threats

Is Merely Explaining The Streisand Effect To Someone A 'Threat'?

from the paranoid-much? dept

Ken White, over at Popehat, has a story on the ridiculous situation concerning how lawyer/psychotherapist Jose Arcaya is going after lawyer Scott Greenfield (whose work we often mention around these parts). The history of how it got this far is a bit convoluted, and you can read the full Popehat post for the details, but here's my shortened version: An apparently unsatisfied former client of Arcaya left a negative review of Arcaya on Yelp. Arcaya sued for defamation, arguing that being called "absolute scum" is not merely an opinion because of the use of the word "total" (which as far as I can tell is not actually used in the review -- though perhaps he means "absolute" or perhaps something was edited. Also, for the record, the review appears to call him "absolute scum" not "absolute scum bag" though I doubt the difference matters):

Regarding the matter of whether "absolute scum bag" should be deemed defamation per se rests with the present court. Mr. Boka tTots out a series of cases indicating the word "scum" and "scum bag" do not fall in that category. However, by adding the word "total" he impugns everything about me, including character and capacity to carry-out legal work. It coincides well with the Dillon standard of defamatjon per se: a maliciously intended attack on my professional capabilities, an all encompassing put-down (i.e., "absolute scum", not just "scum bag" Or "scum")...

Anyway, the former Arcaya client reached out to White, who in turn reached out to Greenfield. Greenfield then reached out to Arcaya, trying to explain to him, nicely, that suing over someone calling you "absolute scum" on Yelp is probably not a productive venture and might -- just possibly -- backfire, thanks to a little thing called the Streisand Effect. About five or six years ago, a lawyer had told me that the Streisand Effect was losing its power because lawyers now recognized it. And yet, we keep discovering new lawyers who have no idea about it at all.

Now, some might take this as a friendly bit of advice about how a course of action could potentially backfire once it is revealed to the public. But Arcaya, apparently, took Greenfield's explanation of how the Streisand Effect works... and claimed that it was Greenfield threatening him with the Streisand Effect. In response, Arcaya subpoenaed Greenfield and defended this move by apparently arguing that Greenfield was somehow threatening him in describing how the Streisand Effect tends to work, and claiming that Greenfield was somehow associated with "an illegal gang."

Again, while I have no evidence that he was part of that illegal gang, as a lawyer Greenfield still should not have served as a conduit for that criminal enterprise. Rather than calling me Greenfield should have contact [sic] the Attorney General's office or the police to denounce what he had learned. Because of his failure to uphold the principle of propriety as a server of the law, I lodged a complaint the [sic] First Department's Discipline Committee.

Oh, right. Beyond just issuing the subpoena, Arcaya filed a wonderfully handwritten bar complaint against Greenfield -- for daring to explain a basic online phenomenon. Wow. What's amazing is how frequently we've seen this kind of reaction. From Charles Carreon to Prenda Law, those who find themselves faced with the public reacting negatively to their own lawyerly overreactions assume that "the public" speaking out is some sort of "illegal gang" out to get them. They don't realize that it's not about them (at all), but rather the public exercising its free speech rights to criticize what the public believes is an abuse of power.

Either way, the idea that merely explaining the Streisand Effect to a lawyer who was about to step right into it is some sort of threat concerning a "criminal gang" that somehow violates proper lawyerly activities is so ridiculously laughable, that I'd argue it's even more ridiculous than flipping out and suing over someone calling you "absolute scum."

Filed Under: defamation, free speech, jose arcaya, ken white, scott greenfield, slapp, streisand effect
Companies: yelp

Lavabit Case Shows Why We Need Tech Literate Judges

from the a-failure-of-knowledge dept

While there's plenty of attention being paid to Lavabit's temporary re-opening for the sake of letting people export their accounts, a much more interesting issue is the recent development in the legal case. Lavabit has filed its latest brief, and there are some interesting discussions about the details of the case. From my reading, Lavabit makes a very strong argument that the government has no right to demand the production of Lavabit's private SSL keys, as it's an overreach way beyond what traditional wiretapping laws allow. Lawyer Orin Kerr's analysis argues that Lavabit's case is weak, mainly arguing that the federal government can subpoena whatever the hell they want, and just because it conflicts with your business model: too bad. Lavabit argues that complying with the government's order is oppressive because it would effectively mean it would be committing fraud on all its customers:

[T]o comply with the government’s subpoena would have either required Lavabit to perpetrate a fraud on its customer base or shut down entirely. That is the key point, and the resulting harm goes far beyond a mere inconvenient search for records. Just as requiring a hotel owner to install glass doors on all its hotel rooms would destroy the hotel’s business, Lavabit cannot exist as an honest company if the government is entitled to take this sort of information in secret. Its relationship with its customers and business partners depends on an assurance that it will not secretly enable the government to monitor all of their communications at all times. If a mere grand jury subpoena can be used to get around that (in secret, no less), then no business—anywhere—can credibly offer its customers a secure email service.

But Kerr points out that this is a "really weak argument":

This strikes me as a really weak argument. Lavabit is essentially claiming that its anti-government business model trumps the subpoena power. That is, it is arguing that the subpoena is “oppressive” precisely because it would work: It would allow the government to conduct the surveillance it is allowed to conduct under the Pen Register statute.

Further, Kerr argues that to accept Lavabit's argument would mean that any company that announces an "ideology or business strategy" that opposes government surveillance could then resist legitimate government subpoenas simply by arguing that they are oppressive and abusive.

I respect Kerr and always look forward to his legal analysis, but I think he's wrong at a variety of levels here, and, tragically the judge in the case seems to have the same confused view of what Lavabit is actually arguing (though, one could argue, that is actually the fault of Lavabit in not making its case clearly). Lawyer Scott Greenfield does a good job explaining why Kerr has mischaracterized Lavabit's defense -- first noting that being pro-privacy is hardly being "anti-government" as Kerr implies. Then pointing out that Lavabit's argument isn't that the government's demand for its private keys was merely oppressive because of its business model, but because it would put Lavabit out of business -- which is not the same thing.

This isn't really a fair characterization of Lavabit's point. Initially, the argument is that revelation of the private key would be the ruination of the business. By exposing every customer to government disclosure, and covert disclosure at that, the government would take a viable business, making money and delivering a service as businesses are allowed to do in America, and destroy it. Poof, company gone. Business gone. Revenue gone. Wham, bam, thank you, Ladar.

But there's an even bigger point in here, which I think Kerr misses entirely, and Greenfield skips over: from a technology standpoint, what the government is demanding of Lavabit is absolutely oppressive and abusive. And, for that, it helps to look at Ed Felten's discussion of the case, in which he notes that the judge and other DOJ supporters in this case (including, it would seem, Kerr) are basically arguing that "If court orders are legitimate, why should we allow engineers to design services that protect users against court-ordered access." But Felten points out that requiring "court ordered access" is tantamount to requiring a massive vulnerability to insider attacks:

To see why, consider two companies, which we’ll call Lavabit and Guavabit. At Lavabit, an employee, on receiving a court order, copies user data and gives it to an outside party—in this case, the government. Meanwhile, over at Guavabit, an employee, on receiving a bribe or extortion threat from a drug cartel, copies user data and gives it to an outside party—in this case, the drug cartel.

From a purely technological standpoint, these two scenarios are exactly the same: an employee copies user data and gives it to an outside party. Only two things are different: the employee’s motivation, and the destination of the data after it leaves the company. Neither of these differences is visible to the company’s technology—it can’t read the employee’s mind to learn the motivation, and it can’t tell where the data will go once it has been extracted from the company’s system. Technical measures that prevent one access scenario will unavoidably prevent the other one.

Insider attacks are a big problem. You might have read about a recent insider attack against the NSA by Edward Snowden. Similar but less spectacular attacks happen all the time, and Lavabit, or any well-run service that holds user data, has good reason to try to control them.

Now, go back to the judge's order or Kerr's analysis, and revisit it with what Felten pointed out, and you realize how far off-base both the Judge and Kerr are in their analyses. Lavabit didn't design its system to be setup the way it was because it was "anti-government," but rather because it wanted to create secure email that protects against a variety of different kinds of attacks, both insider and outsider. That's why it found the government's request so "abusive" and "oppressive." Not because of an ideological disagreement, but rather because of the technological reality that handing over Lavabit's private keys absolutely wrecks any real security of Lavabit's system, which is Lavabit's entire business.

So, while Kerr and the judge in the case seem to think it's a mere ideological issue, that's simply not true. It's a technological issue, on which Lavabit's entire business was based. If Kerr and the judge are correct, then, as Felten properly notes, it becomes effectively illegal to build a really secure communications system. That seems positively ridiculous, especially in a time when we're told (by the very government agency that wants to do all this spying) that we need better online security to protect against attacks.

Filed Under: doj, ed felten, email, ladar leveson, orin kerr, scott greenfield, secure email, subpoenas
Companies: lavabit

The Internet Is For Baseless Legal Threats: Popehat, Greenfield And Volokh Triple-Streisand Edition!

from the often-more-entertaining-than-porn,-the-other-thing-the-net-does-well dept

It has long been stated that the Internet is for porn. And while that's never really going to change, it also appears that the Internet has another purpose: baseless legal threats. Something tends to get lost in the ether(net), stripping away many people's ability to think clearly when confronted with criticism. This isn't necessarily a new thing, but we do seem to be "enjoying" a spike in confrontational (but baseless) legal threats.

From Teri Buhl's unpublishable tweets to On Press Inc.'s libel/liable difficulties to Ken Matherne's unintentionally hilarious grab bag of misspelled legal terms to Prenda Law's desperate Hail Mary defamation suits, the internet is practically swimming in misguided legal theories and badly written threats.

Here's another story to add to the corpus asshattus of baseless legal threats. The very brief back story: A little over two years ago, The Volokh Conspiracy and Scott Greenfield's Simple Justice blog covered the story of a certain Norman Golb, a University of Chicago professor who found himself tangling with Lawrence Schiffman, the head of Judaic Studies at NYU, over the origins of the Dead Sea scrolls.

These two academics went head-to-head, attacking each other at various internet locations. Norman Golb's son, Raphael, also stepped into the fray, creating more than 50 aliases in an effort to emulate a groundswell of support for his father's viewpoint. Then he went one step further, impersonating Schiffman and sending emails to NYU students and staff suggesting he (as Schiffman) had committed plagiarism in one of his articles.

The end result: Raphael Golb was handed an indictment for identity theft, impersonation and harassment. All of this over an academic pissing match.

Flash-forward to just a few days ago, and both Eugene Volokh and Scott Greenfield receive identical emails pertaining to this story, both containing legal threats.

Law Offices of
Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Harris,
Waters & Waffenschmidt
161 West Third Street
PO Box 215
Williamsport, PA 17701
...
E-MAIL TO: Eugene Volovh [volokh@law.ucla.edu]
FROM: Clifford A. Rieders, Esquire
DATE: March 13, 2013
RE: Lawrence Schiffman
CC: Professor Lawrence Schiffman

Please be advised that the undersigned represents Professor Lawrence Schiffman, previously Professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies, New York University, Skirball Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies, now Vice Provost of Yeshiva University.

Dr. Schiffman's name was the subject of illegal and criminal misconduct by Raphael Golb. Your website has been provided to me as one of the locations where the criminal postings occurred.

Please confirm that within five (5) work days of the date of this email the following will occur:

1. Complete removal of the blog material;
2. Removal of index entries on search engines;
3. Cancellation of fraudulent email accounts;
4. Removal of any other mention or reference to Dr. Schiffman by Mr. Golb or anyone responding to him.

We will need your certification as to all efforts made to expunge the material.

I enclose as Exhibit 1 news release by the office of Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau announcing the arrest of the 49-year-old Raphael Golb for creating multiple aliases to engage in the campaign of impersonation and harassment relating to the Dead Sea Scrolls and scholars of opposing viewpoints. Mr. Golb was arrested on charges of identity theft, criminal impersonation, and aggravated harassment.

I am also enclosing as Exhibit 2 letter from Director, Witness Aid Services Unit, District Attorney of the County of New York, providing a temporary order of protection which the court issued in the aforementioned criminal case.

I am advised that Mr. Golb has been convicted and appeals denied. Unfortunately, there continue to be current blogs containing Golb's fabricated story, as though Dr. Schiffman acknowledged or admitted some wrongdoing. I am enclosing not only a variety of sampling but also the platform, address and the blog as well as URLs.

Please contact me as soon as possible at ...

The offending post at Volokh contained nothing more than a quote of the People v. Golb opinion and a First Amendment analysis of the decision. (Interestingly, considering the threats, Volokh agreed with the decision that found in favor of Schiffman.) Greenfield's post was a bit more in depth and was written as the case was headed to court.

Volokh's reaction was to break one of his own rules:

The e-mail from Mr. Rieders of course offers no explanation of how this is a "criminal posting[]," because of course it isn't. Fortunately, I can tell that there is absolutely zero basis for the demand letter; other recipients of the e-mail might not be so lucky.

I generally do not publish letters sent to me, but unfounded demands such as this are an exception. This is especially so because demonstrating the unsoundness of the lawyer's argument requires showing the entirety of the letter — both the particular language that the letter included ("criminal postings," the demand for "[c]omplete removal of the blog material," the demand for "[r]emoval of any other mention or reference to Dr. Schiffman by Mr. Golb or anyone responding to him," and so on) and what the letter didn't include (any specific explanation for why the material would indeed be legally actionable).

In any event, I'm happy to certify that no efforts whatsoever will be made to expunge the material in that blog post; my response to Mr. Rieders and Prof. Schiffman will be a link to this post.

Greenfield's response is nearly identical. (Nearly.)

Eugene is much nicer than I am. Had he not calmly and succinctly explained the email's massive failing, I would have been constrained to respond, bite me. I am happy to say that because of Eugene's parsing of the unfounded email, I can maintain my dignity, merely refer to Eugene's response, and add, "what he said."

So, what he said. Asshole.

At this point, Ken White at Popehat (never one to suffer "feckless legal bullies") stepped in and attempted to divine who was behind these legal threats and ascertain their rationale for shooting their own client in the foot.

Dear Mr. Rieders,

I am an attorney in Los Angeles, a member of the First Amendment Lawyers Association, and write at a blog called www.popehat.com regarding various legal matters, particularly including free speech and legal threats based on online comment.

Today I noticed two posts — one by Eugene Volokh, and one by Scott Greenfield — discussing legal threats you have sent.

Are you willing to answer questions about those threats? I am planning on writing a post about them, and would like to solicit your position first.

My questions are these:

1. Did you actually draft this threatening email yourself, or was it some underling?

2. Did you actually select the recipients of the letter, or were the targets selected by some automation, or by a non-lawyer?

3. I ask #2 because I am attempting to grasp, in looking at Professor Volokh's post about the Golb matter (http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/29/no-first-amendment-violation-in-e-mail-impersonation-case/), how Professor Volokh's analysis of a published appellate case could possibly be actionable in any way, let alone "criminal."

4. What is your theory on how a discussion of the allegations against Mr. Golb — including allegations that he wronged your client, Mr. Schiffman — could be actionable or "criminal"? Is it your position that your theory has any support in any legal authority accessible to the general public?

5. I recognize that you would not be so unprofessional as to disclose your confidential communication with a particular client. Therefore, let me frame my next series of questions as follows: Are you familiar with the Streisand Effect? Is it your practice to advise clients, before sending out extravagant legal threats demanding the removal of information about them from the internet, about the risks posed by the Streisand Effect — the risk that your threats will result in the challenged content being seen by several orders of magnitude more people? Is it your practice to advise clients that there may be particular risks in threatening bloggers with popular blogs known for being vigorous supporters of the First Amendment?

6. Do you believe that your representation of Mr. Schiffman in the course of making these threats falls within the standard of care for attorneys in your community?
Any response you would like to offer would be appreciated, and will be incorporated into my post commenting on your threats.

Thanks,
Ken White

White received this in response:

I have no idea what you are talking about, who you are or who you represent. Please therefor, [sic] do not respond again [sic]

White and a couple of his readers went digging for who was actually behind these threats and found, unsurprisingly, that it was someone at the Rieders Travis law firm, as all the emails were sent from the same originating IP address. It seems rather unlikely that the same person who sent the original threatening emails would have "no idea" what Ken was talking about. Unless, of course, someone was generating fake email addresses and impersonating members of the Rieder Travis legal team, but that would just be insanely ironic considering the original subject matter.

The implications of these baseless legal threats for the threatening party are potentially huge. Both Ken White and Scott Greenfield mention the Streisand Effect. Apparently, Cliff Rieders (the person purportedly sending the ill-advised emails) is unfamiliar with the term. If he was, perhaps he wouldn't have bothered irritating this trio of bloggers, because what he's unleashing is going to do quite a bit of harm to his client's interests.

White and Greenfield both have updated their posts to include the news that the Supreme Court in California has granted review of Golb's conviction. The order granting leave to appeal is dated March 11th. The threatening emails arrived on March 13th. This order directly contradicts Cliff Rieders' statement in the last paragraph of his email.

I am advised that Mr. Golb has been convicted and appeals denied.

It certainly looks as though someone's trying to whitewash the web in advance of an appeals hearing. White theorizes that Rieders is blasting out identical emails to anyone who turns up in a rudimentary Google search for Schiffman and Golb. If this was a targeted takedown effort, Rieders likely would have avoided these blogs, choosing to go after more complicit writers. Unfortunately for Rieders and his client, he threatened the wrong people and his clumsy efforts are being debated in the court of public opinion. On top of that, the posts he wanted removed will remain live. Now, he and his client will be linked to unflattering stories about baseless legal threats, leading to even more bloggers pushing back against the takedown attempts.

It's the Streisand Effect and the only way to win is not to play. Many participants aren't even aware they're playing until it's too late. A full withdrawal of the threats, along with an apology, is about the only way to limit the damage. But, if the past is any indication, this will probably get a lot worse for Rieders (and more entertaining for the rest of us) before it gets any better.

Filed Under: clifford rieders, eugene volokh, free speech, lawrence schiffman, legal threats, norman golb, raphael golb, scott greenfield