Here’s an idea: an apology on the @EFF website to victims who you all treat as the sacrificial lambs of free speech
My crystal ball says @Eff will pay its penance by building out a hot lil dep't dedicated to tackling the novel new problem of online harassment and hate speech. Handily it will score lots of @WIRED profiles and internet hero awards and attract big tech money, diverting more
resources away from the nonprofits and academics who've been doing the work FOR YEARS and in the face of @eff's denials that individuals are actually harmed online.
I am ALL FOR people admitting when they were wrong and showing contrition for it. But @EFF is the GREATEST denier of the harms of online technology. This wasn't an oops-I-got-it-wrong sorta thing. @eff has been the biggest influencer in the notion that victims of
tech abuse are overreacting babies who are trying to destroy free speech. They've fought against us legislatively, judicially, in the court of public opinion. They've protected the laws and policies that allow big tech to not be responsible for misinformation, disinformation,
hate, csam, sextortion, revenge porn, etc. These freedoms that @eff has protected for decades are the ones they suddenly realize have interfered with our elections, are destroying our democracy, are spreading disinformation about a pandemic and our planet's destruction.
So, yeah, @EFF, you haven't aged well. If only it were as easy as deciding whether an employee should address this in an essay or a chapter in her hot new book.
The problem is that for many orgs, it's all policy and abstraction. I renew my invitation to @eff employees to spend one day with me at my firm. I have clients who'd be happy to tell you about their life.
The 11 year old being sextorted on IG, the 14 yo whose rape video went viral around her junior high on FB messenger, the mom whose daughter was murdered on a first date on Tinder by a known serial abuser, the mom who's kid's murder was live-posted. & about 1000 other stories
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We need to talk about the role of @Google in the victimization of the #GirlsDoPorn women.
Our firm repped about a dozen victims of GDP starting in 2016 in the civil case. We concurrently fought like hell for criminal action in CA State and federal. 🧵
What happened in the scheme was that the women (usually 19-21) answered ads on Craigslist for bikini models. They would then get offered $3-5k to do a short session of tasteful porn for a rich Australian man's private porn collection.
The women would typically say no fricking way and that they have never and would never do porn. Then they would get an email from another woman who said she felt the same way but the money was so good and so easy and she got flown to a lux hotel in San Diego
Last Friday, CBS cancelled a segment about our clients suing Amazon for selling suicide kits to their now deceased kids. CBS’ cowardice gave me renewed clarity about how urgent this litigation is. 🧵@naomi_leeds 1/
As background, on Feb 3, 2022 we filed a lawsuit in WA State against Amazon on behalf of the Estate of Mikael Scott. In Dec. 2020 Mikael purchased a chemical from Amazon, 98% pure Sodium Nitrite, for $19.99. 2/
It was prime delivered two days later. He died three days after that. There is no household use for pure SN, a chemical that when mixed with water and swigged causes a very painful death within 20 min. 3/
This is what I have to say in this piece: “Our society has gone from seeing big tech platforms as untouchable by law and legislation to finally recognizing that when left to run amok they can cause atrocious personal and social injuries.” news.bloomberglaw.com/tech-and-telec…
Strange counterargument: “Every time we try to narrow Section 230 to not cover this, or not cover that, or cover something only conditionally, then all of the sudden there’s no point in having Section 230 at all,” Gellis said. “Because you’re going to go to court to fight over…
whether Section 230 applies to you.”
People, 1) 230 is a defense. If anybody is fighting over whether section 230 applies to them, by definition, it’s the defendant. 2) welcome to litigation — statute interpretation is kinda inevitable 3) the whole point of highest
For years, we've represented teens -- of all genders -- who were tortured at school for being victims of revenge porn, video voyeurism, rape; and in several cases all three combined. Our clients were ostracized, publicly shamed, and often forced to transfer.
In one case, our 8th grade client was raped and the video went viral around her school. Did anybody show a modicum of kindness? Nope. Not a single friend. Nobody would have lunch with her, kids pantomimed how she looked in the video and asked her to do it with them too.
She was threatened by the boy's friends when he was suspended and the school asked her to stay home b/c her presence was keeping the video in circulation. Finally, SHE transferred schools and was harassed b/c of the video for six years.Rumors followed to her new school.
Note for journalists wanting to write responsibly about sexual assault:
A @nytimes article today about a case we brought on behalf of a young woman against a powerful doctor is a good case example to learn from.🧵 1/
Our client agreed to be photographed and interviewed for the article. And so, too, did @DecarloALaw, the Partner at our firm handling the case.
Unfortunately, there were 5 named mentions and 4 quotes from the doctor's consiglieri lawyer. And no mention or quote from us. 2/
The journalist defended this imbalance by saying that the doctor had refused an interview and that the only way to achieve balance was with all these quotes from the doctor's lawyer.
But, the journ's perspective is flawed and puts a victim on equal footing in the public' eyes 3/
In all the commotion of the last week of SCOTUS horror, I’ve not gotten to rant enough about Cummings v Premier.
First a synopsis: Jane Cummings, who is deaf and blind
sought physical therapy services from a rehab facility in Texas. She asked for an American Sign Language interpreter to join the sessions. The facility said no, an interpreter wasn’t necessary.
Think about her vulnerability – she’s physically injured and can’t see or hear.
Physical therapy requires a great deal of communication and understanding by the patient so they can get the exercises right without reinjuring themselves. It's a matter of safety that Jane have an interpreter.