Maurice Pilosof and Owen Cook of Real Social Dynamics Censor Discussion of a Sexual Assault

Maurice Pilosof, Owen Cook, and Julien Blanc of Real Social Dynamics have real problems.

Maurice Pilosof is a lawyer representing Real Social Dynamics, which is owned by Owen Cook and employes Julien Blanc. RSD has been caught up in a sexaul assault scandal. In a video Julian Blanc filmed for RSD (and that Owen Cook approved), Blanc is seen committing sexual assault on a woman.

(Click play to learn sexual assault tips from Julien Blanc. Owen Cook approved of this video.)


The media has been spanking Owen Cook and Julian Blanc. Rather than respond to the media to share their story, Owen Cook has hidden in a bunker.

Owen is hiding out because he can't keep his story straight.

Owen Cook knew about Julien Blanc's sexual assault video.

Owen Cook wants to censor 8Chan because 8Chan contains screen captures that prove Owen Cook knew about Julien Cook's sexual assault video.

Before the drama went down Owen Cook posted on the Real Social Dynamics web forum:

It's like 100 or 200 people mad on the internet, similar to pick up hate.

The Japan video will have succeeded if it gets in the million view range. 

Julien's goal is something closer to what David Bond had, with proper news lol. 

(Click on the image for a full screen view.)

Owen Cook Julien Blanc sexual assault

Afraid of taking on the media or going on his public relations campaign, Owen Cook has retained a lawyer who may just find himself nominated for censorious asshat of the year.

Maurice Pilosof is attempting to censor websites that are critical of RSD. Mr. Pilosof sent a letter out to the owner of, a message board where users create and share content.

The owner of has posted the letter on his Twitter feed. The full letter is also reproduced below.

Mr. Pilosof's letter has all of the telltale signs of an attempt to censor. The letter, like all such empty threats from lawyers, throws out a bunch of legalese and mean-sounding threats. These letters are long on generalities and short on specifics.

RSD's letter has one intent only - to censor.

An attorney who understands free speech would laugh at this letter. Yet legal representation is expensive. Attorneys like Maurice Pilosof regularly send out threatening letters knowing that 99% of people will simply take a post down rather than assert their rights.

The owner of is not like most people. He will defend his rights. 

The letter from Mr. Pilosof is a joke for two reasons.

1. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

The owner of did not publish the allegedly defamatory material. Therefore the owner is under no obligation to do anything to "correct the record." Nor is the owner of under an oligation to remove any allegedly defamatory posts.

2. The letter is a rambling mess of nonsense.

I'll explain in bracketed comments why letters like this should be ignored.

The letter from Maurice Pilosof reads:

The undersigned, the attorney of REAL SOCIAL DYNAMICS, INC., (“RSD”) hereby requests that the following posts be taken down: [Please learn about the Striessand Effect.]

The statements contained therein are untrue, private [so what?] and defamatory. [Attorney Pilosof does not identify what statements are defamatory.] Such information and statements were made to malicious [you mean maliciously?] injure RSD’s business. [Free speech is often hurtful. That doesn't matter. Julien Blanc is a public figure. This means you must show that any statements  were made with actual malice, that is, that the writer knew the statements were false at the time he made them.]

Further, they [define "they"] contain statements that are patently untrue. [Which statements are patently untrue? Identify each and every statement that you claim is patently untrue.]

The notion that some anonymous individual knows the equity structure of RSD a privately held company is ridiculous. [The anonymous individual might be a whistle blower. You don't know who is leaking information about the dangerous sexual predator Julien Blanc and his employer Owen Cook.] The attribution of ownership contained in the post is patently false. [Prove it.] This letter constitutes a demand for immediate takedown of such post. [Your takedown request is DENIED; see video below.]

All references to Japanese law in the post are without foundation and merit. [Identify each and every reference to Japanese law and show why those references are without foundation and merit.] The “anonymous” post is not from an official judicial body of the Japanese government. [Perhaps the statement is protected satire. Be more specific.] RSD can equivocally [do you mean unequivocally?] state that it nor any of its employees have been contacted by any judicial body in Japan. [Why should we trust the word of sexual predators?] In point of fact, neither RSD nor any of its employees are subject of any criminal proceeding. [Not yet, anyway.] The inaccurate and false statements contained are defamatory per se and need to be removed immediately. [I suggest you read this primer on defamation per se.]

I may be reached via email at or via phone to +1 310 652 0137. I have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. [This is DMCA legalese. Weren't you just talking about defamation per se?] The information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. [This is also DMCA legalese. Get you theory of the case straight, sir. What exactly are you claiming?]

Maurice Pilosof
Legal Counsel, Real Social Dynamics

(The owner of responds to Owen Cook's legal threats.)



Mike Cernovich Responds to Internet Stalkers

Mike Cernovich, a lawyer in California, has recently been attacked by several Internet stalkers. Mike Cernovich's home address as well as a street view image of his home was widely distributed to an online hate mob that included writers from Gawker Media who exchanged date-rape drug tips, a neo-Nazi, and a man who may or may not have covered up a rape. 

The Internet hate mob combed through Mike Cernovich's Twitter account, which included over 13,500 Twitter postings (called Tweets). Some of Mike Cernovich's Twitter postings made sense in contenxt. Some were tasteless jokes. Other Tweets were examples of "trolling," that is, provoking a response.

Mike Cernovich has explained his Twitter postings in an official statement posted elsewhere.

However, Mr. Cernovich believes it's important to examine the people who have been attacking him.

Arthur Chu of Jeopardy fame knew about rape, said nothing.

Arthur Chu wrote an article on the Daily Beast about his experience with rape and rapists. In the article, Chu wrote:

But I have known nerdy male stalkers, and, yes, nerdy male rapists. I’ve known situations where I knew something was going on but didn’t say anything—because I didn’t want to stick my neck out, because some vile part of me thought that this kind of thing was normal....

In an interview on CNN, Arthur Chu said he did not report the rape because some part of him believed rape was OK.

(Jeopardy champion Arthur Chu talks about rape in this CNN interview.)



Ian Miles Cheong was (and perhaps still is) a neo-Nazi.

Ian Miles Cheong held horrible racist views. Some of Cheong's quotes include the following:

Hitler is my fucking idol

holocaust isn’t important enough to capitalize, because jews=nothing

(Ian Miles Cheong quotes.)

Ian Miles Cheong

Ian Miles Cheong has written many other racist and pro-Nazi comments. Repeating them all would be in poor taste.

Randi Harper has been in jail.

Randi Harper blogs on Twitter as FreeBSDGirl. She created a shoddy software program that doesn't work. The intent of the code is to block anyone who follows Mike Cernovich on Twitter.

Randi Harper has been arrested and has been in jail.

(This is suspected to be Ms. Harper's mug shot.)

Randi Harper

Her exact crimes are unknown at this time.

Mike Cernovich believes in redemption, and believes Ms. Harper may be a reformed criminal.

That said, one should take what a reformed criminal says with the proverbial grain of salt.

Mike Cernovich, as a lawyer, believes in the First Amendment.

Mike Cernovich does not believe that his critics should be silenced. Mr. Cernovich does believe, however, that the full context of the criticisms against him should be known.

Mike Cernovich has been tartgeted by neo-Nazis and those who support rapists.

Anyone reviewing the attacks against Mr. Cernovich would be well advised to "consider the source" of those attacks.

Johnny G DeGirolamo is an Incompetent Attorney?

Johnny G DeGirolamo a/k/a John DeGirolamo is a Florida attorney who has sued a leading First Amendment lawyer Marc Randazza. (You can see John DeGirolamo's mug shot at the bottom of this post.)

In my view, attorney Johnny G. DeGirolamo has either filed a frivolous lawsuit or he lacks an understanding of the relevant law. 

As a client, you must research a potential attorney carefully before hiring him or her. This is especially true when your business, livelihood, or even freedom is on the line. The client must make an informed decision before hiring a lawyer.

Based on my review of the case filings DeGirolamo has filed, I would never hire Attorney DeGirolamo to represent me in traffic court, let alone a criminal court.

For more details about John DeGirolamo, check out Popehat's case summary.

Was Johnny G. DeGirolamo arrested for theft?

According to the website, Johnny G. Degirolamo was arrested for theft and obstructing a police officer. 

I would need to review the case file for myself to confirm. However, the mug shot and description noted in the arrest record does appear to match Attorney Degirolamo's current appearance.

If Degirolamo was arrested for theft, a potential client should be very careful.

(This is purportedly Johnny Degirolamo's mug shot.)

image from

If You Love Your Freedom, Thank a Veteran and a Criminal Defense Lawyer

I have worn the uniform and I have lost a friend to war. There's not a year that passes by when I don't read about the immesureable loss of Brian Slavenas

It's Veteran's Day. We are supposed to thank a veteran for our freedom. You'll have trouble finding people more respectful of our Armed Forces than I. Yet each year I wonder who is really protecting our freedoms.

Two Marines face what appears to be false criminal charges. These Marines who we should thank for defending our freedom are facing what look to me to be false criminal charges. Their own government is trying to imprison them.

Who will stand next to these Marines? Lawyers.

People in faraway lands aren't taking away my freedom. The greatest threat to my freedom is found within my own borders.

People filing frivolous lawsuits are the greatest threat to free speech.

Police are the greatest threat to individual freedom, as those young Marines are learning.

If you love your freedom, thank a veteran.

Then thank your lawyer. I thank my First Amendment lawyer Marc Randazza, the lawyers at Popehat who fight against censorious assholes, criminal defense lawyers like Mark Bennett, and my old friend Norm Pattis.


Robert Caruso of Business Insider and Huffington Post Loves Rape and Murder

Robert Caruso is a freelance writer. His work has appeared on websites like Business Insider, the Huffington Post, and the Boston Globe. I conducted research on Robert Caruso and learned that he has fantasies of rape and murder. 

That is not an exaggeration. Allow me to quote Mr. Caruso directly. Before we do, let's dismiss one of Mr. Caruso's lies.

Mr. Caruso has falsely claimed that these are photoshops or that his Twitter account was hacked. However, I spent several hours archiving his Tweets on Archive.Today, a site that takes a real-time picture of a website or Tweet.

I went through his entire timeline. Robert Caruso's rape-loving Twitter was not hacked.

Robert Caruso murder

If called to appear in court, I could and would testify that Mr. Robert Caruso posted the following to his Twitter account:

the Kenyans and Ethiopians can rape and pillage your hometown. I'm at peace with either one.

(Twitter; Archive)

@mchastain81 I called @GaltsGirl a cunt, and I'd do it again, because I felt like it. 1st Amendment affords me that. Or have you forgotten?


 I don't care about the plight of the Syrian people. Frankly, I think we should let them suffer.

(Twitter; Pastebin)

How does it feel to watch Iran rape your homeland?

(Twitter; Archive)

Robert Caruso is a also liar.

When confronted with his horrific comments, Mr. Caruso did not apologize. Instead, he lied to my face.

Mr. Caruso of the Huffington Post had this to say:

I don't care what you fabricate or where you send them.

(Twitter; Archive.)

I am a licensed attorney familiar with the practice of gathering and authenticating evidence. I Archived a copy of all of his Tweets.

Robert Caruso is welcome to sue me. My attorney has asked me to tell Mr. Caruso that we will waive service of process. (That means Mr. Caruso is welcome to email a copy of his complaint directly to my attorney rather than spend the time, money, and effort to serve me in person.)

Robert Caruso

How a Hoaxer Becomes an Informant: HYPOTHETICAL

[This is hypothetical and about no one in particular. Revealing the identify of a federal informant can in some cases be prosecuted as a crime. I would never reveal the identity of an informant. This post is for informational purposes only.]

Daddy issues.

Imagine you're hungry for attention. Perhaps you didn't get much attention growing up and have serious daddy issue.

The best way to get attention is to convince people your life is in danger. There is nothing quite like a damsel (or dashing man, as this post could apply to men or women) in distress.

You grew up in a SJW culture where words have no meaning. If someone posts something you don't like, they are stalking you.

If someone writes about you and you go to that person's Twitter page to read it (because he doesn't reach out to you), he's harassing you. Forget that this "harasser" never wrote anything to you or even contacted you. Words mean whatever your crybaby gender studies course says they mean.

You grow up in a culture without consequences. Thus, you think nothing of sending yourself a few death threats.

The media and everyone else takes the bait. You're a big star who is finally getting that attention you so richly craved.

Enter the Feds.

Then the Feds come knocking. You foolishly believe that talking to an agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigations is like talking to a gender studies professor. Tell them what you feel and they will blindly accept it. Feels > Law.

Since words have no meaning, you tell these agents you were threatened. (Hey, maybe you or a friend of yours sent the email. But words mean whatever you want them to. You did feel threatened by that fake email, after all, right?)

As it turns out, the Feds don't like being lied to. Lying to a federal agent is a federal crime, in fact. It's called obstruction of justice and it's a felony.

Snitches get hugs and kisses.

The Feds know that prosecutions are political. If you've been given the royal treatment by the media, perhaps the Feds might not want to prosecute you. Like other government agencies, the Feds are sensitive to public relations.

Some tight-asses (no one has tighter buttholes than Federal agents; do not ever lie to these people or even talk to them unless you have an attorney present) say to you:

"Hey, you're a felon. You have a choice - go to prison or be a confidential informant."

The Feds give you an idea. Go find some white knights to help you run Ops. Hack a few sites. You know, the usual.

This is nothing to you. You're an SJW and you don't care about anyone but yourself.

You enlist some hapless white knights to help you.

You avoid prison time and now the FBI has a whole bunch of people they can indict for violations of computer crime statutes. (Or the Feds can turn these white knights into snitches.)

That is how a hoaxer becomes an informant.

This is, of course, 100% hypothetical. 

#GamerGate: An SEO Love Story

I may have said some stupid stuff on Twitter, but I never failed to report a rape (Arthur Chu).

I may have said some stupid stuff on Twitter, but I was never a neo-Nazi (Ian Miles Cheong).

I may have said some stupid stuff on Twitter, but I never wished rape and murder on a person's family (Robert Caruso).

I may have said some stupid stuff on Twitter, but I never said anything worse than Gawker (Sam Biddle).

I may have said some stupid stuff on Twitter, but I never molested a child (Lena Dunham).

I may have said some stupid stuff on Twitter, but I have never said consensual sex is rape (Matt Binder).

I may have said some stupid stuff on Twitter, but I am looking into what you've done.

Hit hard but hit fair SJWs, because I play by your rules.

idledillettante's False Police Report

"I'm pretty sure what Cernovich is doing is civil harassment in the state of California; and I feel badly about Quinn being harassed like this on my account." - idledillettante.

1. You are wrong. My conduct did not even close to the line of harassment in the state of California.

2. Nobody cares about how  you feel. 

Ms. idledillettante, your conduct is a criminal violation of Penal Code Section 148.5, which makes it a crime to file a false police report. I would suggest you retain a criminal defense attorney to help you  withdraw your report to avoid criminal liability.

I do not have any control over what, if anything, the LAPD decides to do with you. I do, however, have the right to sue you. This is a right I intend to exercise.

The false police report you filed allows me to sue you for damages. What's more, you incited others to file false police reports, which itself opens you up to liability under entirely other theories.

You seem to think this is a joke, or that you may use the legal system to vindicate your feelings. You are in for a rude awakening. I suggest you print this out and go to your college's legal department immediately.

Ms. idledillettante falsely accused Mike Cernovich of harassment.

Ms. idledillettante reported me to the Los Angeles Police Department (and encouraged her readers to file false police reports).  

What crime did I commit? In Ms. idledillettante's words, "I'm pretty sure what Cernovich is doing is civil harassment in the state of California."

As is turns out, California has a civil harassment statute. Anyone with an Internet connection can read it. 

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 527.6 provides:

527.6. (a) (1) A person who has suffered harassment as defined in subdivision (b) may seek a temporary restraining order and an injunction prohibiting harassment as provided in this section.

There is, of course, an important caveat. CCP section 527.6(b)(1) reads: "Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of 'course of conduct.'"

Even if the First Amendment did not exist (God Bless America), none of my conduct would have remotely fallen under harassment under California law. Again, the law (not your feelings) provides:

"Course of conduct" is a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose, including following or stalking an individual, making harassing telephone calls to an individual, or sending harassing correspondence to an individual by any means, including, but not limited to, the use of public or private mails, interoffice mail, facsimile, or computer email.

I never followed, stalked, or made harassing calls to anyone. I write about whatever I want to write about. If people read what I write and dislike it, that is their fault.

You cannot actively seek out "offensive" or "harassing" material that hurts your feels and  later claim that the person who wrote something you actively sought out harassed you. Well, you can claim that in your crybaby gender studies courses. You may not, however, make that claim in a court of law.

That said, even analyzing my conduct under the harassment statute is a red herring, as all of my conduct falls within well-defined protections of the First Amendment.

(Have you not noticed that there hasn't been a single licensed attorney who has accused me of any criminal or civil wrongdoing?)

It is impossible for me to harass anyone if I am engaged in constitutionally protective activity - such as exercising my rights under the First Amendment.

The police report.

Ms. idledillettante issues with my conduct stem from my blog post about Chelsea Van Valkenburg A/K/A Zoe Quinn.

I was well within my legal rights to write about a legal dispute. This is so obvious as to be baffling that anyone would contend otherwise. You can read all of the case citations here

Ms. idledillettante became outraged that I wrote about Valkenburg's case and "doxxed" me.

Much of Ms. idledillettante's gripes concern conduct that is entirely lawful and appropraite. THe conduct is lawful as I have a First Amendment right to write about issues concerning the court system. The conduct is appropriate as Zoe Quinn doxxed me.

Ms. idledillettante posted my full address on her site. She also posted a Google street image view of my house. She coordianted her dooxing of me with Valkenburg. 

Ms. idledillettante complained to police that:

  • Mike Cernovich is a licensed attorney in CA. He became interested in a restraining order filed by the victim against her ex Eron Gjoni in MA. Gjoni harassed the victim via internet postings until ordered to stop by a court. Cernovich believes that filing a restraining order against Gjoni is an assualt on Eron’s rights & requested court documents from MA about the case. He then posted them on the internet to the prominent hate group #gamergate, who has been harassing the victim since late August.

This is true as to me, with the qualification that #GamerGate is not a hate group and that there is no evidence #GamerGate has been harassing Valkenburg (who is an alleged victim); no comment as to the truthfullness as to Mr. Gjoni.

I paid a courier service to obtain a copy of the restraining order Valkenburg obtained against Gjoni. The restraining order was a public record. I broke no laws. I obtained records anyone could obtain.

My conduct was entirely lawful. No reasonable person would believe otherwise.

  • Attached to this complaint is the victim’s handwritten complaint which Cernovich posted on his blog on October 23rd. Here, he reacts to something I did (posting a Google Street View of his house) by calling out the victim repeatedly by her legal name, which was not widely known before.

I have the First Amendment right to call Zoe Quinn by her real name or alias. No reasonable person would believe otherwise.

  • He has also been threatening on Twitter to hire a private investigator to research the victim []. He has been repeating this story with the hashtag #gamergate, a poorly organized internet hate mob.

This is all true, except that #GamerGate is not a hate mob.

 I did in fact hire a private investigator to look into Valkenburg and her boyfriend, Alex Lifschitz. I also hired the same private investigator to look into Ms. idledillettante.

Hiring a private investigator is entirely lawful. No reasonable person would believe otherwise.

The lies contained in the police report.

Ms. idledillettante did not merely report me for a non-crime. What she did was even worse. She lied about me in her police report.

Ms. idledillettante told the Los Angeles Police Department several lies, including:

  • 1. "He has ... sent the victim [Valkenburg] threatening direct messages []."

Direct messages (or DMs) are a method of communication available by using Twitter.

I have never sent Valkenburg an email or DM. In fact, I do not even send @ Tweets to Ms. Valkenburg. If Ms. Valkenburg is bothered by what I write, it is because she actively reads me. I send her nothing.

  1. 2. He "seems convinced that the victim doxxed him when in fact she did not."

This is false. I have proof that Valkenburg and Ms. idledillettante acted together in doxxing me. 

Ms. idledillettante has a big mouth and it wasn't hard confirming that she coordinated her doxx of me with Valkenburg.

The causes of action.

Get a lawyer, Ms. idledillettante.

He or she will walk you through the many causes of action I have against you. You may talk about defamation (both for your blog post and the police report), abuse of process, harassment (filing a false police report is not constitutionally protected), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and more.

Because you used the interstate wires to transmit your false police report, there may be federal causes of action there, too.

Again, please consult with a licensed attorney. Go to your university's General Counsel. Get help. You need it.

The lawsuit will be filed in California.

Ms. idledillettante is a student located outside of the State of California. She recently contacted the Los Angeles Police Department to file a false police report against me.

Since Ms. idledillettante contacted authorities in Los Angeles, jurisdiction in California State court would be proper. Ms. idledillettante will need to retain an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California. 

This will be my last open letter.

Ms. idledillettante, the false police report you filed was beyond the pale of what I could have expected. I understand that people play dirty on the Internet. I did not anticipate that you would break the law. You reported conduct that wasn't criminal. You also lied.

As you have neglected to accept my generous offer that you apologize and move on, I have instructed my attorney to file suit.

We will likely wait until the holidays are over, as we are good guys. 

Have a good day, Ms. idledillettante.

Anil Dash, Doxing, and SJW Lies

"Doxx up, don't doxx down." - Anil Dash (source)

Screen Shot 2015-05-25 at 12.14.55 AM

Anil Dash claims I doxxed him. Does his claim hold water or is he being dishonest?

The alleged dox.

Several years ago Anil Dash wrote about his apartment hunt. He mentioned that he would likely be moving into a certain apartment building. He identified his apartment building by name.

Over a year ago I asked Anil why he, a man who hates white people, lived in a nearly all-white neighborhood. I pointed out that he lived in a certain apartment building to prove my point.

I did not identify Anil's unit # or even the floor he lived on.

The apartment building.

The apartment building Anil lives in has 200+ units and over 30 floors. Further, this apartment building has a door man and security. You can't just walk up to his front door.

I pointed out that he lived in a very privileged neighborhood. He hates white people yet chooses to live with them.

I asked Anil why he chooses to live in a bastion of wealth and white privilege rather than with the downtrodden.

The neighborhood - the Upper East Side.

Although I will not identify the apartment building Anil lives in, I will identify the 'hood this hero of the downtrodden lives in.

Wikipedia notes that the Upper East Side is a bastion of power and (by Anil's logic white) privilege:

The racial makeup of the neighborhood was 88.25% White, 6.14% Asian, 0.04% Pacific Islander, 2.34% African American, 0.09% Native American, 1.39% from other races, and 1.74% from two or more races. 5.62% of the population were Hispanic of any race. 

Not only does Anil Dash choose to live among white people, he chooses to live among rich white people:

The Upper East Side maintains the highest pricing per square foot in the United States. A 2002 report cited the average cost per square meter as $8,856; however, that price has noticed a substantial jump, increasing to almost as much as $11,200 per square meter as of 2006. There are some buildings which cost about $125 per square foot (~$1345/㎡).

I did not dox Anil Dash. 

I pointed out that Anil Dash lives in a huge complex.

Anil Dash himself has spoken about where he lives.

Over one year after the aleged doxx, Anil Dash's complete address is still listed in his WHOIS. Clearly this is not a man who is concerned about his personal safety. He is playing the victim, as he often does.

Anil Dash believes in doxing. 

Even if I had doxxed Anil Dash, that would have been my prerogative.

Anil Dash has power and privilege. He is a rich man who can afford to live among the power elite.

Even so, I never doxxed Anil Dash. He lied once again.

Chelsea Van Valkenburg A/K/A Zoe Quinn v. Free Speech

"You are also ordered not to post any further information about [Chelsea Van Valeknburg] or her personal life or online to [unclear] hate mobs." - Chelsea Van Valkenburg (AKA Zoe Quinn) v. Eron Gjoni.

When people say mean things about us online or even smear our reputations, our first impulse is to fight back. Some people file frivolous defamation lawsuits - called strategic lawsuits against public participation - or SLAPP for short. Others combat speech they disagree with by getting their own message out.

Still others call the police to arrest their criticis. That is what Chelsea Van Valkenburg elected to do.

Chelsea Van Valkenburg (who goes by the alias Zoe Quinn) cheated on her boyfriend, Eron Gjoni. More than that, according to Gjoni,  Valkenburg mentally and physically abused him by exposing him to STD risk, as she cheated on him with several different men and it's uncertain if she used protection.

(Gjoni weighs 135 pounds and has a fondness for cats.)

Screen Shot 2014-10-23 at 12.25.53 AM

(Zoe Quinn is much larger than Gjoni and possess a dominant physical presence. She is, in all ways, an alpha female.)

Screen Shot 2014-10-23 at 12.23.30 AM


Zoe Quinn obtains a restraining order against Eron Gjoni.

In Massachusetts a victim of domestic violence may obtain a protective order - a 209a order for short. A 209a order is nothing unusual. It's what we all understand of as "restraining order" or "peace order."

Essentially, a person subject to the 209a order is not allowed to come within 1,000 feet of the person who has obtained the order. He may not call her or contact her or stalk her. Pretty basic stuff.

Zoe Quinn made several frightening allegations against Gjoni. The truth of those accusations are not at issue here. In fact, I have no interest in their personal squabble.

My interest lies solely in the free speech issue. Gjoni's has been silenced. Much worse, he has been ordered to appear in court for allegedly violating the court order.

Gjoni may go to jail for merely speaking his mind and sharing his story.

Zoe Quinn's conduct is lawfare.

Quinn's actions were not surprising. In fact, First Amendment wonks have a term for it. It's called a Kimberlin v. Walker issue, and it is a form of lawfare. 

Kimberlin v. Aaron Walker was widely covered by a politically liberal blogger who also has a high regard for free speech.

As Ken at Popehat observed in his discussion of Kimberlin:

3. Aaron's arrest illustrates how well lawfare can work and how dangerous unprincipled rubber-stamping of protective orders can be. Imagine it: you write something about a dispute. Someone involved in that dispute goes to court in another state and accuses you of harassment and gets a "peace order" against you. That person claims that your writing is threatening, that it has led to threats, or that it constitutes persistent harassment. If you are very lucky, the judge denies the application because it is too vague, or because it seems to complain about protected speech — but if you are unlucky, the judge rubber-stamps it without even demanding to see the allegedly offending posts.

In Kimberlin, the plaintiff "sought, and obtained, a new 'peace order' (Maryland law-speak for a restraining order) against Aaron, trying to portray Aaron's protected expression as harassment and threats." The protective order prevented Walker from exercising his free speech rights by providing commentary critical of Kimberlin.

Walker was arrested, "apparently on the grounds that by blogging about Kimberlin's behavior, he had violated the peace order."

As Ken at Popehat observed:

Brandenbug, as I mentioned in my earlier post, is the United States Supreme Court case that articulates the relevant standard: speech may only be banned on the theory that it is incitement when it is intended to create, and likely to create, a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action.

One might argue that Gjoni's earlier blog post describing the alleged physical and mental abuse he suffered "intended to create, and likely to create, a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action."

In that case, the protective order should have clearly stated what sort of speech Gjoni was not allowed to make.

Instead, the order was vague and overbroad, as its very terms cover any and all speech Gjoni would make.

The order read, "You are also ordered not to post any further information about [Chelsea Van Valkenburg] or her personal life or online to [unclear] hate mobs."

What does any personal information about Valkenburg mean? By the terms of the order, it would seem to prohibit constitutionally protected speech. After all, Gjoni has the right to talk about the alleged abuse he suffered at Valkenburg's hands.

Eron Gjoni has the right to speak out about the abuse he allegedly suffered at Chelsea Van Valkenburg's hands.

Eugene Volokh is one of the country's leading experts on the First Amendment. In his article Free Speech and Criminal Harassment Laws (here) he covers the use and abuse of protective orders as they relate to free speech.

Volokh's article distinguishes between speech to one person and speech to many people. Think of it this way.

You may obtain a protective order preventing me from harassing you or talking to you. That is one-to-one speech. You may not, however, prevent me from talking about you to other people (one-to-many) speech.

Volokh writes (emphasis added):

Restrictions on public speech about a person, then, stand on very different First Amendment footing from restrictions on unwanted speech to the person. Such restrictions on speech about a person can be constitutional when limited to speech that falls within the recognized First Amendment exceptions, such as threats, libel, and intentional incitement to likely and imminent criminal attack. But when one-to-many speech about people falls outside these exceptions, it should be constitutionally protected.

As I mentioned above, I don’t want to claim that one-to-many speech is less harmful than one-to-one speech. Indeed, many people might be much more upset about insulting things said publicly about them—to listeners who might be influenced by such criticism—than about insulting things said directly to them.

Nonetheless, for reasons discussed in Part I, one-to-many speech has full First Amendment value because it involves the expression of facts and opinions aimed at informing and persuading potentially willing listeners. It should therefore generally be constitutionally protected, notwithstanding the offense and distress it causes to its subjects. And this is certainly where current First Amendment doctrine points.

Eron Gjoni's First Amendment rights are being violated.

Gjoni has the right to discuss the abuse he allegedly suffered at Zoe Quinn's hands. The 209a order is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague under the First Amendment. It's overbroad because it could not possibly cover anything and everything that Gjoni might want to talk about. It's vague because it doesn't put a reasonable person on notice as to what speech is prohibited.

On a moral level, Chelsea Van Valkenburg's conduct is despicable. She is abusing the court system to prevent legitimate criticism of her.

Valkenburg's position on doxxing.

Indeed, in her affidavit for the 209a order, Chelsea Van Valkenburg complained about "doxxing" - the practice of posting a person's information online to harass others. Yet Valkenburg herself "doxxed" me.

Valkenburg and a co-hort have posted pictures of my home as well as my address on a website. According to Valkenburg, doxxing is done when a person wants  third partiess to torment, harass, or harm another.

By Valkenburg's logic, my life is in grave danger.

According to Valkenburg and her supporters (including many in the mainstream media such as Rebecca Vipond Brink), posting my personal information only and disseminating it out to a hate mob is OK, because I am an evil person who said some of the types of things people who write for Gawker say.

Not only does Valkenburg abuse the court system, she also is attempting to incite others to stalk and harass me.

Unlike Valkenburg, I will not be seeking a court order.

Instead, I will continue to exercise my First Amendment rights by talking about her case.

I have only just begun exposing Chelsea Van Valkenburg a/k/a Zoe Quin and her lies.