Celebrated Lawyer ‘Fires’ Meta As A Client Over Zuck’s ‘Neo-Nazi Madness’
from the consequences dept
Mark Lemley is one of, if not the biggest names in IP law. So when Lemley makes a move, it’s worth paying attention. And that’s exactly what happened this week when he announced that he has “fired Meta as a client.”
There are various lists that come out from time to time about the “most cited” law professors, and on recent lists Lemley is always highly ranked. On IP law/Cyberlaw in particular, he’s almost always at the top. Here’s a list from 2013-2017 that shows him not just as the most cited cyberlaw professor, but with the number of citations to his works that is more than double the second person on the list (Lemley’s 2200 citations to Robert Merges’ 920).
Even outside of cyberlaw, he is near the top of the list. UChicago’s big “most cited legal scholars of all time” list has him at number eight, and given that some of the names ahead of him are dead and that list is from three years ago (and he keeps publishing, which I know because I have a bunch of his papers that I have open in tabs that I intended to write about but haven’t yet gotten to…), he’s likely even higher on that list.
No matter how you count it, Lemley is in the Michael Jordan/LeBron James realm of legal scholars, widely recognized as one of the greatest.
Anyway, beyond being an incredibly insightful and prolific legal scholar, he has also been a practicing lawyer for many years as well, working on a number of high-profile cases.
And earlier this week, he announced that he has “fired Meta as a client.” Lemley was representing Meta in the Kadrey v. Meta lawsuit regarding Meta’s use of books in training its AI. And, as the docket shows, on Monday, he withdrew as an attorney for Meta:
As Lemley noted on various social media profiles, he cannot stomach what he sees as Zuckerberg’s embrace of nonsense and this is how he is responding to “Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook’s descent into toxic masculinity and Neo-Nazi madness.”
I know that some people will get all huffy about this (you know who you are, commenters), but this is a principled stand. And it’s also one that could have a real impact on Meta, given Lemley’s knowledge, legal skills, and respect in the legal community.
Filed Under: ai, content moderation, copyright, mark lemley, neo-nazi
Companies: meta
Comments on “Celebrated Lawyer ‘Fires’ Meta As A Client Over Zuck’s ‘Neo-Nazi Madness’”
Well, Zuckerberg can now go and hire Charles Harder…
This, folks, is what we call “not obeying in advance”.
So Zuckerberg has lost Lemley but he may has won Trump.
That won’t be good on the long term but who doesn’t think to very short term theses days.
Re:
The long term will be irrelevant if you don’t survive the short term.
Re: Re:
Trump has no long term given his age and fitness (or rather lack thereof).
Trumpism/MAGA in turn also has no long term because no one else has proven themselves to draw the MAGA crowd like Trump does. So when he goes, so too will many of them, and with them the illusory MAGA ‘mandate.’
Re: Re: Re:
Trump has no long term because he has no model of object permanance.
Re: Re: Re:
When you look at post-war Germany or post-communist Eastern Europe, you will see that there’s still a nice future ahead for those who used to suck up to the old regime.
Zuck can change course again in 4 years or so, when Dear Leader has gone without leaving an heir to the throne.
How dare he not want to associated with such Very Fine People!
Well I mean this is clearly censorship and attempted blackmail, how dare he think he has the right to choose what clients he will and will not accept! Clearly the free market/small government solution to this is to sue him until he has no choice but to go back to his job!
Re:
Speaking of Very Fine People, I recommend this book:
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/very-fine-people-a-r-moxon/1145499603
Re: Re: too clever by half
Link to B&N fails with firefox, gives message that javascript is required. Yet with links (text browser) it works. Not sure what they hope to accomplish by wiping out the content and replacing it with a message asking for javascript, but for the moment I will go away and not bother them.
If their web folks were as clever as they think they are, they would figure out a way to make the web site look fine in an HTML browser.
There is a difference between thinking you are very smart and actually being smart.
You can all just walk away from his toxic nonsense. I did years ago. You won’t, though, because addiction is HARD.
I quit cigarettes and alcohol, too.
The butts were the hardest. I still get cravings.
Facebook?
NOPE. Just never look back. The first step is the hardest.
Re:
Sir Mix-A-Lot said it first.
Re:
Thanks, i’m sure others will appreciate the sage advice as much as i.
Re:
Unfortunately, even for people who have already quit personally, we still worry about the effects it has on society as a whole.
Re: Re:
How did society even survive before social media?
Re: Re: Re:
Better than it’s doing with social media.
Re:
So Techdirt shouldn’t report on Elmo’s constant (successful) attempts to make himself look bad? Is that what you’re saying?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Disagreement Is Not Permitted
Everyone loved Trump, until he ran as a Republican.
Elon Musk was awesome, until he bought Twitter to restore free speech.
Zuckerberg was at the cutting edge of safe content moderation, until he fired the politically motivated “fact-checking” division.
Re:
“Elon Musk was awesome, until he bought Twitter to restore free speech.” he turned it into a nazi bar so not free speech advocate
Re:
Some people loved Trump. Not everyone did. And when you start a presidential campaign by referring to Mexicans as rapists and thugs, you’re bound to get more than a few people calling you a racist piece of shit. Everything he’s done since then hasn’t exactly endeared him to anyone but people who share his delight in being cruel and hateful to others.
Apartheid Emerald Mine Space Karen was always a bit of a prick who thought he was better than everyone else because of his enormous wealth. His decision to buy Twitter, and everything he’s done since then, has reinforced the fact that Elon Musk is a racist, sexist, queerphobic manchild who glomped onto conservative/right-wing politics because it let him live out his fantasies of being the Übermensch while giving him connections to the most powerful people in the world so he can keep getting richer and richer while doing nothing of any significance to actually help people who need help.
Believing the first half of that sentence is a sign of brain damage.
Re: Re:
Same with the second half.
Re: Re:
Ah, but the delight in being born on third base and then going through life as if you hit a glorious triple..
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Writing the above sentence is a sign of hatred of people with acquired brain injuries.
Re: Re: Re:
Writing the above delusion could be a sign of, at best, a total lack of comprehension but more likely is the result of Stone Derangement Syndrome.
Re: Re: Re:
You know what’s funny? Pretty soon, you’ll run out of ways to use this schtick, and you’ll get so desperate to keep weaponizing the language of inclusivity that even our usual cadre of trolls will wonder what the fuck you’re smoking. Also, don’t think it’s escaped my notice that you only do this with me. Are you the guy who tried to push me into endorsing preëmptive physical violence—and if so, were you always a right-wing agitator, or did my rejection of that idea push you into becoming one?
Re: Re: Re:2
Since when has “The Goatfucker” bennet /not/ been a right-wing agitator?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Every accusation a confession. You use language that excludes a minority, so of course you have to attack someone trying to get you to recognize that by claiming they’re using reverse psychology, which is your schtick whenever you do that.
Re: Re: Re:3
People use “stupid” as an insult for everything from people to movies to jokes. “Idiot” also has widespread usage with few people thinking “oh, that’s meant as a slur to people with intellectual disabilities”. Like, yeah, those words could be considered slurs, and they likely started out as slurs, but they’re not really considered slurs these days. If I had used the R-word—which I didn’t, and I wouldn’t besides—maybe you’d have a point.
(That said: I do try to limit my usage of those two words because I don’t like using them even as generic insults.)
I didn’t say shit about “reverse psychology”. I said that you come off as a right-wing agitator who’s trying to weaponize the language of inclusivity—and that you’re only doing it to me, which makes me think you’re the same asshole who kept trying for literal months to goad me into endorsing preëmptive political violence. You might think this shit will eventually work, but I’m not that stupid and you’re nowhere near that clever. I hope your next bit is at least a little better than this one.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Which only goes to show how little you care about the people the person you responded to advocated for. The word “i***t” is not merely considered a slur against people like me, it is a slur against people like me, and it didn’t start out as a slur, either; it started out as a medical and legal term for people whose scores on IQ tests are several points lower than mine.
Re: Re: Re:5
Using someone else’s identity to attack me is certainly new. But it isn’t any more effective than, say, repeating my own words back at me with a minor change that you think makes you clever.
And again, I’ll note that you’re doing this only to me, which means you’re likely the same “we need to use violence at the drop of a hat” AC, which subsequently means you’ve had a parasocial obsession with me for several months. You’re weird as fuck, dude—and not in the David Lynch kind of way.
Re: Re: Re:6
Well, I clicked on the link and contacted the person on the other end of it, and the comment is genuine. But as I’ve said in the past, you have to attack Ms. Zimmerman in error for an AC who can get to the library for internet access only once a week because she’s a member of a minority you clearly do not believe has the same rights as the minorities you’re willing to defend.
Re: Re: Re:7
Sure you did. 🙄
I didn’t attack anyone but you, and you are not Ms. Zimmerman (who I didn’t even know about until you posted that link with her name attached to your comment).
Yes. Yes, you are. But keep lying and being parasocially obsessed with me—maybe one day, you’ll think about fucking me with my consent!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
A lie, as we shall see.
You’re the only one claiming that AC is.
And what evidence do you have that AC did indeed do that and the named commenter is not a real person as you are implying? As others have stated, you will engage in any attack just to shut them up when they defend any minority other than people of color and members of the LGBTQ+ community because, like Elon Musk, you don’t truly believe in the free speech rights of others.
Re: Re: Re:9
lmao
Re: Re: Re:10
What’s more pathetic – Goatfucker Bennett pretending it’s not one but multiple ACs and stolen identities that all just coincidentally happen to share a psychotic obsession with libeling Stephen, or its believing that anyone here would fall for that ploy?
Re: Re: Re:11
FTFY. YW.
Re: Re: Re:11
As someone far wiser than you once told me, “It’s not defamatory if it’s true.” There is plenty of evidence of Stephen’s attacks on anyone who dares advocate for specific minorities, which has made me form the opinion we’re not dealing with the original Stephen anymore as he supported minorities.
Re: Re: Re:6
Also, given your evident ableist/disablist tactics, I need to add the disclaimer that I am not the AC you thought you were attacking when you attacked Ms. Zimmerman for advocating for her people.
Re:
I’ve never met a man got as high on his own supply as you do k-dawg. Now run away until you reup your talking points.
Re: Strike three, you're out.
My disdain for Trump began with Birtherism, well before he ran for office.
My disdain for Musk began with that Hyperloop nonsense, well before he showed any interest in buying Twitter.
As for Zuckerberg, my disdain for him formed as Facebook became increasingly infested with ads, engagement bait, and AI-generated slop–i.e. well before he kowtowed to Trump.
Re:
Please seek rehab for your addiction.
Those hallcinations are not healthy to have.
Re:
Wow. Are you trying to rewrite history?
Trump has been hated for Decades.
I hope you get exactly what you support.
Re: Re:
Yep.
Not really. Not anyone who contracted (also: here) with him. Not all his employees. Not the folks who worked on, or participated in, the Miss America pageant. Not black people who lived in housing owned by him.
Y’know, I’m having difficulty finding folks who liked him. Help a pal out here?
Re: Re: Re:
Lawyers…
Re: Re: Re:2
The ones he stiffs on the bills?
Re: Re:
I don’t because if Koby does, so do the rest of us. Think about it.
Re:
People mostly knew Elon as this guy who ran companies which built rockets and electric vehicles. There were times when he was a jerk like when he called that guy in the cave a pedo. While unpleasant, it is nothing compared to what he is like now.
Even if he was a jerk, no one could have imagined it.
Re: Re:
There’s folks (like his biographer) who are deeply concerned about Elon’s mental health.
However, you do know you were replying to a comment regarding Trump instead, yes?
Re: Re: Re:
FYI, AC responded to a comment referencing Elmo and Schmuckerberg as well as Trump. Reading comprehension: do you have it?
Re:
Three statements, not one of which is true. All the suggest, Koby, is that you are woefully uninformed and do not pay attention to the world around you.
Trump has been hated and mocked, especially in NY, going back to the 80s.
Musk has been considered problematic going back a decade when he lost his shit over a bad Tesla review in the NY TImes. Or to when he had to be fired from running Paypal. He’s left a wake of angry people.
And, no, Zuck has never ever, not once, been seen as “at the cutting edge of safe content moderation.” At best he was seen as having the largest team, that had a lot of experience, but the company is somewhat infamous at how bad they are at content moderation.
So literally all three of your claims are delusional.
Trump has always been scum–and looked the part. Musk, well, never really heard of him before “pedo-guy” stupidity, but apparently he’s always been a nutjob. Scummy nutjobs have fans, who are just as scummy and nutty as they are… so there you go.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
That was a lot of words to say “a lawyer dropped a client today.”
You lost, are losing, and will continue to lose. Hope this helps.
Re:
Tell us again how much you don’t care bro!
Re:
And what did you win?
Looks like a group of unelected rich elite will be running the country through an old sock puppet.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
You’re literally mad prople have free speech.
You’re literally mad that you don’t get to censor the people
Who disagree with you anymore. (I am tickled, obviously)
Oh Lemley is a sh!tlib who wants to virtue signal? No, that is not important or newsworthy in anyway.
You’re upset you lost, that’s all.
Re:
Yay!
Tell us again how much you don’t care bro!
Re:
Three posts in a row just to shittalk someone who “lost” seems less like gloating and more like being upset that you’re getting exactly what you wanted. Then again, that’s always the way it is with right-wing trash like you: You want so desperately the culture and the counterculture at the same time so that even when you “win”, you can act like you’re the victim of some grand conspiracy to keep you down.
As another troll is so fond of pointing out, in five days, the GOP will control all three branches of the federal government for at least the next two years. Meta and Twitter are both catering to GOP demands for less moderation of speech thanks to their right-wing owners. DEI programs in numerous corporations are ending thanks to pressure from right-wing activists. A national ban on abortion seems more inevitable than ever. Climate deniers, anti-vax activists, queerphobes, and conservative Christian nationalists will be holding major positions in the federal government (and already hold significant legal power in various state legislatures and as governors). You’re getting everything you wanted out of the 2024 election cycle, right down to Donald Trump sitting in the Oval Office again. For what reason, then, are you so angry about what some “woke shitlib” thinks or does when they don’t have the same kind of power that Republicans are about to hold? What makes you come here to read stories you dislike about people you hate and spread your emotional support misery all over the comments? Why are you so upset about winning?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
It’s called gloating.
Yeah, I’m not reading all that. All your ideas are bad, and for the most part, the opposite of what you want is great policy.
Real happy you’re mad, tho. Still can’t make someone bake you a cake.
Re: Re: Re:
We all know you’re a shit individual, you don’t need to convince us of that fact.
Re: Re: Re:
No, it isn’t. It’s called “being angry about winning”. You’re literally upset that people who stand a good chance of being marginalized by the incoming GOP administration aren’t giving you and your right-wing pals the reverence and respect you think you’re owed. Like I said, you always want to be the culture and the counterculture, which is another way of saying you want to have real sociopolitical power and still act like a victim of that power even when you have it.
I want global climate change addressed so shit like the wildfires in California don’t happen again (or at least as often). I want homelessness addressed in ways beyond “send the police in to crack skulls and wreck their shit”. I want to see the government move more towards renewable energy. I want to see poverty addressed by real attempts to help the poor, starting with lowering prices on groceries. I want to see obscenely wealthy people taxed to hell and back so this country can afford to address all of its major issues.
Tell me the opposite of each of those positions. Then explain how those positions are better than mine. I’ll wait.
The fact that you’re still fuming about the Masterpiece Cakeshop case—in which the bakery was never forced to make a cake for any customer, let alone the customer who sued—speaks volumes about how much you hate queer people like me. I mean, damn, why not call for me to be murdered like Matthew Shepard? You’re not going to get prosecuted for it by the Trump DOJ, that’s for damn sure.
Re: Re: Re:2
You know what’s funny? Pretty soon, you’ll run out of ways to use this schtick, and you’ll get so desperate to keep weaponizing the language of inclusivity to attack minorities you detest and the people who advocate for them (including members of those minorities, like myself) that even our usual cadre of trolls will wonder what the fuck you’re smoking.
Re: Re: Re:3
“weaponizing the language of inclusivity to attack minorities you detest and the people who advocate for them.”
Gaslights the usual cadre of troll
Re: Re: Re:
Excpet you’re not gloating bro. You’re throwing yet another hissy fit and really leaning into the nickname crybitch bennett
Re:
Yes, yes. It’s going to be fun when you realize you got what you supported.
Re:
You say it’s not newsorthy, yet it appears to have bene covered by a wide range of media companies, including your beloved NY Post:
https://news.google.com/search?q=mark%20lemley&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
https://nypost.com/2025/01/15/business/lawyer-drops-meta-over-ceo-mark-zuckerbergs-neo-nazi-madness/
I don’t see you in the comments there screaming about how it’s a non-story dipshit.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Lol “neo nazi” and “toxic masculinity”
What a joke, that petulant statement was everything I could’ve expected. Peak NPC
Re: WOOOOOOO!
TELL US AGAIN HOW MUCH YOU DON’T CARE BRO!
Re:
From literally the most cited legal scholar. And you’re calling him an NPC?
How many judges and legal scholars are citing you dipshit?
The only NPC here is you, repeating trite nonsense lines fed to you by a billionaire who sees you as the sucker you’ve always been and always will be.
Re:
FTFY. YW.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
I heard recently that the bill to sunset section 230 is going to be presented to congress on the 20th this year? (Granted my source is a single comment from a stranger).
I know there was a hearing about it last year, but nothing seemed to come from it.
How likely would such a thing be to pass?
Re:
Re:
This, specifically: https://www.reddit.com/r/AWDTSGisToxic/comments/1i239aq/section_230_sunset/
Re: Re:
Lindsey and Whitehouse also want to repeal section 230.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
And according to an Eric Goldman article, the entirety of congress would vote yes to a repeal.
..I think I may be spiralling, this isn’t good for me.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
I’ll, give the article for context: https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2025/01/2024-internet-law-year-in-review.htm
Re:
If you can’t find anything else but a post on Reddit from some rando on a subreddit that isn’t even dedicated to tech policy or politics, you may want to consider exactly how much trust you want to put in that post.
(Or to put it another way: Stop believing random bullshit you see on the Internet and go find a credible source of information.)
Re: Re:
According to Eric Goldman, a repeal is guaranteed if it comes before congress.
In fact he doesn’t think it’ll survive to 2026 at all.
Re: Re: Re:
Although in general a lot of his takes are certainly..Pessimistic sounding, particularly regarding this.
Re: Re: Re:
buddy shut up and stop believing some rando redditor
Re: Re: Re:2
It’s more than just a random redditor now.
Re: Re: Re:3
“Although in general a lot of his takes are certainly..Pessimistic sounding” still stop doomposting
Re: Re: Re:
Is he God? If not, then he can’t know with the certainty of God whether 230 will be repealed. He can make an educated guess, but he can’t know for sure.
You need to stop acting like educated guesses are exact, word of God, down-to-the-nanosecond predictions from people who can actually see the future. The chances of 230 repeal may be high, but they’re not 100% until such a repeal actually happens.
And as I’ve said before: If you can’t do anything to prevent a repeal or convince others to help prevent a repeal, the best and most productive thing you can do is start preparing for a repeal however you see fit—back up content you like, get a VPN, whatever you think you need to do. Running around and moaning about how you’re spiraling into despair isn’t going to do anything but make you feel worse (and make everyone else annoyed). Self-loathing is a waste of energy that you could be spending on solutions to your problems. So stop overworrying about everything (including Section 230), turn all that woe-is-me energy around, and do something that isn’t demanding attendance for a pity party.
Re: Re: Re:2
I understand. I’m just scared, I don’t want to lose contact with my friends.
Re: Re: Re:3
Are you sure about that?
Then start making plans to keep in touch with them should 230 be repealed and the worst thing you think could happen because of that repeal actually happens.
I get being scared. A repeal of 47 U.S.C. § 230 could be disastrous for the Internet as we know it. Being afraid of that repeal is absolutely fine. But you have to choose whether you’re going to cower in a corner (metaphorically or literally) or act on that fear to expand on what is possible for you. You’re scared? Good! Go use that fear to prepare for a 230 repeal. And when you’re finished doing that, go do something else that’s productive instead of looking for ways to keep thinking (and worrying) about a 230 repeal. I’m worried about the same thing as you, but I don’t hyperfocus on that fear to the detriment of my mental health. I look for other things to read or listen to or do that will help me keep my mind off those worries. If all you’re going to do with your fear is wallow in your emotional support misery, you’re not doing anything worth a shit, and you’re sure as hell not doing anything that’ll silence your fear.
Like all other things—good and bad—this, too, shall pass. Even though you may not have control over 230 being repealed or not, you have complete control over how you act in response to 230 being repealed (or saved). What you do with that knowledge is your decision. No one here can or will make it for you.
Re: Re: Re:4
Do you think exchanging emails with my friends might be a good step to take, or would a repeal render it irrelevant?
Re: Re: Re:5
I will repeat this once:
If you think your suggestion is the best course of action to take, take it. If you think there’s some other course of action that’s better, take it. This is your responsibility, not mine or anyone else’s; whatever decision you make has to be your own.
Re: Re: Re:6
Well, yes, I get that. But I was more wondering if something like gmail would also get wiped out in the aftermath.
Given it’s GOOGLE, though, I doubt it would be going anywhere.
Re: Re: Re:2
Besides, even if there is an overwhelming hatred of S230 in Congress, the reason why will always find itself split: Republicans want less moderation whereas democrats want more. There’s a shared hatred, but that’s the extent.
Plus, Goldman, I respect him and his work, but he is notorious about his bleak pessimism towards digital regulation, especially S230. I don’t blame him, but he’s the last person you want to see for a positive take.
Re: Re: Re:3
Yeah, no, I don’t blame him for being pessimistic either, it’s hard not to be sometimes.
But you’re right. It’d be hard to pass, let alone create legislation on it when neither side can agree on what they even want instead.
(Granted there’s still court rulings like the third circuit’s but, that is another can of worms.)
Re: Re: Re:4
But hey, maybe I should take Goldman’s article on the Paxton case as a good sign, if even someone that pessimistic about internet regulation thinks this won’t go in texas’ favor.
Re: Re: Re:2
Then again, KOSA also had a high chance to pass last year (might change this year, but we’ll get there when we get there).
Re: Re: Re:
Cool, now fuck off until 2016.
While I don’t think the neonazi from meta cares, it’s an important move overall. I see dark times ahead but it’s those actions that will get us through. I wish Meta employees could all just throw the middle finger to this asshole and leave but sadly many depend on their wages to the point they can’t do it even if they believe the boss is an asshole.
Re:
The people who built Auschwitz needed their jobs too.
Re: Re: About that...
You may be more correct if you say that the people who worked at Auschwitz needed their jobs.
Mark Lemley
And you forgot to mention that Lemley is just a nice guy.