I ask because I got served this morning. There was a knock at the door, and a nice lady handed me a piece of paper from Offit/Kurman, a New York law office. It was titled “Demand to Take Down Defamatory & Copyright-Infringing Pages,” and was basically the same complaint I summarized back in June.
They want me to take down a post they call “Page One”, which I called How not to build a coalition, in which I reported that the Secular Policy Institute tried to recruit the Feminist Freethinkers to align with them by saying I’m starting to believe that the reason the secular movement doesn’t have more women is the women. Prove me wrong,
which is something of an own goal. That post from 12 years ago they have now decided was defamatory.
They also want me to delete “Page Two”, a post that is only ten years old, titled Which do I dislike more, Encyclopedia Dramatica or Johnny Monsarrat? That one is both defamatory and copyright-infringing, because it links to a post about the unsavory and unethical behavior of one Jonathan Monsarrat, who is somehow involved with the Secular Policy Institute. I also include a formal, professionally photographed image taken directly from the publicly available, at that time, Secular Policy Institute, which showed Edwina Rogers in a group shot including Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and a few other people. They want that taken down. She may not like being seen together with Richard Dawkins, since a few years earlier Rogers had been suing Dawkins and the Secular Coalition of America.
I know. Ten years ago, there was a Secular Policy Institute and a Secular Coalition of America, along with many other godless organizations that have faded into the dim shadows of history, and they were suing each other. But of course, I was the problem that was splintering the whole movement.
Anyway, this new demand has added a “Page Three” that must be deleted — it’s the post from last month in which I mentioned “Page One” and “Page Two”! I think that means that next month they’ll have to send me revised demands that will include a “Page Four”, which will be this post you are reading right now. I think we’re trapped in a time loop.
They have an additional complaint about “Page Three”.
By demanding that “Someone needs to mention Barbra Streisand to these people,” your newest article could be interpreted as a call to encourage additional defamation against Ms. Rogers, her organization and her colleagues.
Wheee! I guess mentioning Barbra Streisand is now stochastic terrorism, and I am an agent of chaos.
They conclude by demanding the takedown of “Page One,” “Page Two,” and “Page Three” by August 12 2026, and have also added a confidentiality clause.
3. Confidentiality: Agree that the contents and existence of the parties’ settlement are confidential, including the settlement communications culminating in the settlement. Neither the contents nor existence of the settlement, nor communications leading to the settlement, may form the basis of future articles, blogs, or posts on Freethoughtblogs.com or anywhere else.
That’s the “Shut up and don’t expose our idiocy anymore” clause. Sorry, I don’t play that game.
Shorter process server statement:
Nobody has read these pages for a decade, so we demand that you get more eyeballs and clicks onto them, for us. Because we are the only people who really care about wanting more people to read these!
I wish you were rich enough (but not as murderous as he is) to play the tRUMP game and tie these aholes up with endless legal actions.
Yes, but what has me wondering is that these goons in New York had to have actually paid a person in Minnesota to drive an hour two to deliver a stupid piece of paper to me. Are they just used to dispatching lackeys on pointless tasks?
PZ Myers@3: “Are they just used to dispatching lackeys on pointless tasks?”
I think that an important point to remember in these situations is: It is NEVER their money that they are spending. So the effort and cost are not significant, as long as they have some rich asshole funding them. To add a tiny bit of aid, I shall mention Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, the future Page 4, and every subsequent page, seen or unseen, to ensure that they are not forgotten.
It wouldn’t matter how rich I was, the thought of obsessing for years over what some guy on the internet wrote about me…no, no way, not ever. That’s a version of hell.
That confidentiality clause is the maraschino cherry on top of the whipped cream pie. I could see a confidentiality agreement on a settlement obtained through negotiation, in which both parties give up various things. But they haven’t offered you anything. They are demanding action, and additionally demand that you forego your right to free speech to talk about it. Screw them.
Also: Tony Fauci butt-dialed Barbra Streisand in 2021.
PZ wrote: thought of obsessing for years . . . That’s a version of hell.
I reply: I understand and agree. But, if you had the resources, you could just pour on the money and task a law firm to do all the work and you could just (at least try to) put it out of your mind.
$105 or up, depending on immediacy
“Dear Offit/Kurman,
I thought you should be aware that some miscreant has been issuing moronic legal demands in your name. “
The Freeezepach hypocriotists strike agin…
Whelp. I spelt one word right there anyhow..
Two actually when I olookmagin @ ‘t..
SLAPP suit.
Loser pays court costs.
If PZ sets up a legal defense fund, I’m in for a few bucks.
I really really don’t like bullies and fascists.
This is BTW, a huff and puff letter.
If you ignore them, that is usually the end.
They are trying to scare you and if you don’t scare, there isn’t much else they can do.
@ ^ raven : Except lose court cases and be forced to pay costs?
Here’s hoping.
But like everything else Trump has fucked the “justice”, er, legal system too.
Former(?) FtB blogger Taslima Nasrin is shown on the Secular Policy Institute website front page (as a “Fellow” of SPI), along with a bunch of names and faces I don’t recognize (plus a couple I do) and for some reason a big pic of the White House. Johnny Monsarrat is not among them.
Secular Coalition for (not “of”) America has a webpage up too, with no names on the front page (but apparently blog posts, with first-person headlines, by someone calling themselves “Heretic on the Hill”). The board shows five names/pics I don’t recognize, plus a “Founder” Dr. Herb Silverman – possibly related to Dave S?
My lawyer spouse tells me that the statute of limitations for defamation in New York is 1 year …..
It looks like a process server costs between $80 and $168, presumably depending on how far they have to go.
https://hoosierprocessservice.com/pricing
So, not exactly cheap, but not outrageously expensive, either.
Although, if the person is actively avoiding being served, it looks like this turns it into a private investigator job. This suddenly brings it into the “daily fee plus expenses” category and ends up potentially costing a lot more.
Oh dear. Another bunch of clowns that ignore fair use.
I’m willing to bet that someone (a lawyer) is making money off of someone (a client). What a surprise! We won’t guess who because that might mean more letters.
A brief skim of the Offit/Kurman website reveals leading phrases such as “serving affluent families” and “preserving family wealth”. If those are the clients they prefer they’re not going to be cheap even by lawyer standards, so this Ms Rogers must be confident of getting results when splashing her money around in order to bury the past. Or she’s just arrogant and stupid.
Glob, I hope you haven’t pissed off Peter Thiel.
You should have included a confidentially clause on this posting, prohibiting them from discussing your post or freethoughtblogs.
When talking about legal matters, as a general rule don’t use the word “complaint” unless you mean “the pleading that a plaintiff files that actually starts a lawsuit, with court file stamps and a case number and everything.” What is described in the OP is merely a demand letter — but a demand letter wouldn’t require a process server, so I’m confused. It’s also worth keeping in mind that Offit Kurman is headquartered in New York, but has offices in 18 states (mostly Atlantic coast).
Some other miscellaneous notes: Minnesota doesn’t have an anti-SLAPP law… but New York does. Statutes of limitations for defamation claims range nationwide from one to six years, and the place where the alleged victim is often determines the appropriate statute of limitations — so if they’re in New Hampshire, they’re still out of luck but less out of luck. The could, I suppose, try to claim “tolling due to the discovery rule,” but (a) that’s almost impossible in published-to-the-public-at-large communications and (b) probably sanctionably frivolous in this instance.
The fly in the
ointmentspiderweb might be the copyright claim, but the copyright in a photograph ordinarily belongs to the photographer. So that’s going to be Interesting… especially since the copyright statute of limitations is three years.Jaws, I can hear lawyer-speak.
Mmmhmm. Harassment by any other name.
@ 24 Jaws
Oh please. It’s clearly “fair use”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors
P.S. Can I say without compounding PZ’s legal troubles the way Shermer is draped all over Rodgers while she forces a smile and leans away is creepy as fuck? No? Oh well, I said it aready. Damn.
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2017/07/spi_photo.jpg
Arkell v. Pressdram?
submoron @28: finally a bit of legalese on the topic I can understand…
@28 submoron
Arkell v. Pressdram
Thanks, I was having trouble remembering that famous “case”.
Whoever’s really behind this, they must be a special kind of stupid (either that or too rich for their own good, which often works out to the same thing).
What result could this legal thuggery possibly have, other than to draw a lot more attention to a set of decade-old posts about defunct secular orgs? If they wanted to let this information fade from all relevance, all they had to do was nothing. Instead, they’ve guaranteed they’ll get everyone talking about it all over again.
@Jaws:
Yeah, I noticed that too. Paying a process server to hand-deliver a demand letter doesn’t give it any more authority. It just means you’re rich enough and/or stupid enough to blow more money on this silly intimidation tactic.
I’d assume this is another attempt at escalating their scare tactics. They have no case whatsoever due to the statute of limitations, and they obviously know that. But they’re doing everything they can think of in the hope of scaring PZ into taking down the posts on his own, without having to file a lawsuit that would be swiftly tossed out and possibly hit with an anti-SLAPP countersuit.
@25: Hazard of the profession.
@26: Relying on Wikipedia for legal analysis is less advisable than relying on the current Administration’s analysis of the “right” to dominion over Greenland. Leaving aside the flawed fair-use analysis (which doesn’t consider differences that arise from where any hypothetical lawsuit might be heard — it would be significantly different in this context in the US District Court for the District of Minnesota than in the Southern District of New York) that entirely neglects the “took no more than necessary” imperative, among other problems, the point was that the statute of limitations is long busted. Fair use is arguable and more probable than not, but hardly “clear.”
I’m glad you’re not giving in to these idiots, but didn’t the last actual lawsuit cost you and some others a fortune even though you won? Fortunately, according to what I looked up, Minnesota appears to have pass a good anti-SLAPP law in 2024 that can be used to force the plaintiff to show they have a strong case before you move forward with discovery and all of that. That’s how they all should work.
Jaws @ # 24: Minnesota doesn’t have an anti-SLAPP law ..
bmatchick @ # 34: … Minnesota appears to have pass[ed] a good anti-SLAPP law in 2024 …
[smoke gushes from ears] It does not compute!
Minnesota doesn’t have an active anti-SLAPP law because its prior law was found unconstitutional by the state courts and the new law is under challenge on similar grounds and as I understand it has been stayed. Further, it has an extremely strict time limit similar to Cal.Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 (both require the “motion” to be filed within 60 days of service of the underlying suit, together with presentations of facts) with a ticking clock that won’t be restarted if the stay is lifted. (Presuming that it was an actual complaint and actual lawsuit that was “served” per the OP.)
The Minnesota courts held that the previous version violated the plaintiff’s right to a jury trial, because there was no way a jury would ever see the allegations let alone evidence (it was entirely decided on motion by the judge). The new statute tries, but at least in the opinion of the judge who stayed it fails, to cure that while still making for a very fast decision. Unless the Minnesota Supreme Court changes its interpretation of the jury trial right in the Minnesota constitution, it’s unlikely that limited tinkering like that done to put the revised statute into play will prove sufficient. Possible, but unlikely.
“But what about motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment?” you may well ask. Motions to dismiss are decisions that as a matter of law, the plaintiff’s allegations can’t get any legal relief (there are lots of curlicues and such), thus there’s no need for a jury to decide disputed facts. Summary judgment is similar, except that both sides can present evidence and the judge can decide that the relevant facts aren’t disputed so no jury is needed. Remember, juries decide facts only. The anti-SLAPP regime pretty uniformly has the judge weighing evidence (not allowed except if a jury has been waived), not just determining that there’s no dispute of fact (allowed), and that’s the problem.