"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:
fuckmarcrandazza.com
marcrandazzasucks.com
marcjrandazza.com
marcjohnrandazza.comShe 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.
A few journalists probed further. Kashmir Hill and Forbes and David Carr at the New York Times looked beyond the narrative. They turned over a rock, and what they found was unpleasant.
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.
More here on the bloggers are not journalists aspect from Scott Greenfield. More from Popehat:
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.
Posted on my blog.
I heard the burble way back when, but didn't read the details. Thanks for bringing this into light.
Jim P. at April 8, 2012 6:43 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/04/08/more_speech_is.html#comment-3128547">comment from Jim P.Thank you so much, Jim P. I've upset a few people recently with my views that a private business should be free to allow or deny access to anyone of their choice -- even if I'm the one they deny access to.
This incident shows Randazza to the world be the person I know him to be -- a guy who does not waiver in his principles even when his 3-year-old (whom he loves fiercely -- as he seems to do everything) is turned into fodder by this sick woman.
It seems to me that the extortion this woman is clearly engaging in must be a crime -- as Bennett points out.
And while we have free speech, it is of course not absolute -- although I'm only a very interested party, not an expert, in this arena. Perhaps some of the lawyers who comment here can weigh in.
Amy Alkon at April 8, 2012 6:55 AM
Amy,
I don't get upset at people for having different opinions. Occasionally I get frustrated, but that is water off a duck's back.
This is a clear case of extortion. Like the Spokeo/Reputation Defender debacle.
I will hammer anyone who deliberately lies, but will defend those who are wronged if I have the facts.
Jim P. at April 8, 2012 7:32 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/04/08/more_speech_is.html#comment-3128597">comment from Jim P.I sure don't, either.
Amy Alkon at April 8, 2012 7:40 AM
Just though your readers might be amused by a little video we were given that basically puts into a humorous light (warning it might make you spit out Easter eggs in laughter) what Crystal Cox and her "Derp Digging" ways (you need to read our site to get that joke) has been doing.
http://crystal-cox.tumblr.com/post/20705489579/captain-obvious-tells-it-like-it-is-obviously
Have a great Easter all and remember, Chocolate is now considered for this weekend one of the essential five food groups!
CrystalsTumblingCox at April 8, 2012 9:23 AM
That Crystal Cox is one scary dude. I wonder what could have happened to make a person so mean. It's hard to believe that someone could be born that way, but nature does works in misterious ways.
Dave B at April 8, 2012 9:26 AM
What a maroon! Does this woman have a law degree or any experience with the law. So she decides to pick a fight with LAWYERS. Fighting the arena of lawfare is an not an area for the light hearted. It takes expertise, patience or money.
If I was going to pick a fight with somebody I would would never go the bigger stronger guy or some one better armed. The old adage of brining a knife to a gun fight. Any gambler or joe blow would know the outcome of the fight before the first punch.
On a side note. If I was Marc I would start a grievance with ICANN. I bet he could get the basic web address like marcjrandazza.com away from her. Maybe not the sucks and others. Free speak and that. But I bet Marc could easily prove he is a better holder of the addresses. Unless another Marc J Randazza wants it.
I even suspect that even the blogspot addresses are against blogspots/googles terms of service. I guess a nice legal letter to Googles legal would make get things changed around.
Well Amy when you get the chance why not just register the address you want now and protect yourself. Just have them all redirect here.
So Amy fans want to help Amy protect our goddess and sponsor a site for her. But I bet the money could be better spent on Amy donation paypal account better.
John Paulson at April 8, 2012 9:51 AM
People who live in Crystal houses shouldn't throw stones.
I wonder if someone has registered crystalcoxsuckerDOT(com|net|org)?
I R A Darth Aggie at April 8, 2012 9:59 AM
This is a terrific collection of the links to a strange case that unfortunately, as Marc Randazza understands, could have a lot of important impacts.
It seems to be the poster child for the maxim, hard cases make bad law.
If I get fluorescent burn while reading these links Amy, I'm going to shake my tiny fists at you!
jerry at April 8, 2012 10:46 AM
Checked out the video and it was ok. Love the music. But reading the blog about this woman. Oh my GOD! I do not know whether to laugh, ignore, or fight at/this woman.
I am going to watch this one. I know have a new person to hate.
What is the reason behind this madness. Why does she just go after people for minor grievances. I mean I could understand of fighting and fighting hard. Sometimes you need to destroy your enemies, but jeeze sometimes you have to know when to step back. Yet this woman keeps fighting and gathering more enemies.
Now the going after a 3 year old, even just virtual is LOW. She has reached bottom and dug. I highly suspect she will not get herself out the hole she has dug and got here self stuck in. Somebody is going to come along and fill in the hole with her in it.
John Paulson at April 8, 2012 11:11 AM
First things first, your dog is adorable. In heat, my flirty little cocker spaniel dug under the fence, had herself a merry ol' time and came home pregnant a week later. Three weeks ago Dusty had 9 puppies and I'm in heaven. Since you proudly display a snap of your darling dog, I thought you might like that story.
Now, to get down to the matter at hand. I have to admit that when this story first broke I was up in arms as were many bloggers. I watched the story unfold, read Eugene Volokh's briefs, and sat back and waited to see what would happen.
I sent Ms. Cox two emails of support which were not acknowledged. Red flag. I just assumed (very bad form on my part) that she had a similar story as mine. I was wrong. (If interested, http://cacorruptionwatch.wordpress.com).
There's a great quote attributed to Herbert Spencer: "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation." I pre-judged based on my own experiences instead of looking at the facts.
I would like to state for the record that I believe the actions taken by Ms. Cox against Mr. Randazza's wife and daughter are deplorable. He appears to be handling it like a gentleman and that impresses me. We're judged in this world by our actions, not our intentions and not what people write about us on the Internet.
People that know us know the truth. And there is something to be said for decorum. We need to insert a filter between our angry emotions and the written word (i.e., restraint of pen and tongue). I'm Irish and needles to say, I've had to learn that lesson myself.
Great article, cool site; I'll be back.
Erin Baldwin
Erin Baldwin at April 8, 2012 11:47 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/04/08/more_speech_is.html#comment-3128919">comment from John PaulsonIt's terrible. Randazza is one of the good guys, and I don't mean that as some easy generalization. You can tell from little things, like the tone of his associates as well as from talking to him. And then there's the fact that this mad Sicilian (and I mean that as a compliment) was able to restrain himself and be the First Amendment defender he is even in the face of this disgusting pile of flesh and organs registering a website in his 3-year-old's name.
I truly respect this -- it's a quality you see in too few people...beliefs that stand up to strife. I try to make sure I'm not just principled (or rather "principled") when it works in my favor...hence my post the other day about how I don't think the state should be allowed to tell a private business who they can have as customers. And as somebody born Jewish, I'd likely be one of those excluded.
Related to that, I had a talk with a very interesting guy who grew up in Detroit and still lives there, and we were talking about how so many Jews are entrepreneurs. I think, for my father and grandfather, that was partly because they didn't feel they could get hired in a company or do well. Maybe not all that, but I think that was a factor. My dad has his own little company and my grandfather was a watchmaker and owned a Buick dealership for a while, although I think it went under.
Amy Alkon at April 8, 2012 12:40 PM
One thing is how can you take somebody seriously as a blogger, Internet reputation manager (if it was legit), Internet investigator, heck alternative medicine promoter when her website design is so atrocious. Horrible looking and badly designed.
People judge by looks. In the virtual world, it can be from layout, use of media, to the content, and to the nitty gritty of grammar and spelling.
Her sites look so 1990s. Slapdash, lazy, loud and brash. Layout is weird. Videos are crude, common most system come with a basic video software package. Writing is all over the place. Graphics are everywhere. Crystal, people stopped using graphics as backgrounds 10 years ago.
AMY's place is not to badly design. She does not put to much in, but she tries and changes when needed. But even that effort shows a professionalism. I could think of some improvements but it works.
John Paulson at April 9, 2012 6:46 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/04/08/more_speech_is.html#comment-3130222">comment from John PaulsonI have to credit Little Shiva for my masthead. I told her I'd have her design a masthead as soon as I could figure out what I wanted (which would of course take six months of having no idea) and she just up and made one and sent it to me. (She knows me, and she's a wonderful designer, so it was just right.)
http://littleshiva.com/
And her Visible Trash blog I love: http://www.visibletrash.net/
Amy Alkon at April 9, 2012 6:56 AM
John Paulson:
Sadly John it is not about the websites and how they look, it is about having around 80+ sites (500 at one time about 2yrs ago) that all link to each other and all say the same stuff, and that text they all say is either the same phrase- be it a company name, persons name or product - repeated over and over again so that that enviable thing called a Google Search Result can occur where all her sites are in the top 100 or even top 10 of any search on that specific phrase.
Its classified as a type of SPAM or Google bombing, Legal in some ways in the USA (though not elsewhere), highly unethical and totally misleading.
When you combine that with the derogatory remarks, slander, accusations, conspiracy theories, et. al. you get a VERY powerful weapon to use against some entity (person or company).
Then when she comes along as a "Reputation manager" and states that she can fix your bad reputation and get you placed back in the Google search results where you should be, and expects monies for it. Then that by any stretch of the imagination is extortion like behavior (though does not fall under RICO)
This is what we are dealing with and trying to stop now, She is intelligent, deluded and intentionally doing it all to serve her own needs. She is not a Investigative Blogger by any stretch, and her ethics are non existent.
What the Goddess Amy here is, is what Crystal (in her reality) claims to be and more interestingly needs to be seen to be and more. What she actually is, well I will leave you to decide that.
CrystalsTumblingCox at April 9, 2012 12:25 PM
Oh I know and understand that CrystalsTumblingCox. I know she is batshit crazy. Her writings that I can stand to read are disjointed and strange. I understand she is a extortionist, notice the words "if it was legit". She is trying to run a racket albeit very, very badly. That is just wrong in two ways, one it is unethical and the opposite side of if you are going to run a criminal enterprise sure as hell run it professionally. If you are going to do something, it is worth doing well. But this woman picks fights on stronger opponents, then decides to start more fights with people. She then decides to alienate possibly allies, and rather then marshaling forces she decides to go on the attack. Well going on.
I was just commenting that one further little aspect of how this woman is crazy is from her style of website design. Me I am no master Internet web designer, but I can tell what works and what turns people off. With CC well her sites scream amateur, actually I take that back even amateurs get better. This nuts sites if after years of a web presence has not changed or improved or found a sensible style to me screams some sort of disjointed personality or wacked up perspective of the world.
By the way CTC love the website. Keep up the good work.
John Paulson at April 9, 2012 1:04 PM
Leave a comment