DOJ's Facebook Warrants Target Thousands Of Users For Protesting Inauguration

from the round-up-the-usual-social-media-accounts dept

The ACLU is going to court to fight government warrants seeking info on thousands of Facebook users who interacted with a Facebook page related to Inauguration Day protests. The resulting arrests have generated several extremely broad search warrants seeking communications and other personal information from Facebook and the protest site's hosting provider.

For awhile, the targets of these warrants could only be guessed at, thanks to the gag order attached to the Facebook warrants. The gag order was finally lifted by the DOJ less than a day before it was due in court for oral arguments. It wasn't Facebook securing a win so much as it was the government avoiding a loss -- a possibly-precedential ruling on gag orders in Washington, DC courts.

The fight goes on, with the charged protesters -- and Facebook itself -- fighting the overbroad warrants.Thanks to the last-minute lifting of the gag order, the targeted protesters are fully aware of the government's efforts. More importantly, they're able to participate in challenging the warrants before the government takes possession of their personal data.

Paul Levy of Public Citizen points to the latest filing by the ACLU, and makes it clear there's a lot of personal info at stake.

Lacy MacAuley and Legba Carrefour… were identified on the DisruptJ20.org web site as media contacts for that web site. The demand for a search of the DisruptJ20 Facebook page is troublesome for the same reason that the demand for the search of the DisruptJ20.org web site threatens First Amendment values — even if we assume that some member of the grouping that called itself DisruptJ20 organizers was at the same time secretly plotting a riot, that not should be a basis for subjecting everybody who was in touch with the DisruptJ20 Facebook page to investigation by Trump Administration prosecutors.

The demand to search the Facebook accounts of MacAuley and Carrefour is even more troubling. Individual Facebook accounts often contain highly personal matters, and if political opponents of the Trump Administration know that they can too easily have their entire Facebook accounts searched just because it turns out that some coalition of which they were a part included somebody who was secretly planning a riot, the chilling effect on future participation in anti-Trump political activity could be substantial.

The chilling effect -- and the demands for data -- go much further than these two individuals. A third warrant seeks access to info on the DisruptJ20 Facebook page. With this warrant, the government can obtain data on thousands of Facebook users.

Although the page is public, the warrant would require the disclosure of non-public lists of people who planned to attend political organizing events and even the names of people who simply liked, followed, reacted to, commented on, or otherwise engaged with the content on the Facebook page. During the three-month span the search warrant covers, approximately 6,000 Facebook users liked the page.

This echoes the tactics used by the DOJ against Dreamhost. The warrant served to the service provider originally asked for info on all visitors to the DisruptJ20 site -- 1.3 million users in total. These expansive demands create a massive chilling effect. Any activists and event organizers could easily have their digital lives turned upside down simply by visiting pages and websites the government chooses to target post-demonstration. The warrant for visitors to the Facebook page may only seek a list of visitors, but it's likely the first step in seeking additional warrants to gather a wealth of personal info on people who did nothing more than "like" a Facebook page.

What the government wants on the two charged demonstrators is... everything. The warrants [PDF] not only ask for everything they've posted to Facebook, but the contents of private messages, any Facebook searches they've performed, deleted posts/comments, and any pending or rejected Friend requests.

The ACLU is trying to quash these warrants on behalf of the targets, but it first has to get the DC criminal court's official invitation. Its motion to quash/intervene [PDF] is currently awaiting the court's examination.

It's unusual basic rioting charges have resulted in a Fourth Amendment battle, but that's how much social media has shifted the way we communicate. As we spend more and more time online, the government is going to be showing less and less interest in our physical houses and papers. And even as the government avails itself of vastly-increased amounts of personal information, it's keeping its own houses/file cabinets locked up tight: Post-demonstration rioting charges are standard operating procedure for law enforcement agencies, which makes you wonder what they're trying to hide behind gag orders and sealed dockets.

Filed Under: doj, free speech, gag order, inauguration, protests, warrants
Companies: facebook

Rohingya Ethnic Cleansing (Once Again) Demonstrates Why Demanding Platforms Censor Bad Speech Creates Problems

from the happens-again-and-again dept

We keep pointing to examples like this, but the examples are getting starker and more depressing. Lots of people keep arguing that internet platforms (mainly Facebook) need to be more aggressive in taking down "bad" speech -- often generalized under the term "hate speech." But, as we've pointed out, that puts tremendous power into the hands of those who determine what is "hate speech." And, while the calls for censorship often come from minority communities, it should be noted that those in power have a habit of claiming criticism of the powerful is "hate speech." Witness the news from Burma that Rohingya activists have been trying to document ethnic cleansing, only to find Facebook deleting all their posts. When questioned about this, Facebook (after a few days) claimed that the issue was that these posts were coming from a group it had designated a "dangerous organization."

So, is it a dangerous organization or a group of activists fighting against ethnic cleansing? Like many of these things, it depends on which side you stand on. As the saying goes, one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. And this just highlights the tricky position that Facebook has taken on -- often at the urging of people who demand that it block certain content. Facebook shouldn't be the ones determining who's a terrorist v. who's a freedom fighter and when we keep asking the site to be that final arbiter, we're only inviting trouble.

The real issue is how we've built up these silos of centralized repositories of information -- rather than actually taking advantage of the distributed web. In the early days of the web, everyone controlled their own web presence, for the most part. You created your own site and posted your own content. Yes, there were still middlemen and intermediaries, but there were lots of options. But centralizing all such content onto one giant platform and then demanding that platform regulate the content -- these kinds of problems are going to happen again and again and again.

Filed Under: activism, burma, censorship, filters, free speech, freedom, platforms, rohingya, terorrism
Companies: facebook

Turkish President Claims Jailed Journalists Are Actually Terrorists

from the wobbles-so-much-you-can't-even-call-it-'spin' dept

Turkish president Recep Erdogan is at it again. Not content to merely be viewed as a megalomaniacal, ring-coveting authoritarian, Erdogan is using his time in mixed company to assure the world he's angling for the title of "tyrant."

Erdogan's long history of abusing laws to shut critics up has been covered extensively here. He's gone from a comical but dangerous politician to the leading abuser of his own constituents in record time. When not attempting to push foreign countries to play by his censorship rules, Erdogan is locking up dissidents and journalists at an alarming rate.

Of course, they're not journalists… at least not when Erdogan's telling the story. While speaking at the Bloomberg Global Business Forum in New York City, the Turkish president had this to say about the journalists in his country's jails.

You have been misled, Erdogan told Bloomberg News editor-in-chief John Micklethwait, who interviewed him on stage. "The ones who have been sentenced, who have been imprisoned, are not journalists. Most of them are terrorists."

Define "terrorist." In the wrong hands/minds, the word "terrorist" could be used to describe anyone threatening to the party in power, even if nothing more dangerous than words or thoughts have been deployed. I have no doubt Erdogan believes journalists are terrorists, even if they've never done anything more than criticize him and his policies.

But Erdogan at least went into a little more detail about this claim. He explained the vast amount of terrorism participated in by the terrornalists he's tossed in his jails.

"Many have been involved in burglaries and some have been caught red handed as they were trying to empty ATM machines."

Odd. That sounds more like normal criminal activity. It does not sound like terrorism. I realize terrorists need to fund their activities, but this doesn't sound like terrorist acts. This sounds like bog standard theft.

So, these journalists Erdogan calls "terrorists" (because of their alleged burglaries) remain in jail. There's at least 150 still imprisoned, according to the Quartz article. But that's not the limit of Erdogan's abuse of the press. Erdogan shut down hundreds of media outlets in an initial assault on the press, following it up with mass arrests. A few thousand journalist were swept up by Erdogan's post-coup-attempt purge, most of whom ended up with no place to work and no press credentials to use.

After this, Erdogan went on to make many more counterfactual statements, including claiming he doesn't take proactive steps to stifle criticism and spinning the beatings handed out by his bodyguards during his visit to the White House as an all-out assault by crazed anti-Turkey Americans while US law enforcement officers stood idly by.

These are all hallmarks of a sociopathic authoritarian -- the type of person who always believes they're right even when the rest of the world agrees they're wrong. His sweeping away of facts with provably untrue statements shows he really doesn't care if anyone believes him, but will still do everything in his power to make sure those that don't believe can't be heard.

Filed Under: authoritarian, dictator, free speech, gollum, journalists, recep tayyip erdogan, terrorism, turkey

EFF, ACLU Sue Government Over Warrantless Electronic Searches At The Border

from the still-in-US-territory,-but-none-of-your-rights-apply dept

If all goes well, we might have the US border join the rest of the United States in recognizing citizens' Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court's Riley decision made it clear law enforcement needed to obtain warrants before searching people's cellphones. Unfortunately, the so-called "border exception" -- upheld by at least one court -- says securing the border is more important than recognizing people's rights.

The EFF and ACLU -- along with the 10 US citizens and one permanent resident they're representing -- are suing DHS, CBP, and ICE for violating the Constitutional rights of the plaintiffs by warrantlessly searching their devices. Not only did the government search their devices, but in some cases, held onto the devices for weeks. One plaintiff's phone is still in the hands of the CBP, having originally been taken from the plaintiff in January.

The filing [PDF] provides details of the plaintiffs' interaction with government agents at US borders. All plaintiffs were taken to secondary screening where they were coerced into handing over their devices and, in some cases, passwords. This is all being done with zero articulable suspicion or probable cause. Agents imply devices will be returned sooner if those they've detained are compliant. But even complicity can result in citizens having to leave their devices in the hands of the government.

Even when travelers comply with officers’ demands to unlock their devices or provide their device passwords, officers sometimes confiscate the devices anyway. For example, even though Ms. Alasaad provided the password to her phone, and CBP officers had already searched Mr. Alasaad’s unlocked phone, officers still confiscated both of the couple’s phones. CBP kept both phones for approximately 15 days.

These lengthy device confiscations cause significant harm. Many travelers, including Plaintiffs, rely on their electronic devices for their work and livelihoods, as well as for communicating with family members. Losing access to electronic devices and the information they contain for extended periods of time can disrupt travelers’ personal and professional lives. Confiscation of electronic devices is especially harmful to those who need, but do not have or cannot afford, replacement devices, and those who need but did not back up stored data.

As a result, the plaintiffs have spent thousands of dollars replacing devices the government kept without offering a legitimate law enforcement/national security reason for doing so. As the lawsuit points out, this type of behavior is unconstitutional.

When CBP and ICE officers confiscate electronic devices pursuant to their policies and practices for the purpose of searching those devices’ content, such confiscations violate the Fourth Amendment in at least three distinct ways:

a. First, these confiscations are not justified at their inception when they are affected absent probable cause.

b. Second, these confiscations are excessive in scope, because officers confiscate not just the locked devices they are unable to search at the port of entry, but also the unlocked devices they are able to search and that they sometimes have already searched.

c. Third, these confiscations are excessive in duration where the duration of confiscation of locked devices is unreasonable in relation to the time actually needed to search the devices.

In addition to the Fourth Amendment violations, there are also concerns about the First. A few of those participating in this lawsuit are journalists. CBP officers not only searched their phones, but questioned them directly about sources and subjects.

Even the plaintiffs who aren't journalists have valid First Amendment complaints. If the government's going to demand access to writings, photos, videos, and other forms of expression stored on electronic devices, this limits future expressive acts. People whose devices have been seized and searched are less likely to give the government as much to dig through the second time around. This means less writing, fewer photos, and steering clear of any artistic creation the government might somehow misconstrue as threatening, criminal, or simply critical of rote government abuse.

As the plaintiffs point out, these searches aren't Constitutional, but they are allowed by DHS and CBP policies -- which state agents may search and seize phones without reasonable suspicion. To that end, the lawsuit asks the court to find the policies officially unconstitutional and ban the government from searching devices at the border without a warrant.

It's a long shot, given the judicial branch's general deference to all things national security-related. But it will be nice to see the government explain how the Supreme Court's Riley decision somehow doesn't apply to American citizens just because they're entering or leaving the country.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, 4th amendment, border exception, border searches, cbp, computers, doj, ice, phones, warrantless searches
Companies: aclu, eff

Critic-Raiding Sheriff Settles With Bloggers Who Sued Him Over His Unconstitutional Actions

from the fun-things-happen-when-immunity-is-denied dept

Now that Terre Bonne Parish sheriff Jerry Larpenter has had his immunity stripped by a federal court, it appears he's ready to pay up to keep the damages from mounting. Sheriff Larpenter abused a terrible law -- Louisiana's still-on-the-books-for-some-reason criminal defamation law -- to harass a critic of his. On the way to getting slapped by the court, Larpenter went judge-shopping (bringing his warrant to an off-duty judge) for someone willing to sign his unconstitutional warrant -- a judge who later found the warrant with his signature on it to be perfectly legal.

The state court of appeals shot down Larpenter's warrant. The inevitable civil suit that followed found Larpenter being de-immunized in successive decisions, leaving him to actually bear some responsibility for his act of censorship.

Elizabeth Nolan Brown reports Larpenter is now making nice with Jennifer and Wayne Anderson, the couple targeted by the sheriff for their criticism. The Andersons had their home raided by Larpenter's deputies, who seized every electronic device they could find, including the Andersons' childrens' laptop.

Larpenter has reached a settlement in the civil suit filed against him by Jennifer and Wayne Anderson, whose home was raided by Larpenter's deputies in 2016 after Jennifer blogged critically about the sheriff.

"I think the sheriff's finally learned that he can't bully people and violate people's constitutional rights," Wayne, a Houma police officer, told local station WWLTV. "In our case, he stepped on the wrong people's constitutional rights because we knew our rights. Hopefully, he thinks twice the next time he gets his feelings hurt."

If Larpenter is going to think twice, it will be because a federal court -- in no uncertain terms -- told him he travelled far outside Constitutional confines and the boundaries of his job to harass a critic. The decision opened with this memorable line:

Some qualified immunity cases are hard. This case is not one of them.

It went on from there to explain there was no legal precedent that offered cover for his actions, pointing out no reasonable law enforcement officer could possibly believe abusing a statute already found unconstitutional could possibly be Constitutional.

The Andersons have already received $50,000 from Terre Bonne Parish for its participation in this debacle. The amount of Larpenter's settlement is still undisclosed.

Despite all of this, there's been no action taken by Terre Bonne Parish to punish Sheriff Larpenter for his actions. This will hopefully be corrected. $50,000 has already been transferred from the parish to the Andersons for his 1st and 4th Amendment violations, and it's unclear who will actually be paying for the most recent settlement. Someone who thinks they can use the powers granted to them by constituents to engage in foolhardy witch hunts against critics can't be trusted to impartially handle the job of law and order.

Filed Under: criticism, defamation, free speech, harassment, intimidation, jennifer anderson, jerry larpenter, slapp, terre bonne, wayne anderson

Screen Actors Guild Tells Court There's Nothing Unconstitutional About Curbing IMDB's Publication Of Facts

from the beneficiaries-of-free-speech-protections-ask-for-less-free-speech dept

Because ageism is allegedly rampant in Hollywood, California legislators have decided to address the problem head on not at all. Instead of enforcing on-the-books laws against employment discrimination, the legislature -- backed by the Screen Actors Guild -- has decided some of the First Amendment has to go. It has crafted a new law to fight ageism in Hollywood studios… by targeting a popular movie database. In California, A + B = WTF.

The law -- currently blocked by an injunction -- forbids third-party sites with paid subscribers from publishing certain facts about actors and actresses. The only fact at issue is their age. And, despite lawmakers pretending the stupid, unconstitutional law targets a variety of websites, it's really only having an effect on one: IMDb.

This failure of a law stems from a failure of a lawsuit brought by actress Junie Hoang, who blamed her lack of starring roles on IMDb publishing her real age. She wanted $1 million in damages, apparently expecting IMDb to subsidize her next 500 years of denied acting opportunities. (Discovery during the suit revealed Hoang made less than $2000/year from acting.)

The Fail Train rolls on with the Screen Actors Guild offering its full-throated approval of First Amendment limitations, as Elizabeth Nolan Brown reports.

In its own motion, SAG-AFTRA complained that IMDB "contends it has an absolute First Amendment right to disseminate the ages of everyone in Hollywood, consequences be damned, and no matter how much or little value such expression has in the marketplace of ideas." But "so long as the communication of the age of persons in the entertainment industry writ large facilitates illegal age discrimination, such expression may be regulated consistent with the First Amendment even though specific communications might not be discriminatory."

Note that the Actors Guild doesn't claim that IMDb publishes age information that's false, nor that it publishes true information obtained in an illegal manner. Rather SAG-AFTRA asserts that IMDb somehow has a legal responsibility to help actors obtain work by concealing their ages; that the state has the ability to judge what kinds of content have "value" in the "marketplace of ideas"; and that information of "little value" can be banned.

The motion is filled with terrible arguments. But considering its conceit, where else could it go? When you start with the premise the best fix for ageism at movie studios is targeting a third-party website, there's really no room for logic or coherent arguments. Add to that the fact that actors are actively calling for free speech restrictions, and you've got an elliptical mess on your hands -- one that makes the argument the state can be trusted to determine what speech has "value."

SAG's opening salvo names and shames the real parties responsible for ageism…

Plaintiff's website publishes everyone's age regardless of whether it is relevant to any public issue at all, and does so without any comment or context. This is not an invitation to public debate. Rather, it is an open invitation for casting directors to engage in illegally discriminatory conduct…

...before moving on to spend the rest of the brief arguing that its IMDb's fault casting directors engage in illegal discriminatory conduct.

As set forth in the Declaration of Marilyn Szatmary filed concurrently herewith, there is massive age discrimination in the entertainment industry and IMDb.com facilitates that discrimination as the go-to website for casting decisions.

Publishing ages doesn't "facilitate discrimination." Nothing forces studios to participate in discriminatory hiring practices… at least nothing outside the studios themselves. Other sites without paid subscribers are still free to publish actors' ages. At least with IMDb, paid subscribers can ask to have this information removed. Other sites not targeted by this legislation (which, in reality, is every other site but IMDb) have no obligation to remove factual information from their sites.

The brief does nothing to convince anyone the law is Constitutional. All it does is make it clear SAG would rather bite the hand that feeds info to studios than the hand that feeds its members acting jobs. It's bad legislation lawmakers allowed themselves to be talked into and it should be struck down permanently by the time this is all said and done. SAG's support for the blocked bill is intellectually dishonest. The problem lies in the studios, not outside websites, no matter how much studios may rely on IMDb to do its hiring homework for them.

Filed Under: age discrimination, ages, california, facts, first amendment, free speech, hollywood, imdb, junie hoang
Companies: amazon, screen actors guild

Police Chief Says He'll Decide Who Is Or Isn't A Real Journalist

from the anyone-disagreeing-will-be-put-on-the-'isn't'-list dept

Good news, citizens. The police are here to tell you who the real journalists are.

Sheboygan's Police Chief, Chris Domagalski, corrects errors in a story circulating on social media this week, accusing his department of withholding information from the community. The story involved the arrest of a Sheboygan man facing several felony drug charges, resisting arrest, and biting an officer at Erie and North 14th Street.

[...]

Domagalski, armed with facts, and the law, spoke out about the accusations, encouraging the community to be very careful about where they get their news - saying "Because you have a website and a facebook page, does not make you a journalist. When you engage in repeated unethical conduct, your character is revealed, and people should weigh that in their decision about whether they rely on you for news."

This is true… partly. A website and a Facebook page does not automatically make someone a journalist. But having only a website and a Facebook page does not disqualify someone from being a journalist. There are plenty of journalists out there who've never written anything on a printed page. There are plenty of people committing journalism without ever intending to, and a lot of that revolves around requesting public records.

The journalist, who Chief Domagalski says isn't one, wrote an article about this arrest, suggesting the refusal to turn over recordings of the arrest was a sign of more widespread misconduct within the force.

There's not enough information out there to state definitively which side of the story is more credible. It must be noted there's no love shown for the unnamed "non-journalist" in this article's comment thread, suggesting someone who has aimed for muckraker but settled for constant annoyance.

Unfortunately, the writer for WHBL Radio seems inclined to consider only those who show tons of deference to police officials to be real journalists. Those that question the actions and motives of government entities are nothing more than non-journalist interlopers.

Some of that sentiment can be picked up in the first sentence of the second quoted paragraph:

Domagalski, armed with facts, and the law…

That's some credible stenography right there. Then again, someone without even a Facebook page or a website could have transcribed Domagalski's statement without pausing to infer the chief was wholly in the right.

There's more, though.

The Sheboygan Police Department has a number of different ways to communicate factual, verified information to the public, including services like Nixle, which will push information out as text messages or email, AND a service powered by LexisNexis, which provides real-time mapping of police calls within the city.   

They also maintain a social media presence on facebook and twitter, and communicate regularly with credible journalists in Sheboygan, who can accurately communicate important information about the community with the public.

Apparently, people employed by WHBL will also be determining who is or isn't a "credible journalist." Defined in these surrounding terms, it will be those who publish whatever the PD provides, even if it appears to contradict what has been captured on video or gleaned from public records.

I prefer my journalists to show distance, rather than deference, when covering controversial incidents involving public servants. And I don't give a damn if the journalists I read have nothing more than a Wordpress blog and a Muckrock account. What I find less than credible is coverage of police press conferences that read like low-key fan fiction -- especially ones that idolize authority figures while trotting out self-congratulatory prose. The police chief is implying he prefers deference in his journalists, and WHBL is only too happy to comply.

Filed Under: chris domagalski, free speech, journalism, police, sheboygan, wisconsin

Case Dismissed: Judge Throws Out Shiva Ayyadurai's Defamation Lawsuit Against Techdirt

from the the-first-amendment-means-something dept

As you likely know, for most of the past nine months, we've been dealing with a defamation lawsuit from Shiva Ayyadurai, who claims to have invented email. This is a claim that we have disputed at great length and in great detail, showing how email existed long before Ayyadurai wrote his program. We pointed to the well documented public history of email, and how basically all of the components that Ayyadurai now claims credit for preceded his own work. We discussed how his arguments were, at best, misleading, such as arguing that the copyright on his program proved that he was the "inventor of email" -- since patents and copyrights are very different, and just because Microsoft has a copyright on "Windows" it does not mean it "invented" the concept of a windowed graphical user interface (because it did not). As I have said, a case like this is extremely draining -- especially on an emotional level -- and can create massive chilling effects on free speech.

A few hours ago, the judge ruled and we prevailed. The case has been dismissed and the judge rejected Ayyadurai's request to file an amended complaint. We are certainly pleased with the decision and his analysis, which notes over and over again that everything that we stated was clearly protected speech, and the defamation (and other claims) had no merit. This is, clearly, a big win for the First Amendment and free speech -- especially the right to call out and criticize a public figure such as Shiva Ayyadurai, who is now running for the US Senate in Massachusetts. We're further happy to see the judge affirm that CDA Section 230 protects us from being sued over comments made on the blog, which cannot be attributed to us under the law. We talk a lot about the importance of CDA 230, in part because it protects sites like our own from these kinds of lawsuits. This is just one more reason we're so concerned about the latest attempt in Congress to undermine CDA 230. While those supporting the bill may claim that it only targets sites like Backpage, such changes to CDA 230 could have a much bigger impact on smaller sites like our own.

We are disappointed, however, that the judge denied our separate motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP law. For years, we've discussed the importance of strong anti-SLAPP laws that protect individuals and sites from going through costly legal battles. Good anti-SLAPP laws do two things: they stop lawsuits early and they make those who bring SLAPP suits -- that is, lawsuits clearly designed to silence protected speech -- pay the legal fees. The question in this case was whether or not California's anti-SLAPP law should apply to a case brought in Massachusetts. While other courts have said that the state of the speaker should determine which anti-SLAPP laws are applied (even in other states' courts), it was an issue that had not yet been ruled upon in the First Circuit where this case was heard. While we're happy with the overall dismissal and the strong language used to support our free speech rights, we're nevertheless disappointed that the judge chose not to apply California's anti-SLAPP law here.

However, that just reinforces the argument we've been making for years: we need stronger anti-SLAPP laws in many states (including Massachusetts) and, even more importantly, we need a strong federal anti-SLAPP law to protect against frivolous lawsuits designed to silence protected speech. The results of this case have only strengthened our resolve to do everything possible to continue to fight hard for protecting freedom of expression and to push for stronger anti-SLAPP laws that make free speech possible, and not burdensome and expensive.

You have not heard the last from us on the issue of the First Amendment, free speech and anti-SLAPP laws -- or how some try to use the court system to silence and bully critics. Step one of this is our new Free Speech edition, which we announced just a few weeks ago, where we are focusing more of our reporting efforts on issues related to free speech and anti-SLAPP. We intend to do a lot more as well. For years, we've talked about these issues from the position of an observer, and now we can talk about them from the perspective of someone who has gone through this process as well.

Of course, if you have to face something like this, it helps to have great lawyers--and we're immensely grateful for the incredible hard-work of Rob Bertsche, Jeff Pyle and Thomas Sutcliffe along with the rest of the team at their firm, Prince Lobel Tye LLP.

Finally, I can't even begin to thank everyone who has supported us over the past nine months -- whether by kind words (you don't know how much that helped!) or through our survival fund at ISupportJournalism.com or by becoming a Techdirt Insider. We just passed Techdirt's 20th anniversary and while it's one thing to think that people like and support you, it's another thing altogether to see how people come out to support you when it matters most. And we were overwhelmed by the support we received over the past nine months, and the kind words and help that many, many people offered. It was beyond heartening, and, once again, it reinforces our resolve to continue to speak up for free speech and to do what we can to protect others' ability to speak out as well.

Filed Under: anti-slapp, defamation, email, first amendment, shiva ayyadurai
Companies: floor64, techdirt