"More Speech Is The Best Cure For Bad Speech"-Randazza On Cox
Marc J. Randazza is my legal knight in shining armor for how he came to my defense (and how eloquently and how comprehensively) when the TSA worker tried to supplement her violation of my vagina by violating my right to free speech.
He inspires me again and again -- in what he writes our email exchanges about civil liberties and with this line from his blog that I used to title this blog item.
He penned the line above in blogging about a vile attack on him by a blogger named Crystal Cox. But, not just on him -- when he wouldn't bend over, she went after his 3-year-old daughter. Randazza explains her absolutely disgusting extortionist tactics:
Crystal cox "need[ed] to make money" so she asked me if I needed a "very good search engine reputation manager." Apparently she offered these same dubious services to David Aman - counsel for Kevin Padrick and Obsidian Finance - and he accused her of extortion. I can't imagine why.
Apparently I was not sufficiently threatened by this tactic, so Cox went on to register:
She also registered a great many Blogger accounts bearing my name, including markrandazza.blogger.com.
...Fortunately for me, the work I do is not particularly sensitive to public perception - I am roundly criticized by both the political right and the left; copyright maximalists and minimalists, and every stripe of individual in-between.
...Then, she pursued my family.
Crystal Cox registered JenniferRandazza.com.
She then registered jenniferrandazza.blogspot.com
You see a pattern here?
Jennifer is my wife.
...When this didn't get the desired response, Cox turned to a place where even the lowest of the low would not stoop -- she focused her stalkerish attention on my three-year-old daughter and registered NataliaRandazza.com.
...Being three years old, Natalia naturally has no accomplishments to speak of. To date, she has drawn her father a bunch of "happys" (which is what she calls smiley faces), and this week, she started being able to read short words. "DORA" was the first word she read where the concept of letters, sounds, and words all came together. She can also tackle me when I'm on the floor, and she's progressing well in her little girls' dance class. While I find these accomplishments mind-blowing, she has attained no notoriety of which I am aware.
Yet Crystal Cox, "investigative blogger" has turned her attention to this innocent three year old.
This is the kind of person Crystal Cox is, and these are the depths she will sink to when one of her victims spurns her offers to do "search engine reputation management" for them.
I'm sure I'm next. And you know what? If hate sites go up about me because I blogged about what this vile greedbag did to Randazza, I'll consider them a badge of honor.
Popehat addresses the supposed "journalism" angle:
You've probably heard of Crystal Cox before, even if you don't remember the name. Last December, the media and the blogosphere were full of stories about how a federal judge in Oregon had ruled that "bloggers are not journalists" and declined to extend to her various statutory defenses available to the press, leading to a $2.5 million defamation judgment against her. She was hailed as a champion of free speech and a victim of a backwards and technophobic judiciary.
The truth, as is often the case, was a little more complicated. Remember: the first thing you need to know is that blogger and "investigative journalist" Crystal Cox is the sort of person who registers domains in the name of the three-year-old daughters of her enemies.
Carr explains how Cox rolls:
When she gets in a fight with someone, she frequently responds by creating a domain with the person's name, some allegation of corruption, or both. Many of the negative posts about Mr. Padrick appeared on obsidianfinancesucks.com and there are many more like it. In order to optimize visibility to Web crawlers, she often uses the full name and title of her target, and her Web sites are filled with links to her other sites to improve their search ranking. She has some 500 URLs at her disposal and she's not afraid to use them.
Not surprisingly, this site -- davidcarrsucks.com -- now turns up on the web:
Philly Law Blog reinforces the bottom line here -- the extortion aspect:
Cox calls herself an investigative blogger / journalist. She posts a bunch of negative stuff about you on the internet. Then she buys a bunch of domain names about you, your family, and your business to make sure all her posts are at the top of a Google search. But lucky for you, Cox also happens to be a "reputation management specialist." Cox then offers to sell you "reputation management services" to clean it all up to the tune of $2500 a month.
As Carlos Miller aptly put it, Crystal Cox "is the cyber equivalent of the mob goons who firebomb your business, before demanding protection money."
And that's how she tried to work Randazza -- a guy you only need to have the slightest amount of contact with to know he can't be worked.
Crystal Cox is not a sincere supporter of free speech. Crystal Cox is not a defender of the First Amendment. Crystal Cox supports free speech for Crystal Cox, but for her own critics, Crystal Cox is a vigorous (if mostly incoherent) advocate for broad and unprincipled censorship.
This should not surprise us. As I mentioned before, free speech cases often involve defending vile speech by repugnant people. Nearly as often, those repugnant people are no respecters of the rights of anyone else. Do you think the Nazis who marched at Skokie, if they had their way, would uphold the free speech rights of the religious and ethnic minorities who protested them? Do you imagine that Fred Phelps' church, given its choice, would permit the blasphemous and idolatrous freedoms it rails against?
No. We extend constitutional rights to people who, given the opportunity, would not extend the same rights to us. That's how we roll.
Crystal Cox is no different. Eugene Volokh and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are appealing the judgment against her to vindicate (through however flawed a vessel) important free speech issues. But just because Crystal Cox wants free speech for herself, that doesn't mean she supports it for others. In fact, she consistently takes the stance that criticism of her is unlawful and will be met with lawsuits and complaints to state and federal authorities.
Mark J. Bennett has thinks this is ripe for investigation:
One could encourage the FBI to investigate her extortion racket, and the right person making a complaint to the right agent might put her in an AUSA's sights.
And here's my hero, Randazza, for free speech even when the speech goes after his 3-year-old:
Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
The cure for bad speech is more speech.
I believe, and I hope, that this story ends with those maxims being conclusively proven.
Please link to, blog, Facebook and spread this story around and prove Randazza right.