Dozier Internet Law, by John W. Dozier

[admin]

MySpace Hacking Case, by John W. Dozier

November 25, 2008

Dozier Internet Law has been involved in many, many civil and criminal hacking cases and legal matters arising under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the statute under which the prosecution of the MySpace Suicide case is proceeding. First, the reaction from the legal blogosphere was to criticize the application of the statute in this case. Now, lawyers purportedly involved in cyberlaw have been commenting about how nobody, in their view, ever anticipated it would be used like this! It is a statute for hackers...those stealing passwords or using other means to act maliciously, they cry!

So, here is my post on this blog from a year and a half ago: Federal Hacking Laws. I point out, of course, exactly what those complaining now see. It is a statute (and states have similar laws) that is much broader than most think. But, I must disagree that no one saw this coming. Dozier Internet Law not only saw it coming, but we have been dealing with the same sort of claims made by private litigants in civil cases and US prosecutors and the FBI in criminal cases for years. And there are Circuit level civil court decisions that have been around for years (I argued one of the more prominent in the 9th Circuit). There is even a criminal prosecution appeal confirmed dealing with the statute in the 9th Circuit. While the Middleton case is distinguishable on its face factually...the principal of applying the statute to prosecute criminally is nothing new. I've tried two criminal cases myself dealing with the issue of unauthorized access under state laws.

So, for all of the late comers to the show, don't sit there and criticize the Judge, the prosecutor, or anyone else. The statute stinks to high heaven. That's reality. Surprised? These "cyberlaw experts" shouldn't be. It makes you wonder what area of law these so called "legal authorities" have been practicing.

Here is what I said a year and a half ago: "There is unauthorized access (similar to trespass) and then there is hacking (similar to assault and battery!). We need to get the legislators to understand the difference between the two, and pass some laws that are reflective of reality. Those that access a competing website by borrowing a roommate's password (like just about all college kids do) to see information thousands of others can see is likely trespassing, but he (sic) is not a hacker. Not by a long shot."

So, it is what it is. The law is on the books, strengthened even more in the post 9/11 Patriot Act, and even if Congress addresses the problem, similar laws now exist in many states subjecting those who violate a terms of use to criminal prosecution and civil liability. Indeed, at least four lawsuits were filed in the last 90 days in Federal Court asserting civil claims under the law. You can read about them at the Dozier Internet Law on Hacking blog.

I will say, however, that the facts of the MySpace Suicide case are ambiguous and complex, and I won't be surprised if the case is dismissed by the Judge post verdict or the jury returns a "not guilty" verdict. Don't take that as a statement that the law does not apply to those violating a terms of use on a website. In my opinion it clearly does apply. Now, let's get the new Congress to fix it like I suggested a year and a half ago.

[admin]

MySpace Suicide Case Media Coverage Revealing, by John W. Dozier

November 30, 2008

At Dozier Internet Law we try to maintain a balanced, objective perspective on things. It's particularly important that we have this mindset when advising clients. Not so for the media, though. When the news reports started filtering in about the MySpace conviction, I thought the defense had won.

Wired.com screamed "Lori Drew Not Guilty of Felonies in Landmark Cyberbullying Trial" and went on to characterize the jury decision as a "slap-on-the-wrist verdict". Similar headlines streamed from the online media. Needless to say, I was a bit surprised to then find that the jury had convicted Ms. Drew of three misdemeanors for unauthorized access, which appear to be computer hacking statute convictions, which carry up to three years in jail and a $300,000 fine. Here is what the headline might have said:

"Jury Verdict Guilty: Suicide Mom Faces Three Years Behind Bars and Almost a Half Million Dollar Fine"

Then the article could have gone into the reality of the situation and the implications of such a court decision. Drew will likely have to sell her assets to cover fines and costs and lawyer fees. Her reputation is ruined. She will be forever considered in the minds of the public as a heinous figure. Her name will be associated with cyberbullying, she'll get her own Wikipedia page, she'll have laws named after her, and this entire process will be available online in perpetuity for her children, her grandchildren, and her grandchildren's granchildren to see. This is a scarlet letter on her name forever. And what employer would ever hire someone convicted of a computer crime relating to personal data and information theft? Job prospects are dim, to say the least. All of this, topped with a serious threat of incarceration in jail. Hardly the victory Wired.com paints.

No, this is no victory for anyone. At Dozier Internet Law we have to ask how much influence the liberal "information yearns to be free" online media contributed to Drew's misunderstanding as to what is, and what is not, acceptable online conduct? When the "authoritative" citizen journalists and recognized online news sites constantly place a biased perspective on permissible online conduct right in the faces of the moms and dads and brothers and sisters living all across our country, are we surprised that Drew misunderstood the rules?

So, for all of the purported "legal experts" wary of these charges, there is a place to get laws changed. It's the legislative branch! It's not the courts. And it certainly is not the court of public opinion. In your shaping of public opinion on this issue, do you provide guidance, support and encouragement for naive netizens to place their livelihood and reputations at risk for generations to come? Yes, you do.

The online world is a long way from self policing and self regulation. Industries that don't embrace those concepts get regulated by laws. Online commentators, journalists and so-called experts need to stop fostering and encouraging lawlessness. Try to establish and promote good, honest, moral, ethical and legal conduct. You'll find that this self regulation and self restraint will preserve many of the rights and liberties today enjoyed by your constituencies. But keep up your misinformation, and you'll find that this case is just the beginning volley of a battle that is brewing over personal misconduct online.

[admin]

Top Five Tips For Start-Ups To Protect Assets, by John W. Dozier

December 04, 2008

The calls come into Dozier Internet Law regularly...even during this economic downturn. "I want to start up a new web business and I need to make sure it is legal" is a typical inquiry. That's likely impossible, I respond, unless you are going to be so passive as to be non-competitive. No one knows where all of the lines are drawn yet, and everyone who is competitive learns to stay away from "blackhat" and clearly illegal activities but at the same time not limit tactics to "white hat" and clearly legal activities. If you operate in a clearly illegal arena there is a small (but not insignificant) chance of getting in a lot of serious trouble, and if you operate in a very safe manner, there is a high probability your business will be non-competitive and fail. So most online businesses operate in the gray area.

That's a fact. That's reality. And therefore a successful online business (there are some exceptions, of course) carries with it inherent risk to your body, mind, soul, spirit, reputation, money and freedom.

If you are young, carefree, and think you have nothing to lose, then your appetite for risk could be high. If you have a family, are moving towards retirement, have some savings and a reputation, then your risk profile might be very low...you don't want to assume much risk. If you are in the later category, consider these five tips from Dozier Internet Law:

1) Incorporate in Nevada or Wyoming. In Nevada you can hide your identity (like a mob controlled Casino front-man) and both states offer strong protections for an individual owner of a corporate entity.

2) Move to Florida or Texas. Both states have generous "homestead exemptions" that will usually allow you to hold onto your house if you have to hide from creditors or file bankruptcy.

3) Move all of your assets into either your wife's (or husband's) name or make sure property (real and personal) is held as a joint tenancy with the rights of survivorship (tenants by the entirety) so your share cannot be taken. And while you are at it, consider opening overseas bank accounts in some select countries that have a particularly strong view on privacy.

4) Consider leaving the US and operating overseas from a country that will offer you strong protections.

5) Establish business relationships with partners outside the US and not subject to subpoenas or extradition so they cannot be forced to testify against you....Caribbean and Central America are popular options this time of year, but certain anti-US Russian states are best.

Or, get a really, really good Internet law lawyer, and use his guidance to help you navigate through the minefields. And when someone comes along and says that Dozier Internet Law is crying wolf and trying to scare people into hiring a lawyer, just the opposite is true. For the great majority of new start-ups on tight budgets being started by mature professionals whose careers have been interrupted by tough economic times, I'm suggesting you find an off-line business idea. A lower risk investment. Like mortgage backed securities...

Capice???

[admin]

Dozier Internet Law on How to Use a Competitor's Name To Drive Sales, by John W. Dozier

December 08, 2008

Each month we are the editor and publisher of the Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report. Lately we've seen a remarkable increase in Federal lawsuits over the use by someone of a business or product name of a competitor. This is a revealing development. But while the lawsuits are new, the rampant use of competitor names is not.

For years, online businesses and affiliate marketers and the like have known that visitor traffic is the key to success. And if you can have your site return high in the natural or organic search results, then traffic, sales, commissions and profits will follow. And in order to do that, Search Engine Optimization (SEO) techniques are used. It didn't take long to figure out that if your business could present a result when a competitor was searched, that would be great for generating highly qualified traffic. So the less scrupulous online industry started figuring out ways to use competitor's names so that Product X would be presented when Product Y was searched. And that's what the lawsuits are about.

This will be the first in a series of exposes surrounding the surreptitious and illegal use of competitor's names. For businesses out there that are potential victims, pay careful attention to the guidance Dozier Internet Law will offer up so you can see if a competitor is ripping you off. For marketers, publishers, and those looking for more effective ways to drive traffic, please ignore our commentary (of course we strongly discourage using the information we provide as a training manual but putting this information out there is the only way to educate the online business world about the rampant illegalities existing today). And for you "Fair Use" and "Free Speech" lawyers who follow every comment we publish and constantly attack our positions, either you do not understand the business of the web and SEO enough, or you do and just elect to openly encourage these tactics. I suspect ignorance is the most likely culprit, but one must wonder whether your fundamental abhorrence to the protection of property rights of businesses is your motivation. Today, the Dozier Internet Law expose begins with a short list that we'll explore as we move along.

1) Product Reviews: Traditionally protected by "fair use ", many product review sites are surreptitiously owned by a competitor or a marketer. For some reason your business is always getting negative reviews and the competing products are always getting positive reviews!

2) Comparative Advertising: A competitor is openly comparing your product on its website. If the information is false, it is easy to deal with. If it is true, it still can be illegal since the site may have published trivial and irrelevant information and optimized your business or product's name inordinately for SEO purposes.

3) $ucks Sites: Many "sucks sites" are commercially motivated. Can you imagine Sears launching a "sucks site" of comments from Walmart's disgruntled customers and, after it gets indexed high when someone is searching for Walmart, running their own advertising on it? Groups like Public Citizen and Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU think this practice is just fine and dandy. Of course it is illegal.

4) First Sale Doctrine: A competitor of yours goes out, buys one of your products, advertises your products on its site, and then captures prospects searching for you. Funny thing, though. As much as you have tried to figure it out, you have no idea who his source is for your products. That could be a long search. That's because...well, there is no source. They bought one, and don't plan on getting rid of it, so they price your product at an exorbitant level and the customers opt for your competitor's product. Some will argue this is permitted by the "First Sale Doctrine". No, it's not...and on two separate grounds. Not even close.

5) Directories: We caught a Fortune 500 company at this one. Whenever someone searched for a local business by name, the results for the directory listing would come up. Funny thing, though, is that our client did not remember paying for the listing, and he didn't remember ever getting referrals from it. It turned out that when a consumer went to the site, was presented with the details of the company, and requested someone to contact the consumer, the lead was captured and sold to a competitor. There are many ways for directories to use your name legally. This clearly is not one of them.

6) Keyword Stuffing: Or spamdexing. Basically, a competitor uses your name on its site. It could be in the URL, in meta data, behind images in alt tags, in colors your eyes cannot see, or surreptitiously in the html code of the site in such a way that it is indexed by the search engines but never presented as words on the page. Obviously you'll see their site coming up high in search results.

There is one consistency in these situations. When approached about it, the perpetrators always plead ignorance. All of a sudden these skilled search engine optimizers don't even know what "SEO" is, have never heard of a "meta tag", and may have a slight recollection of the existence of a search engine called "Google", but they are not sure (at least according to their lawyers).

At Dozier Internet Law we'll continue to add to the list. Let's expose these practices for what they are!

[admin]

The "Public Citizen" Defamation Penalty, by John W. Dozier

December 10, 2008

You own a local restaurant. A competitor decides to play dirty, and goes online and posts anonymous lies about your place...the horrible roaches he saw on his last visit, the owner's child pedophile conviction, and the substitution of horse meat for beef...all lies. At Dozier Internet Law, we are retained to get these false and fabricated claims down and off of the web, but within days the comments generate other seemingly concurring and confirming statements (from the same anonymous source using different names) and the results are now at the top of Google search when your restaurant is searched. Your business has dropped off to a trickle and your restaurant is on the verge of financial collapse.

Public Citizen and Paul Alan Levy, an attorney with the free speech group, want to penalize the restaurant! That's right. He urged a Maryland Appeals Court on Monday to make it much more expensive, difficult and time consuming for victims of defamation to get access to the courts. Today, the restaurant might elect to file a "John Doe" lawsuit and issue subpoenas to try and get the identity of the attacker so the attacker, and perhaps his employer, can be sued. Makes perfect sense. Public Citizen wants the Courts to require an extraordinary evidentiary showing before allowing information to be gathered by subpoena to identify the attacker because, well...."caution is in order because once anonymity is gone, it cannot be restored" said Mr. Levy. This extraordinary evidentiary showing would be much more expensive to the plaintiff and therefore, although Levy and Public Citizen won't admit it, the very existence of such a requirement will have a "chilling effect" on the ability of small businesses and individuals to seek legal redress through the Courts. At a time when anonymous speech is one of the biggest problems on the web, and people think they can say anything and get away with it, Levy implores the Courts to set things up so...people will think they can say anything and get away with it.

Dozier Internet Law explained this Public Citizen Litigation Group effort during a presentation last summer to lawyers. It is nothing new. Levy even got one Court to adopt his approach, but all others have flat out rejected the Public Citizen position. It strikes me that if "caution is in order", as Levy claims, he should deliver that advice to the many, many scofflaws Public Citizen Litigation Group openly encourages, supports and protects inside and outside the courtroom.

Because, unfortunately, netizens don't know better and actually believe the crazy advice regularly flowing over the web and blogosphere from the Public Citizen lawyers and Paul Alan Levy. And the web is a more dangerous place because of it.

[admin]

New Laws Are Coming, by John W. Dozier

December 11, 2008

Have we now reached the point in which the web is so out of control that governmental authorities in the form of prosecutors and state Attorney General offices feel compelled to act? A federal prosecutor in LA gets a conviction of a mom for violating the terms of use of Myspace. The New Jersey AG sues JuicyCampus.com for consumer protection violations based upon misrepresentations in its terms of use. A Colorado prosecutor brings criminal charges against a poster for allegedly defamatory comments on Craigslist. What's going on here?

At Dozier Internet Law we have for a long while encouraged the self regulation and self policing of the web. History has told us that if that fails, government will get involved in one way or another. What we are seeing today is action by the executive and judicial branches of state government. Absent self policing, Congress, state legislators and even city and county governments will begin passing laws that will profoundly impact the web as we know it.

Codes of ethics for search engine optimization and affiliate marketers have been around for a while. So that industry is trying, at least. But what can web developers, web hosts, ISPs, and domain registrars do to send the message to the legislators that positive steps are being taken to provide a more safe, secure and civil Internet? Each can consider establishing strict guidelines and implementing them through their User Agreements and Acceptable Use Policies. Then, they can each aggressively enforce those rules. And there is no law prohibiting a business from deciding with whom it will do business absent discrimination being visited upon a protected class. And why not do so? In a time when Dozier Internet Law is defending lawsuits filed against webhosts, ISPs, software developers, and ESPs for the conduct of their customers, why would a legitimate business not police itself? There is no reason.

Recently we have seen high profile calls by Public Citizen for web hosts to be willing to bring their financial resources to the table to defend the misconduct of their customers. We, and other lawyers in the know, call this type of a host "bullet proof hosting" or "black hat hosting". The reputation of these hosts, to say the least, is anything but stellar. No legitimate host would want those labels. And there is no business reason to do so. Is this the type of protection a web host would freely offer up to a $7 a month customer? Of course not.

So, on the one hand we have a pressing need to self regulate and self police, and efforts being made within industries and specific businesses to do so. On the other hand, there is the move afoot by the free speech and anti-business property rights groups to do everything they can to encourage misconduct. If the Public Citizen advice is followed that would be an invitation for legislation, a solicitation for more governmental intervention by the executive and judicial branches, and a recipe for disaster.

Web hosts should not only develop, implement and enforce strict guidelines aimed at returning safety, security and sanity to the online world, but undertake an industry-wide effort to establish a Code of Ethics and performance standards and good practice certifications. "Bullet proof" and "black hat" hosts need not apply because, well, you are ruining it for everyone.

Some of these free speech expansionsist public interest groups might think that high profile litigation surrounding new laws would be a good thing for fund raising. I am sure it would be. Is their advice motivated by greed? Or just a fanatical, one sided perspective nurtured by their long standing support of the scofflaws?

Here's the lesson, perhaps. Is the message for web hosts that if you freely associate with outlaws, you find yourself thinking like them? I don't know. But it could explain Public Citizen's position.

[admin]

The Sky is Falling?, by John W. Dozier

December 14, 2008

I keep seeing briefs from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Citizen, and a lot of apparently ill-informed "professors" imploring the Judges to, in effect, agree with them in cases or the Internet will collapse. At Dozier Internet Law we even have a name for them..."chicken little briefs". So before the sky falls, let me point out that these free speechers and civil libertarian types keep submitting briefs advising of our imminent demise if they do not win. Has anyone mentioned to them that they keep losing, but the Internet is still here?

The sky is really falling? Now this mantra has been carried out into the non-lawyer public arena and people are actually repeating this jibberish. The MySpace Suicide conviction is a good case on point. The argument is that if you allow a website to dictate the terms of use of its site, and criminalize the unauthorized "outside of terms" uses, it will cause everyone to stop using the web because of fear of criminal prosecution. This power to establish terms is without precedent, the argument goes.

Therefore, the Courts should take the law passed by Congress and signed by the President and change it. Considering the roles our branches of government play this is a philosophically corrupt argument. It also makes no sense whatsover. Without precedent??? Are you kidding me? Okay, I can accept the fact that EFF, ACLU and Public Citizen have an agenda and bias and prejudice is expected. But these "law professors" should know better. Here's why:

If you break your rental car agreement and don't return it, you have violated the rental car company's "terms of use". Who reads those things? And it is grand larceny.

If you buy a software program, copy it and begin selling copies contrary to the license terms (which no one reads), then it is criminal copyright infringement.

Those are just two of what could be a long, long list. Because "unauthorized use" is a basic element that is often used to show the "mens rea" (latin for "guilty mind") in order to convict someone. So, the MySpace suicide conviction is nothing more than a continuation of the law. This is pretty elementary and is usually covered in the first year of law school. But then it hit me..."law professors" with enough time on their hands to interject themselves into pending cases all around the country probably aren't teaching first year law school classes.

People are still renting cars the last time I checked. Apparently software programs are still being used too! Is everyone worried that if they violate the "terms of use" (contracts or licenses) they'll end up in prison? No. Because decent, law-abiding people know that if they don't act in a reckless, outrageous, grossly irresponsible way they will be safe. And that belief works just fine.

Well, the verdict is in and the defendant has been convicted. I don't see any panic online. Websites are still processing Christmas orders. Dozier Internet Law clients don't seem besides themselves with fear.

I did notice, though, that Friday night the moon was really bright and large. And I thought, just maybe, the sky was falling! I can picture 1,000 years ago..."chicken little" characters running through a town creating widespread panic with doomsday declarations and imploring the masses to run for the hills..."imminent catastrophic demise is upon us-the sky is falling!", they would cry.

Sounds familiar.

Fortunately there is a very logical, rational explanation...I saw online that it was the lunar perigee. Happens every 15 or 20 years. And I then imagined a learned astronomer going into the panicked streets of long ago and telling everyone that there is no emergency, "doomsday is not upon us, so take off your boots and forget about climbing those hills, the sky is not falling, there is no catastrophe, and you can all safely return to your homes."

He turns, wipes the sweat off his brow, gives me a wink, shakes his head in disapproval of the situation, and as he is greeted by his colleague I hear him whisper..."it's just those damn professors again".

Exactly.

[admin]

Internet Law Attorney at Affiliate Summit, by John W. Dozier

January 11, 2009

Internet Lawyer John Dozier is at the Affiliate Summit this week in Vegas at the Rio. I'll be at our booth in the Exhibit hall mid-day for several hours on both Monday and Tuesday. The conference is sold out but if some of our clients need a pass to get in just let me know. Catch up with me today at the "Meet Market".

Now that the Holiday season is over, we are back to work at Traverse Internet Law. We'll be continuing with our commentary on the misuse of business names and the five most nefarious abuses.

I've noticed a trend towards web businesses getting themselves into more trouble by trying to manage a problem themselves. Even be careful with what you ask for when dealing with problems. Solutions are often the most difficult aspect of remediating defamatory posts, copyright infringement, and business name infringement. For you golfers out there, here is a good example of what I am talking about. Last January some PGA players were ready to head off to Hawaii for the Sony Invitational. The discussion turned to the prospects for success at the US Open at Torrey Pines. They all agreed Tiger would win. Unless, one responded, he breaks his leg!

Be careful what you ask for.

[admin]

Copyright Lawyer Perspective on Affiliate Summit West 2009 Day One, by John W. Dozier

January 12, 2009

It's been an interesting first day at Affiliate Summit. The affiliate marketing industry is alive and well, given that the conference is sold out in these days and times. I found two sessions of interest from a copyright lawyer perspective. The issue of theft of content remains at the forefront. In the Affiliate Strategies session the frustration of having good content pilfered was evident. The message from the experienced affiliate marketers was that you have to either decide to police it or let it slide. One industry veteran commented that with all the testing going on of different landing pages, he often sees low performing pages stolen. So, he isn't that worried about it. Others felt differently. My sense is that the degree of concern centers upon the amount of time and effort put into creating the page, and the success of the campaign. The cost associated with using a copyright lawyer should be weighed against the potential loss.

A nuance did come up with respect to RSS feeds. Many bloggers, of course, use the syndication technology to distribute commentary. When posts are sent out on RSS feeds, marketers, if you can call them that, have begun taking the content, posting it, and running ads for potential competitors. This is an interesting issue. When you provide RSS feeds, are you granting a license to recipients to use your copyright protected work commercially? Probably not. The intent is to provide a notice of the fact that you have something to say. Practically, the best solution might be to only distribute a small part of the post. That is an option that I use. That way the entirety of the work is not going out into other's hands. We sometimes see a marketer pick off our RSS feed and copy it. But a partial post with links still embedded is, on balance, a trade off that seems to be a good one. If the embedded links are stripped out...well, let's just say that it is a good time to be a copyright lawyer.

[admin]

Public Citizen Bullying, by John W. Dozier

January 23, 2009

There is a recent call for Congress to change Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to expand immunity to websites that allow trademark infringement to occur. This comes from the mouths of Public Citizen and Paul Alan Levy. Let's first get the law straight. Knowingly permitting trademark infringement on, or through, your website, forum, or service is usually against the law. So it is only fair, makes perfect sense, and is the long standing practice among lawyers to advise the web business of the infringement so it can act to avoid legal liability by remedying the misconduct. That's what we do at Traverse Internet Law.

But Public Citizen and the ring of "yes men" that support virtually everything Paul Alan Levy says call such a practice "bullying" and propose Congressional intervention. Since when is simply notifying someone that something illegal is occuring on a premises "bullying"? If drugs are being sold in an apartment building, is it "bullying" for neighbors to report it to the owners? Or for that matter, the police? When you see someone shoplift, is it "bullying" to tell the shop owner? How many times do we see something illegal and report it? Often. Unless you are concerned with retribution...the criminals of the neighborhood selling drugs on the corner bully the neighbors into quiet acquiescence. Now that is bullying. The "bullies" aren't the lawyers doing their job, upholding the rule of law, and supporting the growth and development of a more civil online society. As Public Citizen and Paul Alan Levy try to protect their constituents who elect to break the law, they threaten those reporting the violations with attacks. That's street justice personified. It has no place in a decent, civil society.

Yet many netizens read and follow Public Citizen's advice and guidance. Their Internet litigation group has become detached from the mission of Public Citizen...to look out for the rights of consumers. They run around the country stirring up litigation and protecting the scofflaws, miscreants, and outright illegal elements of the online world. But they do so under the "Public Citizen" banner, misleading consumers and the public. The Public Citizen lawyers threaten to attack those who oppose them not in the courts but by inciting their constituents to attack online.

Public Citizen Internet litigation lawyers and their friends criticize us online for just about everything. But every time (twice in the past months) they oppose us in Court, we clean their clocks. The absurdity of their legal arguments is surpassed only by the speed with which the Federal Judge shows them to the door. If only Public Citizen's constituents were being told the truth. A little truth serum might be called for. I can imagine in my dreams what might come out:

We are Public Citizen employees. As the Internet litigation group, we act as free outside legal counsel to some of the biggest scoundrels on the web. We don't usually win in Court, but we have a "grass roots" organization of bloggers that can attack very effectively and hurt whoever says something we don't like. We give absolute and firm advice, and make it sound like it is the law, but most of the time we aren't being honest with you. We just need controversy to stay relevant and raise money. View our advice and guidance as wishful thinking. Whatever you do, don't follow it. It will get you sued. But regardless of the meritless nature of our positions, rest assured that if anyone tries to question us we will unleash an online attack that will cause great injury to the speaker.

That meets the definition of "bullying".

This from a "consumer rights" and "free speech" group. Some may wonder how long before the Board of Directors of Public Citizen starts thinking that this is a renegade group within their organization that needs to be shown the door just as quickly as the Judges are doing.

Consumer protection? Surely you jest. Free speech? Yes, I will agree with this. The Public Citizen lawyers are all for free speech...as long as they agree with it.