Adam Steinbaugh 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (39) comment rss

  • On the post: Roca Labs Threatens Other Sites For Writing About Its Case, Files Another Questionable Document

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 05 Nov, 2014 @ 03:27pm

    Also fun

    They must be planning on sending out a LOT of nastygrams if they're looking to hire another attorney.

  • On the post: Roca Labs Threatens Other Sites For Writing About Its Case, Files Another Questionable Document

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 05 Nov, 2014 @ 03:23pm

    Empty frame

    Nobody ever sends me any mail. :'(

  • On the post: Roca Labs Story Gets More Bizarre: Senator Threatens Bogus Defamation Lawsuit, While Nevada Quickly Rejects Bogus Bribery Charge

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 24 Oct, 2014 @ 12:34pm

    Re: Bribery

    It's not a statement of fact when the bases for the statement are fully disclosed. Then it's opinion, even if that opinion is objectively re-fucking-diculous. Even were it not, the asserted basis for establishing actual malice (i.e., the length of time before the election) is far less than clear and convincing.

    Nevertheless, I'm glad cooler heads on the senator's side prevailed before there was even a chance to criticize them for it.

  • On the post: Techdirt's Response To Roca Labs' Demand For A Retraction

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 10 Oct, 2014 @ 03:09pm

    The most remarkable thing here is that the EFF's counsel resisted the urge to file the response I would have sent:

    "Dear Mr. Berger and Roca Labs, Inc.:

    lol.

    love,eff and techdirt and mike"

    In crayon, naturally.

  • On the post: Federal Revenge Porn Bill Will Look To Criminalize Websites

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 02 Apr, 2014 @ 08:51pm

    Re:

    Amen

  • On the post: Game Dev Derek Smart (Again) Responds To A Negative Review By Making Vague Legal Threats And Banning Commenters

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2014 @ 04:59pm

    Re: Re: Tweet Detweeted

    I just woke up to this after a long night at the day-turned-night-turned-day job, so I'm a bit groggy.

    First, some housekeeping:

    Regarding the tweets to me that are no longer there: "They are not [deleted]. They were removed when I blocked him I think."

    Twitter doesn't 'remove' tweets when you block someone. Even if that were true, I suspect Twitter would have deleted this tweet as well.

    "When I saw the very same image (now removed from Adam's Twitter feed btw - by him) in this article, I put two and two together and figured out what was going on."

    That's false. My tweet including a link to the screenshot is still there. That screenshot (which I did not take) does not differ from the post it was taken from. When you complained that the quote was out of context, I tweeted a link to the full thread so my followers could judge the context for themselves.

    One of my followers is Tim Cushing. The first I learned that TechDirt/Tim had posted about this was when you emailed me today. So I'm at a loss as to how I'm in "collusion" with anyone, although I'll assume that accusation arises out of a mistaken belief that Tim was someone else on the Steam boards.

    Having re-read that thread (again), I still feel that it was a fair question as to why you would, in a thread classifying impolite reviews (regarding pricing) as 'trolling' and 'bullying', go on to invoke the legal process as an option:

    "I don't care how old I get or what's at stake, I will never - ever - let anyone bully or push me around. Which is why when I fight back, it ends up being overkill because I don't pull any punches. Whether it is a lawsuit or just a discovery engagement to find the misfit behind the anon mask, I will pursue it as I have done on several occasions - and prevailed. Which is why people and corporations simply don't mess with me. Play nice and I'll play along. Anything else and it's game over."

    In response to my inquiry as to what you meant, you've since stated, at least implicitly, that you are not considering legal options. That is probably wise. But those who would even suggest that censorious abuse of the legal process is an option should be questioned, particularly when they've issued hyperbolic, unsound legal threats in the past. For someone who has actually sued over words, you're awfully prickly when being asked what your own words mean.

  • On the post: Shockingly Craigslist Account Soliciting Naked Photos For Revenge Porn Has Same IP As Site Owner And Fake Lawyer

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2013 @ 01:33am

    Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 19th, 2013 @ 11:59pm

    He's had the same static IP for some time, and the emails that were compared were nearly simultaneous. Plus, he used the same version of the same email program from all three email addresses.

  • On the post: Charles Carreon Keeps Digging; Now Targeting Lawyer Who Is Seeking Legal Fees [Updated]

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 22 Jan, 2013 @ 03:08pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    ... And I've replied to the wrong post. I am not good at computering.

  • On the post: Charles Carreon Keeps Digging; Now Targeting Lawyer Who Is Seeking Legal Fees [Updated]

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 22 Jan, 2013 @ 03:08pm

    Re: Re:

    An Internet cartoonist lampoons another site in a hyperbolic rant, using the word "thief" to describe a site profiting off of his creations while the site looks the other way. I can't imagine a court would that defamatory, and many courts have ruled as a matter of law that similar statements were not defamatory in less-sympathetic contexts.

    FunnyJunk's threat was an attempt to get a quick settlement at nuisance value. Nothing more.

  • On the post: Charles Carreon Keeps Digging; Now Targeting Lawyer Who Is Seeking Legal Fees [Updated]

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 22 Jan, 2013 @ 02:13pm

    Judge: lolno

    Charles Carreon lost much of his motion today. He gets 60 days to file a response (not the 120 he sought) and won't get discovery The discovery Carreon wanted was (in my opinion) a thinly-veiled attempt to harass both the satirical blogger and his counsel (he wanted to depose the blogger to ask him questions about how little his blog mattered to the world, and subpoena his lawyer for information regarding his firm) and drive up the costs of litigation.

    Key quote from the judge: "The Ninth Circuit discourages major litigation with respect to attorneys? fees. [...] Defendant?s request for extensive discovery would amount to a mini-trial on plaintiff?s motion for attorneys? fees. Such extensive discovery is unnecessary and a waste of resources. Accordingly, defendant?s request for a 120 day extension is denied."

  • On the post: 'Revenge Porn' Site Owners Escalate Their Failure, Going From Bogus DMCA Notices To Bogus Legal Threats

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 14 Nov, 2012 @ 09:56am

    Re: none

    "King me!"

    "Chance, this is chess."

  • On the post: 'Revenge Porn' Site Owners Escalate Their Failure, Going From Bogus DMCA Notices To Bogus Legal Threats

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2012 @ 02:52pm

    I emailed Chance...

    I emailed Chance Trahan and Craig Brittain to offer to correct any statement on my blog that they could point out was inaccurate (and note that I wasn't going to be cowed by legal threats dispatched from a void of legal understanding).

    Chance replied:

    "Thanks, I can now use this as proof as well that you are in turn harassing us. Thanks for replying. I knew you would."

    Sigh.

  • On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer Charles Carreon Just Keeps Digging: Promises He'll Find Some Law To Go After Oatmeal's Matt Inman

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 19 Jun, 2012 @ 08:08pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Commercial speech can be regulated by the government. And, even then, what counts as 'commercial speech' is quite limited. Even if Mr. Inman had, somewhere, some type of commercial motivation for doing what he did, that isn't enough to qualify his statements as commercial speech. See, Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products, 463 U.S. 60, 67 (1983) ("the fact that Youngs has an economic motivation for mailing the pamphlets would clearly be insufficient by itself to turn the materials into commercial speech").

    The basic definition of whether speech is 'commercial' is whether it does "no more than propose a commercial transaction." Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 762 (1976).

    Moreover, the Supreme Court has already held that charitable speech is not commercial speech: "Even assuming that the mandated speech [a requirement by the State of North Carolina that charitable organizations make certain disclosures -- exactly what is at issue in this case], in the abstract, is merely 'commercial,' it does not retain its commercial character when it is inextricably intertwined with the otherwise fully protected speech involved in charitable solicitations, and thus the mandated speech is subject to the test for fully protected expression, not the more deferential commercial speech principles." Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781, 782 (1988).

  • On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer Charles Carreon Just Keeps Digging: Promises He'll Find Some Law To Go After Oatmeal's Matt Inman

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 19 Jun, 2012 @ 07:50pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Are you alleging that Mr. Inman is paying people to commit crimes?

  • On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer Charles Carreon Just Keeps Digging: Promises He'll Find Some Law To Go After Oatmeal's Matt Inman

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 19 Jun, 2012 @ 07:46pm

    Re:

    Why, the dividing line is drawn in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, U.S. 485 U.S. 46, 50 (1988): whether a reasonable person would view the content as stating actual facts. That case, by the way, concerned a depiction of someone's mother having sex in an outhouse.

    And, yes, offensive speech is protected even when it concerns a private figure, as well. See, Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S.Ct. 1207 (2011).

  • On the post: Carreon's Full Filing Reveals He Donated To Oatmeal Campaign Himself, Plus Other Assorted Nuttiness

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 19 Jun, 2012 @ 07:27pm

    Re:

    You're quite correct that 'hate speech' contributed greatly to the advent of the Holocaust and other atrocities.

    But even hate speech is still protected by the First Amendment.

    Not that that's the relevant category of speech at issue here. You're looking for the category relating to incitement. Even then, inciting speech is protected by the First Amendment unless it is intended and likely to create an immediate breach of the peace. As in -- right now, someone is going to get physically violent.

    I greatly sympathize with the fact that people are saying all sorts of nasty stuff about you and Mr. Carreon. Some of it, I think, crosses the line, and you're right to condemn it.

    But the solution isn't to go and drag someone into court far away from their homes -- an act which can be quite confusing, costly, and tolling, especially when you don't have the comfort of an able friend, family member, or husband who has the benefit of having worked tirelessly to learn the intricacies of the legal process. Nor is the solution to use that high level of education to go and find a statute with which you can bludgeon the other side with the purported purpose of ensuring that charities get their money (and, in the process, costing those same charities a great deal, and deterring others from donating or starting their own fundraisers -- a Pyrrhic victory, if it gets to that).

    No, the solution is to fight back -- with more speech. Just as you're doing now, and just as Mr. Carreon is doing elsewhere. Public debate is caustic -- if you don't want to be criticized (perhaps vehemently), do nothing.

  • On the post: Carreon's Full Filing Reveals He Donated To Oatmeal Campaign Himself, Plus Other Assorted Nuttiness

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 19 Jun, 2012 @ 06:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Carreon's Disciplinary History

    Really! So he either 1) allowed you access to a client's trust account, 2) allowed you access to a non-trust account containing client funds, or 3) you accessed a client trust account without authorization.

    I would wager that 1 and 2 are ethical breaches. 3? Well...

  • On the post: Carreon's Full Filing Reveals He Donated To Oatmeal Campaign Himself, Plus Other Assorted Nuttiness

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 19 Jun, 2012 @ 08:59am

    Re: Re: Carreon's Disciplinary History

    So he, to reimburse the rent payment, took that amount from the client's funds (which should have been in a client trust account)?

    That most certainly IS doing something.

  • On the post: Righthaven Tells Judge Handling All Its Colorado Cases That He's Wrong

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 18 Apr, 2011 @ 01:16pm

    That's nothin'

    Righthaven may be correct about the limitations of Rule 12(f) and can't really be faulted for pointing out that the judge is wrong. Lawyers have to tell judges that they disagree with them all the time so that they can preserve issues for appeal.

    But THIS is just a jaw-dropping, unnecessary insult that, were it contained in a 'pleading' is just BEGGING for a motion to strike:

    "[...] Righthaven was unaware of the Defendant's alleged medical condition prior to filing suit. In fact, Defendant's incessant use of the Internet as a means to post inflammatory statements about Righthaven and about these legal proceedings say more about his cognitive ability than one would otherwise surmise from the press statements made by his counsel."