Suspicious court cases, missing defendants, aim to get webpages taken down(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Suspicious court cases, missing defendants, aim to get webpages taken down
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/10/dozens-of-suspicious-court-cases-with-missing-defendants-aim-at-getting-web-pages-taken-down-or-deindexed/?postshare=6791476107006382&tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.0143e0970aee
122 comments
I don't think it's technically the WaPo, because it's posted on a collaborative blog (marked opinion), so it's probably a personal initiative of Volokh (a law professor) and Levy (an attorney). See also http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016... for how it started.
That's where the tip started, but this excellent work wouldn't have happened without the Washington Post funding the blog itself.
Are you sure WaPo is funding them at all, not just hosting? It says here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/about/...) they are mostly law professors who write for themselves and retain their own editorial control. It used to be an independently hosted blog for a very long time too. That's why I said I think they did it on their own (nothing wrong with that sort of thing).
> We are sharing advertising revenue with the Post, but I’m pretty sure it won’t be much. Our hourly rate for our blogging time will remain pretty pathetic. We’re not in it for the money; if we were, we’d be writing briefs, not blog posts.
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
Sounds like this probably would have happened with or without the Post.
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
Sounds like this probably would have happened with or without the Post.
Good because WaPo is not a reputable source of information.
They're probably the most reputable & unbiased source of information.
How often do you read it? I recently moved to the DC area so the Post is my daily paper, and while I wouldn't read it if wasn't reputable, I don't think anybody can call it unbiased. It's not just the presidential campaign, they have clear, almost plainly stated bias in lots of areas. I'm fine with that, because it's not hidden and it's not so egregious that they report false stories or something, but the Post should not be your only source of news.
Are you joking? The Washington Post is one of the most left-leaning, biased papers in the country. They're not even subtle about it. Do you honestly not recognize this?
That depends on whether you saw the news about them holding illegal fundraisers or sending all their stories to the DNC for editorial review...
Source?
It's one of the leaked emails:
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2699
This site has a copy with more readable formatting:
http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/wikileaks-emails-clinton-berni...
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2699
This site has a copy with more readable formatting:
http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/wikileaks-emails-clinton-berni...
You should consider a career in comedy.
Volokh Conspiracy has been writing long before the Washington Post picked them up
The courts, justice system, and police are horrible by the standards of information access in the 21st century. If you are a victim in an incident, do you know how long it takes to get a copy of the police report? 10 business days. So it's entirely possible that someone who has a hearing for a restraining order, who may not realize that it may be in their interest to have a copy, to be caught flat-footed. And the personal experience of getting it may well be pretty bad as well. The clerk seems to talk to you like you're some scum -- as if you were the perpetrator. (And yes, I was polite, and yes, she knew I was the victim.) The reason for the delay -- they have to redact the private information of the assailant. How in the world does that take them 10 days? On top of all that, they insist that you bring correct change. Also, you will note that there is the typical bureaucratic nonchalance bordering on hostility in the lack of customer service. No attempt at greeting or showing you are noticed or matter in any way. No air of politeness, but even an undertone of contempt -- and that's being perhaps way too charitable. My overwhelming suspicion -- as someone who went to an Ivy League school -- is that I was being treated as "yet another brown person," and that if one of my classmates with a different appearance was present, they would have been treated differently. (Though they still would have had to wait 10 days to get a redacted copy of a sheaf of papers.)
And that's just one example. Such horribleness is all over those systems. I had a hearing get moved 40 miles away -- apparently en-masse because of a computer system change -- with no notification to myself or my lawyer. I didn't even find out about that until we showed up. Sure, the US system is fantastic compared to other places in the world and justice during the middle ages. However, there's still a lot to it that's horrible.
EDIT: The takeaway from this article, my experience, and from many accounts of the justice system in the US, is that it is good on the large contexts of the world and history. However, it's still capable of cruel and arbitrary effects that run drastically counter to reality. Many of these effects come as myriad little "bites" or as if one is fighting a current. And the direction of these effects is strongly influenced by perceived socioeconomic status and race. This is still not up to the point of "good governance."
And that's just one example. Such horribleness is all over those systems. I had a hearing get moved 40 miles away -- apparently en-masse because of a computer system change -- with no notification to myself or my lawyer. I didn't even find out about that until we showed up. Sure, the US system is fantastic compared to other places in the world and justice during the middle ages. However, there's still a lot to it that's horrible.
EDIT: The takeaway from this article, my experience, and from many accounts of the justice system in the US, is that it is good on the large contexts of the world and history. However, it's still capable of cruel and arbitrary effects that run drastically counter to reality. Many of these effects come as myriad little "bites" or as if one is fighting a current. And the direction of these effects is strongly influenced by perceived socioeconomic status and race. This is still not up to the point of "good governance."
I guess it depends where you live. When I needed a police report for a traffic accident and when my house was burglarized, I dropped by the station and had it in less than 20 minutes.
When you have problems with the "retail" side of government at any level, call your local councilman, alderman, or whatever. If they suck, call the police chief.
When you have problems with the "retail" side of government at any level, call your local councilman, alderman, or whatever. If they suck, call the police chief.
> My overwhelming suspicion -- as someone who went to an Ivy League school -- is that I was being treated as "yet another brown person,"
Isn't that the way it's supposed to be? It's an old concept: In the eyes of the law, people don't get special treatment depending on their social status.
Isn't that the way it's supposed to be? It's an old concept: In the eyes of the law, people don't get special treatment depending on their social status.
My point in including that piece of knowledge, is that I know what it's like when people have all sorts of different ideas about your socioeconomic background. I've been an Ivy brat. I've also been a homeless person. At the time of the events described, I am a well paid societal-normative upper middle class software engineer. I have first hand experience of when people are addressing me as a person of privilege, just another person, or an inferior scumbag. There is a tendency when I'm in the world of the justice/police system, for privileged people to automatically talk to me more like I'm a scumbag than I'm a normative person, but then I'll see the same someone take a different attitude when talking to someone privileged and "white."
So no, I'm not expressing disappointment that I'm not spoken to as a privileged person. I'm just wishing I was spoken to equally as a person.
So no, I'm not expressing disappointment that I'm not spoken to as a privileged person. I'm just wishing I was spoken to equally as a person.
I think the point is that people also shouldn't get special treatment because of their race, and should be treated courteously regardless of who they are. Poorly phrased on the part of the OP, but one of HN's norms is to apply the Principle of Charity and consider the best interpretation of a comment rather than the worst.
Unfortunately the law is implemented by regular ol' people who are given quite a bit of discretion.
Did you miss the part where they were treated worse because of their skin color?
Yes, because that part wasn't there, just the parent's unsubstantiated suspicion that racism was the likeliest explanation for an unpleasant experience in dealing with low-level government bureaucrats.
Be more careful in your reading. There is a certain way that people talk to someone they view as considerably inferior. The fact that people working in a place so quickly shift into that mode, even when it's at odds with the facts of the particular situation, is a very strong indicator that some sort of prejudice is at play. Whether or not it's racism, it's certainly not compatible with good governance.
> Yes, because that part wasn't there
Neither was the part where they expected "special treatment depending on their social status." You don't get to dismiss the author's suspicions as imaginary while elevating your own to fact.
Neither was the part where they expected "special treatment depending on their social status." You don't get to dismiss the author's suspicions as imaginary while elevating your own to fact.
That's a desirable goal, but hard to achieve. In the US, courts aren't just an administrative unit of government, like the DMV. They're an independent branch of government, organized as a distributed system. Individual courts have their own jurisdiction and are largely self-managed.
As a result, there isn't really anyone who can tell even all the federal courts, much less the state ones, to all plug into a central electronic filing system. Indeed, even though the federal courts all use the PACER software, each court actually maintains it's own system.
As a result, there isn't really anyone who can tell even all the federal courts, much less the state ones, to all plug into a central electronic filing system. Indeed, even though the federal courts all use the PACER software, each court actually maintains it's own system.
You can, in fact, search dockets on PACER across jurisdictions. The barrier isn't centralization; the barrier is that it costs $0.10 per page to view documents and search results.[0]
[0] https://www.wired.com/2016/05/problem-feds-profiting-off-cou...
[0] https://www.wired.com/2016/05/problem-feds-profiting-off-cou...
It was 2008 when Aaron Swartz starting trying to free those public documents. A shame there doesn't seem to have been any progress.
[deleted]
> As a result, there isn't really anyone who can tell even all the federal courts, much less the state ones, to all plug into a central electronic filing system.
Congress can, in fact, do that for federal courts; as for state courts, its true that there is no one body that can, but Congress has been very successful in the past at getting fairly good national compliance with programs that are outside of its ability to mandate by setting rules and providing implementation and maintenance funds to states who choose to follow the rules; there's no reason why this couldn't work with court record systems.
Congress can, in fact, do that for federal courts; as for state courts, its true that there is no one body that can, but Congress has been very successful in the past at getting fairly good national compliance with programs that are outside of its ability to mandate by setting rules and providing implementation and maintenance funds to states who choose to follow the rules; there's no reason why this couldn't work with court record systems.
I didn't say it was impossible, just hard to achieve. I think getting an act of Congress (in an area where Congress historically has been loathe to legislate) qualifies.
> I didn't say it was impossible, just hard to achieve.
No, you said there was no one who can do it -- more specifially, you said that, as a result of the organizational structure of the US government, "there isn't really anyone who can tell even all the federal courts, much less the state ones, to all plug into a central electronic filing system."
In point of fact, there is someone who can tell the federal courts to do that, and while they can't actually tell the state courts to, they have a lever that they've been quite adept at using at the past that would likely get at least most state courts to comply were they to choose to.
Now, you can shift to arguing that the entity who could act has a historic lack of will in this area, but that's a very different argument than the absence of an entity with capacity to act.
No, you said there was no one who can do it -- more specifially, you said that, as a result of the organizational structure of the US government, "there isn't really anyone who can tell even all the federal courts, much less the state ones, to all plug into a central electronic filing system."
In point of fact, there is someone who can tell the federal courts to do that, and while they can't actually tell the state courts to, they have a lever that they've been quite adept at using at the past that would likely get at least most state courts to comply were they to choose to.
Now, you can shift to arguing that the entity who could act has a historic lack of will in this area, but that's a very different argument than the absence of an entity with capacity to act.
> No, you said there was no one who can do it -- more specifially, you said that, as a result of the organizational structure of the US government, "there isn't really anyone who can tell even all the federal courts, much less the state ones, to all plug into a central electronic filing system."
I think that's an accurate statement. There is no central administrative authority over the U.S. courts.[1] The chief judges of the courts are responsible for their administration, and the Administrative Office of the Courts serves a policymaking/support role. So there is no "CTO" that can impose a judiciary-wide IT policy like moving to a single electronic filing system. That's why every single court has a different website, runs a different PACER version, etc.
Sure, Congress can exercise its legislative powers to impose such a policy, but it can do lots of things that way.
[1] I don't know what authority Congress Constitutionally has over court administration. Apparently, before reforms in the 1930s, courts were administered through the executive branch.
I think that's an accurate statement. There is no central administrative authority over the U.S. courts.[1] The chief judges of the courts are responsible for their administration, and the Administrative Office of the Courts serves a policymaking/support role. So there is no "CTO" that can impose a judiciary-wide IT policy like moving to a single electronic filing system. That's why every single court has a different website, runs a different PACER version, etc.
Sure, Congress can exercise its legislative powers to impose such a policy, but it can do lots of things that way.
[1] I don't know what authority Congress Constitutionally has over court administration. Apparently, before reforms in the 1930s, courts were administered through the executive branch.
There is work being done on this. Both in terms of access to court opinions (which ought to be free but are often obscured via bureaucracy) and materials for people interested in learning about the law.
https://free.law/ https://github.com/freelawproject/courtlistener https://www.courtlistener.com/
Disclaimer: While I have no affiliation with this project, I am friends and former roommates of the Free Law Project's Director.
https://free.law/ https://github.com/freelawproject/courtlistener https://www.courtlistener.com/
Disclaimer: While I have no affiliation with this project, I am friends and former roommates of the Free Law Project's Director.
I know there's a few lawyers here. Assuming that these lawsuits were filed against non-existent defendants, and that the agreements from these "defendants" were actually written and submitted by the plaintiff -- What's the realistic punishment here? Would these false documents be sworn statements, and if so, would that put perjury on the table?
Disbarment for any lawyers. For pro se, they can, for example, ban them from filing lawsuits unless they meet certain conditions (like independent verification, etc).
All of this plus fraud (if they misrepresented what they would do) and criminal charges (because pretty much everything ever is against the law)
All of this plus fraud (if they misrepresented what they would do) and criminal charges (because pretty much everything ever is against the law)
All of which makes me wonder why these SEO/"reputation management" companies even bother with this, given all the risks. Are they seriously hoping that this won't be discovered or that they won't be punished?
> All of which makes me wonder why these SEO/"reputation management" companies even bother with this, given all the risks.
The companies all seem to be fronts for the same individual. Its not unheard of for one individual or a small group to come up with a moneymaking scam that involves exploiting the legal system when they believe that they have constructed enough cutouts (e.g., separate front companies) to protect themselves from liability (and maybe even identification.)
Consider, e.g., the case of Prenda Law. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenda_Law
The companies all seem to be fronts for the same individual. Its not unheard of for one individual or a small group to come up with a moneymaking scam that involves exploiting the legal system when they believe that they have constructed enough cutouts (e.g., separate front companies) to protect themselves from liability (and maybe even identification.)
Consider, e.g., the case of Prenda Law. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenda_Law
It's super hard to discover this.
It's not like courts require anything real real.
Even service of process is basically "affidavit i served a guy".
Since they are apparently doing it in states where they have guaranteed the person does not exist, who is going to argue?
Courts are pretty much the last people who ever would discover this. They entirely rely on their raw power to punish people to prospectively enforce decorum and rule, not investigation or auditing.
That is, they do not discover fraud easily or quickly, but when they discover fraud, it tends to go very much "not well" for the people involved.
Since they are apparently doing it in states where they have guaranteed the person does not exist, who is going to argue?
Courts are pretty much the last people who ever would discover this. They entirely rely on their raw power to punish people to prospectively enforce decorum and rule, not investigation or auditing.
That is, they do not discover fraud easily or quickly, but when they discover fraud, it tends to go very much "not well" for the people involved.
> Since they are apparently doing it in states where they have guaranteed the person does not exist, who is going to argue?
That's interesting. This may be a case where you are more secure if your name is common, such as John Smith, since I think the likelihood of finding a state without a John Smith in residence is fairly small.
That's interesting. This may be a case where you are more secure if your name is common, such as John Smith, since I think the likelihood of finding a state without a John Smith in residence is fairly small.
OTOH demonstrating that none of the John Smiths in the state are the one named in the paperwork might be more difficult.
I'm sure they thought they would get away with it since there isn't a real "victim" other than someone who may or may not remember leaving a negative review or comment and probably won't even notice it's gone missing. Honestly I'm impressed that anyone connected all the dots so quickly.
Your mistake is assuming behavior like this is rare. If a law firm has connections in the state bar, there is no force that will punish them besides media outlets. Even then, the law firm (or reputation management company) can sit through the storm until public interest fades. I think required electronic document filing with computers analyzing the cases is the best way to solve the widespread problem of lack of legal accountability.
This depends on the state.
There are states where "people helping clients commit fraud" gets you a suspension (new york).
There are states that take it more seriously, like maryland. http://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/2009/01/a_tale_of_tw...
(This is pretty extreme, but maryland does take bar complaints very seriously)
There are states that take it more seriously, like maryland. http://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/2009/01/a_tale_of_tw...
(This is pretty extreme, but maryland does take bar complaints very seriously)
Any lawyer or law firm who intentionally presented fabricated documents with forged signatures to a court under these circumstances would almost certainly be disbarred. Reputation management firms don't face that risk -- but they are subject to punishment in other ways.
Some people lack the ability to accurately assess the risks of their own actions, for a variety of reasons. Personality disorders, arrogance, institutional pressure, a long history of getting away with said risky behavior, can all cloud or utterly shatter the ability of someone to appreciate where the road they're on is most likely to lead.
They may completely appreciate the risks, however, and simply have judged it unlikely they would be caught.
I mean... isn't that the primary risk?
The article makes it sound like almost all of this is due to Richart Ruddie. In which case, the answer to your question is, they aren't. One person is, and now they've been found out.
I've met quite a few SEO folks that have exactly this mindset. They just hop from one short-sighted arbitrage opportunity to another.
If more than one person was involved, and the documents were electronically filed, RICO might be on the table: http://legalnewsline.com/stories/510989090-second-circuit-ru....
Kinda looks like this guy, who appears to responsible for at least a decent portion of the examples in the WaPo story, is a run of the mill scammer who has already been caught:
http://structuredsettlements.typepad.com/structured_settleme...
This is his LinkedIn profile. Another proud Stanford grad. https://www.linkedin.com/in/richartruddiestanford
http://structuredsettlements.typepad.com/structured_settleme...
This is his LinkedIn profile. Another proud Stanford grad. https://www.linkedin.com/in/richartruddiestanford
His linkedin claims he took 1 Stanford class, and the notes he claims he wrote were clearly written by someone else (it's on Sukru Burc Eryilmaz's personal page).
He went to Florida Atlantic University for his Bachelor's degree. He gets a nice headline in his education as Stanford, but he definitely did not attend for any degree.
He went to Florida Atlantic University for his Bachelor's degree. He gets a nice headline in his education as Stanford, but he definitely did not attend for any degree.
So he is... being creative with his education profile. Given what he is involved in now, that seems on par.
Perjury would be on the table. Fraud, too, maybe, against the actual owner of the content. At a minimum any lawyer involved would probably face disbarment for fraud upon the court; the fact that they're all pro se cases makes me suspicious that a lawyer might have been involved in drafting some boilerplate language but not involved in the actual litigation, but it'd be difficult to argue that, eg, the reputation management firm's general counsel didn't know what was going on.
In addition to the other theories, this seems to be the rare, submissible case of tortious abuse of process. With wide-open punitive damages, I would think.
[deleted]
Prenda Law took >6 years and nobody is in prison, what makes you think this will be any different?
> Prenda Law took >6 years and nobody is in prison, what makes you think this will be any different?
Well, for one thing, Prenda Law controlled the entities (or they were completely fictional) that were the plaintiffs in its cases, whereas the "reputation management firms" here are apparently filing cases with their reputation management clients as named plaintiffs which the clients apparently don't know about and don't approve, and object to once they are actually made aware of them. And they use the results to influence third parties besides the defendants, and the defendants aren't generally doing something that they want to hide from attention.
From the appearance of what is going on here, there are lots of reasons to think that this scam could blow up much faster on its perpetrators than Prenda Law measured from the first time someone noticed something funny going on.
Well, for one thing, Prenda Law controlled the entities (or they were completely fictional) that were the plaintiffs in its cases, whereas the "reputation management firms" here are apparently filing cases with their reputation management clients as named plaintiffs which the clients apparently don't know about and don't approve, and object to once they are actually made aware of them. And they use the results to influence third parties besides the defendants, and the defendants aren't generally doing something that they want to hide from attention.
From the appearance of what is going on here, there are lots of reasons to think that this scam could blow up much faster on its perpetrators than Prenda Law measured from the first time someone noticed something funny going on.
> the "reputation management firms" here are apparently filing cases with their reputation management clients as named plaintiffs which the clients apparently don't know about and don't approve, and object to once they are actually made aware of them
That's quite a leap from "don't want to take the fall".
That's quite a leap from "don't want to take the fall".
You're reading a lot more into my question than what I wrote. I don't expect anything -- I honestly wanted to know what the perpetrators of the given actions I listed would be facing as potential charges.
That being said, it looks like a good portion of the Prenda Law charges would probably also apply.
That being said, it looks like a good portion of the Prenda Law charges would probably also apply.
A particularly interesting buried lede in the article:
> And the possibility of such shenanigans bears on the Hassell v. Bird litigation that is now before the California Supreme Court: The issue there (see here and here) is whether takedown injunctions can actually be made legally binding on Internet platforms, rather than just being something that platforms choose whether to follow. The questionable nature of many such injunctions is reason to further insist that platforms not be legally bound by them.
That would be a major win, if successful.
> And the possibility of such shenanigans bears on the Hassell v. Bird litigation that is now before the California Supreme Court: The issue there (see here and here) is whether takedown injunctions can actually be made legally binding on Internet platforms, rather than just being something that platforms choose whether to follow. The questionable nature of many such injunctions is reason to further insist that platforms not be legally bound by them.
That would be a major win, if successful.
If "platforms [were not] legally bound by them" wouldn't that pose some serious difficulty for legitimate takedown injunctions?
I mean, sure it'd prevent fraudulent crap like the stuff that is going on in this article, but if someone had a real issue where they needed something taken down, it would never get taken down, right? So I think there needs to be a more involved solution than that. Otherwise we leave the door open for all sorts of nasty stuff to be posted and just left there for eternity to show up on the first page of search results.
I mean, sure it'd prevent fraudulent crap like the stuff that is going on in this article, but if someone had a real issue where they needed something taken down, it would never get taken down, right? So I think there needs to be a more involved solution than that. Otherwise we leave the door open for all sorts of nasty stuff to be posted and just left there for eternity to show up on the first page of search results.
> If "platforms [were not] legally bound by them" wouldn't that pose some serious difficulty for legitimate takedown injunctions?
The naming here is potentially misleading and contributes to the confusion. The "takedown injunctions" referred to are not orders by a court to an internet service to take down content (such injunctions can be issued in cases where the internet service is a party, and absolutely are binding.)
Instead, they are injunctions issued in cases where the creator of the content is the defendant (in theory, at least) and are directed at that creator to remove the content; they are then often used by those who initiated the lawsuit to support a request to the internet provider to take the content down.
If an internet service refuses to take down content that really violates some person's rights, a lawsuit against the internet service which generates an order directed against that service to remove the material is always an available means for a mandatory take down, that isn't in dispute.
The naming here is potentially misleading and contributes to the confusion. The "takedown injunctions" referred to are not orders by a court to an internet service to take down content (such injunctions can be issued in cases where the internet service is a party, and absolutely are binding.)
Instead, they are injunctions issued in cases where the creator of the content is the defendant (in theory, at least) and are directed at that creator to remove the content; they are then often used by those who initiated the lawsuit to support a request to the internet provider to take the content down.
If an internet service refuses to take down content that really violates some person's rights, a lawsuit against the internet service which generates an order directed against that service to remove the material is always an available means for a mandatory take down, that isn't in dispute.
> If an internet service refuses to take down content that really violates some person's rights, a lawsuit against the internet service which generates an order directed against that service to remove the material is always an available means for a mandatory take down, that isn't in dispute.
Exactly. I would argue that any court order that requires action by a party not named in the court case (and who thus has not had an opportunity to defend themselves in court and avail themselves of the many rights afforded to defendants) should always be non-binding and advisory, with the caveat that choosing to ignore it can and likely will be used as evidence in a lawsuit directly against that party.
Exactly. I would argue that any court order that requires action by a party not named in the court case (and who thus has not had an opportunity to defend themselves in court and avail themselves of the many rights afforded to defendants) should always be non-binding and advisory, with the caveat that choosing to ignore it can and likely will be used as evidence in a lawsuit directly against that party.
Thanks for the clarification. This makes a lot more sense to me now. So if Internet Service X is not ordered to take something down, but told that "[poster] was ordered to take something down", they should be allowed to ignore it. Seems like it'd solve the problem to me. (Especially since it wasn't [poster] but some name-a-like who may not exist.)
They are allowed to ignore the request. They don't, because once they have what appears to be a valid court order (even though the defendant is the creator, not the platform/ISP), it makes economic sense to take the content down (vs pay lawyers).
> If an internet service refuses to take down content that really violates some person's rights, a lawsuit against the internet service which generates an order directed against that service to remove the material is always an available means for a mandatory take down, that isn't in dispute.
Thanks to Section 230 of the CDA, it actually isn't an available means for a take down in cases where the content was posted by someone else. The reason this kind of third-party injunction is so important is because it's currently the only way to force uncooperative internet providers to take down defamatory content originally written and posted by someone else, some of which don't let the original author remove it. From what I can tell Eugene Volokh wants these websites to have their cake and eat it: he thinks they should have immunity from being sued to remove user-submitted content on the basis that they may not be treated as authors of it, and also immunity from being forced to take down the content in lawsuits against the original author because they must be treated as authors too.
Thanks to Section 230 of the CDA, it actually isn't an available means for a take down in cases where the content was posted by someone else. The reason this kind of third-party injunction is so important is because it's currently the only way to force uncooperative internet providers to take down defamatory content originally written and posted by someone else, some of which don't let the original author remove it. From what I can tell Eugene Volokh wants these websites to have their cake and eat it: he thinks they should have immunity from being sued to remove user-submitted content on the basis that they may not be treated as authors of it, and also immunity from being forced to take down the content in lawsuits against the original author because they must be treated as authors too.
> whether takedown injunctions can actually be made legally binding on Internet platforms, rather than just being something that platforms choose whether to follow
If they're not legally binding, what incentive do Internet platforms have to follow them? It seems like it adds work and overhead; so what strategic or economic or other goals would following non-legally-binding injunctions further?
If they're not legally binding, what incentive do Internet platforms have to follow them? It seems like it adds work and overhead; so what strategic or economic or other goals would following non-legally-binding injunctions further?
> If they're not legally binding, what incentive do Internet platforms have to follow them?
Third-party injunctions of the type at issue here (third-party in that the internet platform is not a party to the case) are usually followed by platforms to remove or deindex content because the existence of the third-party injunction provides more basis than a simple request to suspect that a direct lawsuit against the search company would also result in a direct injunction (which would be obligatory, in any case.)
Third-party injunctions of the type at issue here (third-party in that the internet platform is not a party to the case) are usually followed by platforms to remove or deindex content because the existence of the third-party injunction provides more basis than a simple request to suspect that a direct lawsuit against the search company would also result in a direct injunction (which would be obligatory, in any case.)
For Yelp, it's damaging to their core business to have false reviews, and depending on businesses alone to report false reviews is obviously insufficient.
Certainly you realize that buried lede is likely the reason the piece exists
Is the implication that this is only worth reporting about because of that case, and without the Supreme Court case this wouldn't have been reported at all? Or is it that it was only looked at in the first case because of the Supreme court case?
I don't think the former is likely, this seems like news any way I look at it. As for the latter, that's possible, but I'm not sure what makes you think it's likely. Or perhaps you're trying to state something else I'm missing?
I don't think the former is likely, this seems like news any way I look at it. As for the latter, that's possible, but I'm not sure what makes you think it's likely. Or perhaps you're trying to state something else I'm missing?
"Is the implication that this is only worth reporting about because of that case, and without the Supreme Court case this wouldn't have been reported at all? Or is it that it was only looked at in the first case because of the Supreme court case?
"
as the sibling comment says, Eugene is a law professor specializing in first amendment law. He almost certainly is reporting on it because of that case.
Would it be worth reporting otherwise, yes, but definitely, the former is accurate.
One of two things happened:
1. Either Eugene discovered it himself because he saw that case or
2. Someone notified Eugene of that case.
My guess is his earlier blog posts let folks know he was interested in these issues, and someone emailed him this case, which got him investigating.
(I'm sure if you bug him, he'll tell you, he's a nice guy)
as the sibling comment says, Eugene is a law professor specializing in first amendment law. He almost certainly is reporting on it because of that case.
Would it be worth reporting otherwise, yes, but definitely, the former is accurate.
One of two things happened:
1. Either Eugene discovered it himself because he saw that case or
2. Someone notified Eugene of that case.
My guess is his earlier blog posts let folks know he was interested in these issues, and someone emailed him this case, which got him investigating.
(I'm sure if you bug him, he'll tell you, he's a nice guy)
My interpretation is that the case seeking to make these kinds of injunctions obligatory is likely what led someone to investigate what is going on with these injunctions in general, which then led to the discovery of what seemed like a strange pattern, which led to more research and hiring the PI; and therefore led to the reporting.
Yes, that corresponds to the second interpretation I outlined above, but the article specifically states "(Readers may remember this story, which we blogged about in August; that’s the incident that got us investigating this issue.)" with regard to the Mathew Chan story (link[1]). Maybe the implication is that they only looked at that because of the Supreme Court though, and then this article exists because of the Supreme Court case by way of the original article? In any case, it was ambiguous enough to me that I figured I would ask, as I would rather learn something interesting that I missed than assume I knew what everyone involved was thinking. :)
1: http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2016/08/georgia-dentist-mi...
1: http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2016/08/georgia-dentist-mi...
Yes, especially considering the by-line of the piece. Eugene Volokh isn't a WaPo reporter. He's the namesake of The Volokh Conspiracy, a blog that WaPo publishes; and also a law professor and leading expert on First Amendment law.
EDIT: Prof. Volokh just posted in his blog a bit about how the piece came to be. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trumps-vile-c...
EDIT: Prof. Volokh just posted in his blog a bit about how the piece came to be. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trumps-vile-c...
I have to think that this is the link you meant to post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
Thanks - that's an embarrassing clipboard mixup.
I smell shenanigans.
Wow, I kind of expected one of the Prenda Law lawyers to be behind something like this. It makes perfect sense, you have people with money who want their past or actions to be somehow erased from discovery, and you have people who will come up with creative ways to achieve that and thus give themselves access to that money.
But the really interesting thing is to watch how people react when something they used to be able to "get away with" is made impossible through technical means. Whether it is speed limiters on CPUs, copy protection on media, or poorly monitored traffic intersections.
But the really interesting thing is to watch how people react when something they used to be able to "get away with" is made impossible through technical means. Whether it is speed limiters on CPUs, copy protection on media, or poorly monitored traffic intersections.
> speed limiters on CPUs
What?
What?
From the old mainframe days, when you bought machines by, basically subscription --- you paid for a support contract and the hardware was usually provided as part of that.
Different grades of support contract gave you different classes of machine, but frequently all the hardware was the same, just with bits disabled. If you upgraded your contract, they'd send a tech round who would flip some switches inside and, say, double your clock speed, or enable some more CPUs, etc.
Different grades of support contract gave you different classes of machine, but frequently all the hardware was the same, just with bits disabled. If you upgraded your contract, they'd send a tech round who would flip some switches inside and, say, double your clock speed, or enable some more CPUs, etc.
Aka the IBM model.
What a nightmare for the takedown-request teams at the online companies! Abuse of the court system is going to be very expensive and time-consuming for them to assess.
Contempt of court or perjury prosecutions of the originators of some of these fraudulent lawsuits might serve as a deterrent. A little jail time goes a long way.
Contempt of court or perjury prosecutions of the originators of some of these fraudulent lawsuits might serve as a deterrent. A little jail time goes a long way.
This is the 3rd nightmare for takedown teams, the first two are the DMCA and the Right to be Forgotten. Together, these are a huge barrier to entry for new search engines.
That really isn't the job of the online companies. They have neither the legal authority nor the ability to act as judicial review for these cases.
Innocent people should not be on the hook for the fact that the system is so broken that people can sue non-existent parties.
It's fine if the courts make mistakes sometimes, but if they're too incompetent to correctly use the powers given to them, those powers need to be scaled back to a level commensurate with the courts' abilities.
It's fine if the courts make mistakes sometimes, but if they're too incompetent to correctly use the powers given to them, those powers need to be scaled back to a level commensurate with the courts' abilities.
And what do you propose to replace them?
Why replace these functions of the court? Forced content removal has no place in a free society.
> Forced content removal has no place in a free society.
How about we post a very convincing article on what appears to be a respected local newspaper site claiming that you've been arrested for sexual relations with an animal, conduct some solid SEO on it, and then send you out into the job market?
Perhaps you'd revise your views on this subject. Libel and slander are ancient common law principles for good reason.
How about we post a very convincing article on what appears to be a respected local newspaper site claiming that you've been arrested for sexual relations with an animal, conduct some solid SEO on it, and then send you out into the job market?
Perhaps you'd revise your views on this subject. Libel and slander are ancient common law principles for good reason.
This outlandish scenario reads to me like, "won't somebody please think of the children?"
How could a normal person inspire such behavior? Having inspired it, what normal person could receive a satisfactory remedy through the courts? (Many people would seek that, but they'd often be disappointed...)
Besides, this scenario only takes one step. Think it through a bit further. If such bizarre attacks become common, they'll lose their power because they'll no longer be believed. That would be a much better world than one in which lawyers must be hired every time an unsatisfactory restaurant review is written.
How could a normal person inspire such behavior? Having inspired it, what normal person could receive a satisfactory remedy through the courts? (Many people would seek that, but they'd often be disappointed...)
Besides, this scenario only takes one step. Think it through a bit further. If such bizarre attacks become common, they'll lose their power because they'll no longer be believed. That would be a much better world than one in which lawyers must be hired every time an unsatisfactory restaurant review is written.
There's nothing hypothetical at all about using scandalous or embarrassing information about regular people to generate revenue.
Some examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mug_shot_publishing_industry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenda_Law
Some examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mug_shot_publishing_industry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenda_Law
No, I probably wouldn't. I don't trust any government party to determine the objective truth. Think about what you are advocating; you want to give the government power to erase content they claim is wrong. "You claim Duterte advocated extrajudicial hit squads? That's libel, take it down. Or else."
There's plenty of established precedent for this, and of course a head of state would qualify as a public figure under any libel or slander claim. I am strongly in favor of the first amendment, and would be opposed to prior restraint. None of those things have anything to do with the example I gave however.
I hope we will start criminalizing such abuses of the legal system. And not just the plaintiffs, but their lawyers.
Lest this nation "founded on law" become, by extension, a nation (further) founded on corruption.
Civil cases deserve and need to remain civil. But blatant and deliberate and self-serving abuse of the system -- here perhaps including perjury and a form of libel -- should, in extremis, cost people their freedom, their licenses, and their membership in civil society.
I'm mindful of the need for room for civil protest and other forms of law breaking. The law does need to be challenged and refined -- constantly.
I'm not sure how to draw the line between e.g. those two (as well as in other distinctions). But, something needs to be done, or our legal system is going to be reduced to simply another arena for power plays, devoid of other integrity.
P.S. I'm mindful that extreme abuses already are criminal. But enough abuse goes unchecked, that either the line needs to move, or enforcement needs to be more active and thorough.
The legal profession needs to better consider that it is not exceptional, it is like any other institution: If you don't keep your own house in order, you will fall.
Lest this nation "founded on law" become, by extension, a nation (further) founded on corruption.
Civil cases deserve and need to remain civil. But blatant and deliberate and self-serving abuse of the system -- here perhaps including perjury and a form of libel -- should, in extremis, cost people their freedom, their licenses, and their membership in civil society.
I'm mindful of the need for room for civil protest and other forms of law breaking. The law does need to be challenged and refined -- constantly.
I'm not sure how to draw the line between e.g. those two (as well as in other distinctions). But, something needs to be done, or our legal system is going to be reduced to simply another arena for power plays, devoid of other integrity.
P.S. I'm mindful that extreme abuses already are criminal. But enough abuse goes unchecked, that either the line needs to move, or enforcement needs to be more active and thorough.
The legal profession needs to better consider that it is not exceptional, it is like any other institution: If you don't keep your own house in order, you will fall.
Meet the con man behind most of this, Richart Ruddie. Notice how he includes Stanford in his username, and also lists it on his profile, when it looks like he just watched E145 on youtube.
https://linkedin.com/in/richartruddiestanford
Also some of the previous trouble he's been in:
http://structuredsettlements.typepad.com/structured_settleme...
https://linkedin.com/in/richartruddiestanford
Also some of the previous trouble he's been in:
http://structuredsettlements.typepad.com/structured_settleme...
I smell perjury, filing false instruments, fraud, and libel. This is going to be great.
Could be an interesting opportunity to archive these "banned" websites and create a new site off of these cases. Pretty crazy abuse of power. Makes me think about the further shift away from print media, before libel and defamation were primarily ran via printed newspaper and what not. Now the focus shifts online.
Another interesting angle to ponder is what this could do to websites hosting open comment sections on the web. Already a bit under fire for having low quality in many cases, I could see a lot of places taking down their comment sections if it's also going to open them to litigation. It doesn't take many lawsuits before the benefit the comment sections may be bringing is outweighed.
I say this without judgment as to whether that would be good or bad; just musing about the second-order consequences.
I say this without judgment as to whether that would be good or bad; just musing about the second-order consequences.
We'll just move to a P2P comment system which is implemented as a browser addon and adds a comments section to any website.
That does seem a likely consequence. It can be argued that this stifles free discussion and argument, but with so many social sites out there, these conversations move elsewhere. However, it does decentralize the conversation more so than before.
Black Hat Lawyers? I hope they get nailed.
I had no idea that one could submit legal documents to Google, requesting de-indexing on specific pages. This tactic, apparently, is quite common.
Isn't this plainly criminal, as in Perjury, on behalf of the people filing suits?
Would be interested to see if any of these lawyers have connections to Reputation Defender[1] or any of the similar companies in this space?
1 - https://www.reputationdefender.com/
1 - https://www.reputationdefender.com/
It seems like it. The woman who the Post is mentioning, Kathy Glatter, has a rather white-washed google presence, marred only by the article on her behavior, which quite likely is rather linked at the moment. http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/north-davis-parent...
This is next level blackhat SEO. With perjury and disbarment at stake.
[deleted]
Legal hax
This shows an important reason why court proceedings should be openly accessible at scale. Lawyers can spread legal DOS attacks out across jurisdictions, where individual judges would have a hard time discovering the pattern. Allowing citizens to do large scale pattern matching will uncover such things.