Why (Allegedly) Defamatory Content On WordPress.com Doesn't Come Down Without A Court Order

from the the-automattic-doctrine dept

Last week, Santa Clara University hosted a gathering of tech platform companies to discuss how they actually handle content moderation questions. Many of the participants in the event have written essays about the questions that were discussed at the event. Between last week and this week, we're publishing a bunch of these essays, including this one.

WordPress.com is one of the most popular publishing platforms online. We host sites for bloggers, photographers, small businesses, political dissidents, and large companies. With more than 70 million websites hosted on our service, we unsurprisingly receive complaints about all types of content. Our terms of service define the categories of content that we don't allow on wordpress.com.

We try to be as objective as possible in defining the categories of content that we do not allow, as well as in our determinations about what types of content fall into, or do not fall into, each category. For most types of disputed content, we have the competency to make a judgment call about whether it violates our terms of service.

One notable and troublesome exception is content that is allegedly untrue or defamatory. Our terms prohibit defamatory content, but it's very difficult if not impossible for us, as a neutral, passive host, to determine the truth or falsity of a piece of content hosted on our service. Our services are geared towards the posting of longer form content and we often receive defamation complaints aimed at apparently well-researched, professionally written blog posts or pieces of journalism.

Defamation complaints put us in the awkward position of making a decision about whether the contents of a website are true or false. Moreover, in jurisdictions outside of the United States, these complaints put us on the hook for legal liability and damages if we don't take the content down after receiving an allegation that it is not true.

Making online hosts and other intermediaries like WordPress.com liable for the allegedly defamatory content posted by users is often criticized for burdening hosts and stifling innovation. But intermediary liability isn't just bad for online hosts. It's also terrible for online speech. The looming possibility of writing a large check incentivizes hosts like Automattic to do one thing when we first receive a complaint about content: Remove it. That decision may legally protect the host, but it doesn't protect users or their online speech.

The Trouble with "Notice and Takedown"

Taken at face value, the notice-and-takedown approach might seem to be a reasonable way to manage intermediary liability. A host isn't liable absent a complaint, and after receiving one, a host can decide what to do about the content.

Internet hosts like Automattic, however, are in no position to judge disputes over the truth of content that we host. Setting aside the marginal number of cases in which it is obvious that content is not defamatory—say, because it expresses an opinion—hosts are not at all equipped to determine whether content is (or is not) true. We can't know whether the subject of a blog post sexually assaulted a woman with whom he worked, if a company employs child laborers, or if a professor's study on global warming is tainted by her funding sources. A host does not have subpoena power to collect evidence. It does not call witnesses to testify and evaluate their credibility. And a host is not a judge or jury. This reality is at odds with laws imputing knowledge that content is defamatory (and liability) merely because a host receives a complaint that content is defamatory and doesn't remove it right away.

Nevertheless, the prospect of intermediary liability encourages hosts to make a judgment anyway, by accepting a complaint at face value and removing the disputed content without any vetting by a court. This process, unfortunately, encourages and rewards abuse. Someone who does not like a particular point of view, or who wants to silence legitimate criticism, understands that he or she has decent odds of silencing that speech by lodging a complaint with the website's host, who often removes the content in hopes of avoiding liability. That strategy is much faster than having the allegations tried in a court, and as a bonus, the complainant won't face the tough questions—Did he assault a co-worker? Did she know that the miners were children? Did he fib his research?

The potential for abuse is not theoretical. We regularly see dubious complaints about supposedly defamatory material at WordPress.com. Here is a sampling:

  • A multi-national defense contractor lodged numerous defamation complaints against a whistleblower who posted information about corruption to a WordPress.com blog.
  • An international religious/charitable group brought defamation charges against a blogger who questioned the organization's leadership.
  • A large European pharmaceutical firm sought, on defamation grounds, to disable a WordPress.com blog, which detailed negative experiences with the firm's products. A court later determined that this content was true.
It's notable that many of the worrying complaints we receive (including all of the examples above) come from large corporations or wealthy individuals and are aimed at small publishers or individual bloggers, who make up the core of our user base.

Of course, valid defamation complaints should be resolved and a system exists for doing so: the complainant can take legal action against the person who posted the content. This process keeps decisions about freedom of expression where they belong—with a court.

Our Approach at Automattic

The threat to legitimate speech posed by the notice and takedown process is behind our policy for dealing with defamation complaints. We do not remove user content based only on an allegation of defamation. We require a court order or judgment on the content at issue before taking action.

The third example above illustrates why we do not honor takedown demands that aren't accompanied by a court order. If we chose not to wait for a court order, but instead eliminated any potential liability by immediately disabling the site, we would have taken an important, and truthful, voice offline.

Our policy is the right one for us, but it can also be costly. We are often sued in defamation cases around the world based on our users' content. At any given time, we have upwards of twenty defamation cases pending against us around the globe. This is an inevitable side effect of our policies, and we try to be judicious about our involvement in the cases that we do see. Some cases result in a quick and straightforward judgment, but others require more fact-finding and we often face a choice about what our level of involvement should be. Ideally, we want to spend our resources fighting cases that matter–either because there is a serious risk to the freedom of speech of users who want their content to remain online, or because there is a serious risk to the company or our people. We recognize that we have some power as a host to not only demand a court order before removing content, but also that we can play a part in ensuring a more fair adjudication of some disputes if we are actively involved in a case. We view this as an important role, both for our users and for the values of free speech, especially in cases where important speech issues are at stake and/or there is a very clear differential in power between the complaining party and our user.

In each lawsuit, we ask ourselves a few questions: What is this case about? Does the user want to keep the content to remain online, and could we make a difference on the user's behalf? What is the blog about? Are there any political or other important speech issues? Is there a potential monetary award against us?

We like to call our rubric for making decisions on when to step in to help defend our users "The Automattic Doctrine", and the answers to the questions above help us decide how actively participate in the lawsuit. In our experience, the determinative question is most often whether the user wants to be involved in the defense and work with us to keep their ideas and opinions online.

Our approach ultimately puts the decision about whether content is defamatory, or instead, protected speech, in front of the right decision maker: a neutral court of law. Leaving such important decisions to the discretion of Internet hosts is misplaced and tilts the balance in favor of silencing often legitimate voices.

Paul Sieminski is General Counsel at Automattic. Holly Hogan is Associate General Counsel at Automattic.


Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), 7 Feb 2018 @ 12:30pm

    Our approach ultimately puts the decision about whether content is defamatory, or instead, protected speech, in front of the right decision maker: a neutral court of law. Leaving such important decisions to the discretion of Internet hosts is misplaced and tilts the balance in favor of silencing often legitimate voices.

    This is a very important point. My only quibble with it is that it doesn't go far enough: there's nothing particularly special about defamation. No content at all should be removed for violating the law on accusation alone. The DMCA's notice-and-takedown system is a legal abomination; these are matters that should be determined in a court of law, because they're too open to abuse otherwise. The DMCA needs to be thrown out.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Cdaragorn (profile), 7 Feb 2018 @ 2:15pm

      Re:

      I definitely agree, but I think the DMCA's bar is actually and sadly high compared to some of the issues the article hinted at.

      At least with the DMCA you're allowed to fight it. Some countries have decided that if you try to fight it you're instantly liable even on the weak standard of whether the content was true or not.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2018 @ 2:18pm

      Re:

      "The DMCA's notice-and-takedown system is a legal abomination;"

      Brought to us by the left and the right! Keep voting them in folks!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2018 @ 3:10pm

      Re: DMCA is abridged civil process due sheerly to number of potential complaints.

      Let's be clear up front that you do not support copyright any more than Masnick does. Your hostility to DMCA stems from that, and likely from your wish to get all content for free.

      The DMCA's notice-and-takedown system is a legal abomination; -- No, it's necessary to (try and) protect the livelihood of content producers from the tens of millions of infringing downloads going on right this instant.

      these are matters that should be determined in a court of law, because they're too open to abuse otherwise. -- No, the matters are clear, specific, and the problem arises solely due to persons trying to get content for free. You cannot example anyone who's paid for copyrighted content and kept to the license thereof who's had trouble. Techdirt examples a few pirates which are anomalies in tens of millions person getting due money from copyrighted works every day. -- The alternative is a draconian you don't want, because copyright holders have all the right here, and other persons none. (Oh, I haven't covered all usual objections nor others you can imagine up, so just go on with those, while ignoring the key fact that piracy is the problem.)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2018 @ 3:14pm

        Re: Re: DMCA is abridged civil process due sheerly to number of potential complaints.

        “anomalies in tens of millions“ I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2018 @ 3:25pm

          Re: Re: Re: DMCA is abridged civil process due sheerly to number of potential complaints.

          “anomalies in tens of millions“ I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

          WELL? I'm never going to learn unless instructed. The sentence is a trifle awkward, but I think clear if start without bias. I'm not going for elegance, here, just jamming in some facts.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            An Onymous Coward (profile), 7 Feb 2018 @ 3:27pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: DMCA is abridged civil process due sheerly to number of potential complaints.

            > just jamming in some alternative facts

            FTFY

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2018 @ 7:45pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: DMCA is abridged civil process due sheerly to number of potential complaints.

            You've been instructed for years, blue boy. That you continue to furiously devour the cock of the DMCA is your issue, not anyone else's.

            But since you like the DMCA so much, have a DMCA vote.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        An Onymous Coward (profile), 7 Feb 2018 @ 3:26pm

        Re: Re: DMCA is abridged civil process due sheerly to number of potential complaints.

        Not supporting infinite copyright is not the same thing as not supporting copyright. Nobody is asking to get all the things for at no charge.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Mason Wheeler (profile), 7 Feb 2018 @ 3:29pm

        Re: Re: DMCA is abridged civil process due sheerly to number of potential complaints.

        Let's be clear up front that you do not support copyright any more than Masnick does.

        This is probably technically true. I support it about as much as he does, which is to say that while I recognize its importance I also recognize the harm that it can do when abused, and I understand that it should not be an absolute right. As Mike does.

        Specifically, when John Doe's copyright clashes with my fundamental Constitutional right to the Presumption of Innocence, the Presumption of Innocence needs to win out every single time. When it does not, something is very wrong, and in the DMCA, it does not. Therefore, something is very wrong with the DMCA.

        and likely from your wish to get all content for free.

        I once heard an AI researcher give a very interesting definition of intelligence, as in "the quality that humans have that computers find exceptionally difficult to emulate." His definition was: the capability to grasp and appropriately respond to nuance.

        Please be more intelligent in future posts. It helps you to not appear so dumb to the rest of us.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2018 @ 2:58pm

    So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.

    As I've written before, online "platforms" don't actually have any right to exist at all, let alone outside the traditional laws of publishing, and may be bad idea all round. More outlets for "ideas" just mean more hostility. Cranks like Masnick say "sell T-shirts to fund major movies", and other cranks can't resist hooting it, and then tertiary cranks overwork feeble imaginations to accuse the 2nd crank of various scurrile flaws. And so on, multiplying as it goes. Just read through a week of Techdirt. Should be enough to make you reverse on the whole "platform" notion.

    Sigh. Been days of complaints from upper class lawyers about how difficult it is -- which means only that people nowadays just want to gain money without trouble or risk.

    Sure, it'd be great for YOU if immune from defamation, but that's not LAW that can apply to everyone, it's privilege for YOU!

    Sure, professionals can make their whining look soundly based in public good, but bottom line is they just want more money more easily. Nothing new about that either merely because it's now "on teh internets".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2018 @ 3:05pm

      Re: So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.

      The publisher of any content is the person, or organization, that makes the content available to the public, and not the means of distribution to the public. Would you hold the delivery boy responsible for any defamation in the papers they are delivering?

      Also, explain why what is published should be limited by a gatekeeper, as that has always limited the number of people who could get there works published, and is no guarantee that the best works produced get published.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2018 @ 3:16pm

        Re: Re: So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.

        not the means of distribution to the public

        Not entirely true. Try distributing child porn, smartypants, and see whether a mere distributor isn't criminally liable -- even if entirely "unaware" of the content, as Kim Dotcom claims to be.

        Would you hold the delivery boy responsible for any defamation in the papers they are delivering?

        No, but the writer / editor / publisher, yes. Electronic publishing is publishing.

        explain why what is published should be limited by a gatekeeper,

        May be a good idea to limit, as I stated. There's reason behind the laws that govern publishing, they're not so arbitrary as you believe, nor the societal ills caused by rampant publishing different because "on teh internets".

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2018 @ 3:26pm

          Re: Re: Re: So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.

          >Electronic publishing is publishing.

          Indeed, and the person that posts the content is the publisher, and not the company that provides the software, storage and bandwidth that allow them to publish.

          Also, just because you prefer someone else to decide what content is suitable for you to see, others are more mature, and make the decision of what to see for themselves.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          An Onymous Coward (profile), 7 Feb 2018 @ 3:31pm

          Re: Re: Re: So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.

          No, but the writer / editor / publisher, yes. Electronic publishing is publishing.

          The write, editor and publisher of a blog are all the same person. The media is a web site, akin to the printing press in your example. Would you try to sue the printing press for libel or go after the person actually responsible?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2018 @ 3:09pm

      Re: So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.

      I for one think it’s very healthy for mental health professionals to let the inmates at their facilities use the internet. And I would like to thank Mike for volunteering to take a couple of these clients and help to reintegrate them into society.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2018 @ 3:11pm

      Re: So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.

      Or perhaps we never bothered going after the people who owned the printing press when the publishers created some defamatory content and ordered a print of it.

      But your explanation seems good too.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2018 @ 3:22pm

        Re: Re: So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.

        > Or perhaps we never bothered going after the people who owned the printing press when the publishers created some defamatory content and ordered a print of it.

        Er, if that's arguing other than my view, I'm too dense to get it.

        But either way, I guess you too can try running a press printing child porn someone else orders and see whether mere mechanics of pressing is safe. -- That censorship has been reduced greatly of late, but there still some limit.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2018 @ 3:29pm

          Re: Re: Re: So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.

          The difference between obvious illegal material, and that which cannot be decided on site is far narrower than the gap between child porn and defamation. Further a printer looks at what they are printing, while platforms do not look at what other are publishing.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            An Onymous Coward (profile), 7 Feb 2018 @ 3:34pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.

            Still missing the point that the "publisher" is the person posting the child porn online, not the platform they posted it on. An internet platform is equivalent to the printing press. You don't sue the machinery, you sue the responsible party.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2018 @ 3:53pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.

              I said a printer, meaning traditional printer, could be held responsible in extreme case, based on the practice that they have a human look at every page during printing press setup, just to make sure it looks correct before they produce several hundred to many thousand copies. Also that only applies if the work is obviously illegal.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2018 @ 3:36pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.

            > platforms do not look at what other are publishing

            You just re-stated much of the problem as if it's the excuse.

            And it's now becoming less true as cases work their way through the entrails of the legal system, and politicians and others THINK on the practical consequences of so many persons publishing so much.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2018 @ 4:02pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.

              Wordpress is a platform for 70 million websites, just how do they look at everything before or after it is published. There is a huge difference between contracting to publish or print someones work, and providing a platform for people to self publish on.

              As for the consequences of so many people p[publishing, it means that there is more education, interesting and entertaining material published every second that is is easy to ignore the dross, and build ones own curated list of people whose works you will look at. Indeed the problem is deciding who to follow, rather than finding enough interesting works to fill in the available time.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              orbitalinsertion (profile), 7 Feb 2018 @ 5:52pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So? You accept risks by going into business -- wherever. An online "platform" don't make ya special in law so should be immune from all that you're hosting.

              You just re-stated much of the problem as if it's the excuse.

              You keep restating this as if it is a problem.

              the practical consequences of so many persons publishing so much.

              Much-decried elitism at its finest.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), 7 Feb 2018 @ 3:12pm

    They did handle the Moritz debacle fairly well, after an admittedly shaky start.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2018 @ 3:32pm

    "It's notable that many of the worrying complaints we receive (including all of the examples above) come from large corporations or wealthy individuals and are aimed at small publishers or individual bloggers"

    Ahah! You have identified THE CLASS ENEMY.

    Yes, The Rich and their infernal corporations are ALWAYS the problem, using their undue power of mere money to control the lower class.

    Of course, any who hold that view are dismissed as "Marxists" by those who've been indoctrinated by the very class of persons who hold near all of the power.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2018 @ 7:47pm

      Re: "It's notable that many of the worrying complaints we receive (including all of the examples above) come from large corporations or wealthy individuals and are aimed at small publishers or individual bloggers"

      The class issue has been noted for a long time. It's why idiots like Shiva Ayyadurai and the RIAA keep giving everyone the issues over publications and free speech.

      That you support these idiots, and scream about contradictions against them as "anomalies", comes as no surprise. You're a corporate fluffer through and through, blue boy.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Coyne Tibbets (profile), 7 Feb 2018 @ 7:17pm

    Defamation by claim of defamation

    It occurs to me that someone should experiment with defamation by claim of defamation.

    According to the Wikipedia article:

    Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and must have been made to someone other than the person defamed.

    Okay so let's propose an example. Joe publishes a Blog article. Bob doesn't like the article so he makes a false complaint to the blog host that it is defamatory.

    Per the above, Bob has defamed Joe. He has made a claim that is false and he has made it to someone other than Joe. So Joe should be able to sue Bob for defamation.

    If a few of these idiots pursued the falsely claiming defamation, maybe other idiots would think twice before doing that.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Feb 2018 @ 7:40pm

    Proof before action, and where the parties reside

    Accusation does not mean one is guilty. It may be the start of a process, but it is not the end. For a third party to be liable before an adjudication is seriously ridiculous. To continue to display the 'accused' statement(s) until they are adjudicated and determined defamatory seems legitimate. Until a court order to remove a statement the proper thing to do is leave it up. Then, the court must reside in the same location as the party that posted or 'provided' the opportunity for that posting.

    Then, some consideration of the location of the court and the location of the parties, and the location of the 'provider' (since the publisher is the writer in many instances) should be undertaken. If some of the parties are in different countries and the 'provider' may be in yet another country other than the court, there may be no reason to follow the courts rulings.

    It's a mess. The 'provider' should follow laws and court orders in the jurisdiction in which they are incorporated or licensed, but court orders from without that jurisdiction should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. In addition, the courts in the location of the 'provider' should not bow to the determinations of courts in other locations without adjudicating the issues themselves.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    fairuse (profile), 8 Feb 2018 @ 8:26pm

    I get it/

    Wordpress has a policy and it works for user -> post an article ->macro process does the work -> live web page[user].

    It's all vending machine.

    Two days later....
    Oh, look live web page[user] has flag and compliance has an email.

    [ bunch of words from Z and a demand to remove defamatory post]

    live web page[legal] -> see the judge for court order

    Shame DMCA was bought by Hollywood.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Wendy Cockcroft, 9 Feb 2018 @ 6:04am

    Thank you

    WordPress will also remove troll blogs if you can prove your case. As long as you have evidence, you don't need to go to court.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Raghav, 27 Apr 2018 @ 2:09am

    Wordpress

    WordPress is an award-winning CMS software, used by millions of webmasters worldwide for building their website or blogs. Moreover, Thanks for such a relevant information. I am myself an <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/expert-seo-freelancer-delhi/">SEO Professional</a> and after reading your blog, I can say this blog will really help every digital marketer at the beginner stage. Looking forward to more relevant blogs from the page.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    On behalf of Lory Shem Tov (journalist incarcerate, 10 Aug 2018 @ 7:47am

    WORDPRESS sold out Israeli journalists into jail

    Paul Sieminski and Holly Hogan's claims that Automattic Inc. is worthy of praise from the Electronic Frontier Foundation for protecting human rights and freedom of speech is a hoax. In 2016 Paul and Holly voluntarily and without a judicial warrant gave the State of Israel IP addresses of Israeli reporter Lory Shem-Tov and social activist Moti Leybel, who were charged by the Israeli Government for Insulting State officers and Ridiculing the Judiciary. Both exposed Israeli judges' corruption, discrimination, bigotry and hypocrisy. Shem Tov's articles were the only source of unbiased news about the Israeli Judiciary. As a result of Paul and Holly's cooperation, ratting on its customers, Ayelet Shaked Israel Justice Minster ordered a raid on 20 social activists' homes. Shem Tov is charged with 120 charges of insult and ridiculization based on the IP data Wordpresss supplied to the State of Israel. Lory Shem-tov is held incarcerated since February 27, 2017. And for this Automattic, Inc. - Wordpress wants an award of excellence?
    Lory Shem Tov is now suing the US-DOJ in Washington DC under FOIA for refusing to give her copies of the Notice of Preservation and correspondence with Simienski.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.