Autoadmit Litigation Update
posted by Dave Hoffman
Keker & Van Nest has responded to ““AK47′s” motion to quash the subpoena seeking information about his identity. Looks like we’ll soon be seeing some exposure of the Autoadmit posters. As Mark Randazza puts it:
I must say that it was a whole lot of overkill. The same thing could have been accomplished in a one-line opposition “the issue is moot.” Apparently, AT&T has already outed AK47. Accordingly, the 29 page opposition is a bit puzzling.My guess is that KVN must be using this case as a “training exercise” for its younger attorneys. Otherwise, I can’t see why they would be going to the wasteful lengths they have thus far.
While you are over at Mark’s blog, be sure to download the letter allegedly sent by this defendant to the plaintiffs.
March 19, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Posted in: Law Student Discussions
Print This Post
Responses (7)
Rees P. - March 20, 2008 at 10:10 am
1. Don’t you think you should point out Randazza represents Anthony Ciolli, and is not a neutral observer?
2. Randazza and his porn industry clients want to pretend this is nothing, but this case is making important new law. New law which will make the nasty behavior of Randazza’a clients more actionable.
Marc J. Randazza - March 20, 2008 at 11:39 am
Replies:
1. I believe that it is well known that I *represented* Anthony Ciolli. He is no longer a party to this case. Thus, I believe that I am, indeed, a neutral observer. I do not have a dog in this fight anymore.
2. This response says more about you than it does about me or my clients. Is this case “making important new law?” How? So far, it has made nothing. The only “important new law” that could be made in this case would be if it resulted in an overturn or narrowing of Section 230. That would be awfully ironic given that the Plaintiffs’ lead counsel, Mark Lemley, is a member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s board.
I suppose it could also result in the legal landscape changing to make it more difficult to comment anonymously on a blog — a right that you seem to be basking in right now.
As far as the “nasty behavior” of my clients goes — which “clients” are you referring to?
Rees P. - March 20, 2008 at 12:41 pm
There will always be a right to anonymous speech, but it has never been an unlimited one, and this case may test those boundaries. Your vile porn clients feel free to write nasty, disgusting, prurient and false things about famous women, and to spam unwilling recipients with their filth, from behind pseudonyms. They are not immunized by 230, which you well know, or should know anyway, “Professor.”
Bruce Boyden - March 20, 2008 at 1:57 pm
My own interpretation of that letter: “Getting sued for defamation is not enough. Please have me enjoined!”
Marc J. Randazza - March 21, 2008 at 11:30 am
Your vile porn clients feel free to write nasty, disgusting, prurient and false things about famous women
Examples?
and to spam unwilling recipients with their filth, from behind pseudonyms
Ditto
not Rees P. - March 21, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I do not have a dog in this fight anymore.
Isn’t Ciolli suing the plaintiffs in this case, or does someone else represent him in that case?
Marc J. Randazza - March 21, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Ciolli is suing the plaintiffs. Someone else represents him in that matter.
The fact that I am not representing him in that matter should not imply that I don’t think that it has merit. The PA claims are beyond my expertise, and thus on that front I would lend little to the team.
Just as importantly, I am first and foremost a First Amendment attorney. Accordingly, while I could possibly have brought a lot to the table on the defamation and false light counts, I can’t bring myself to be counsel in a plaintiff-side defamation action — no matter how meritorious the case. That would place me in a position of having to balance the best interests of my client with the best interests of the Constitution. I am sworn to uphold and defend that document, and when I took that oath, I meant it with every bit of blood coursing through my heart.
Bottom line, I love my country more than I love my clients — so when those interests have the slightest potential to come into conflict, my country wins. I must, therefore, often turn down very strong, potentially profitable, and justified plaintiff’s side defamation actions.
I would, however, like to see Mr. Ciolli vindicated. What has happened to him was wrong, and I support him in his quest for justice. I just can’t be the man carrying the sword.
Leave a Reply