chris sevier – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Man Who Sued Apple For Failing To Save Him From Porn Now Suing US Attorney General To Strike Down Section 230

from the [leela-voice]-ohhhh...-stupidER dept

Batshit litigant and armchair legislator Chris Sevier is back! The man who once sued Apple because he could access porn from his laptop (entendre intended) is still vexing courthouses with his attempts to sue his way back into the good graces of social media platforms after being asked to leave because [taps “batshit” in opening sentence].

The man who believes the only way through his addiction to porn is to sue or legislate it into the ground has filed a lawsuit [PDF] in a Florida federal court that’s full of the insanity we’ve come to know and (well, probably not love) expect from a Sevier lawsuit.

It opens with this presumptuous language:

This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief that challenges the sole surviving provisions of the “Communications Decency Act of 1996”, 47 U.S.C. § 230 et. seq.,1 (hereinafter referred to as “Section 230”) for namely violating the Petition and Access Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as the Free Speech, Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses.

Section 230 violates the First Amendment. What an absolutely tired allegation. I mean, even the former president is making that claim, and we all know how incredibly skilled DJT was at sussing out the facts. But this allegation is different! That’s the angle Sevier is taking, hoping the courts will find his assertion credible, rather than just more of the same ridiculousness.

The Plaintiffs attack this issue from a different angle than the Trump Plaintiffs. Congress, not Twitter, Facebook, or Youtube, made Section 230. If a litigant wants to have a court strike down one of Congress’s laws, the proper party to sue in most cases is the chief enforcer of Congress’s laws, the United States Attorney General. That is what the ACLU did in getting all of the other sections of the Communications Decency Act struck down in Reno American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997). That is what the Plaintiffs have done here.

Well, I guess Sevier should know. After all, he lists himself as a “de facto attorney general” in his lawsuit, placing his name alongside such luminaries as John Gunter (Special Forces of Liberty) and Richard Penosky (Warriors for Christ).

But let’s scroll back a single page and enjoy this part of Sevier’s first footnote:

Section 230 is vague and not the least restrictive means to fulfill any interests asserted by the government.

I’ve got some news for you, Chris. Section 230 isn’t an imposition. It’s an immunity. So, it’s not about “fulfilling” the “interests” of the government. It’s about protecting online entities from vexatious lawsuits targeting them for the speech of others. I’m no lawyer, but I assume getting everything ass-backwards in the first footnote is generally a bad idea.

As Sevier sees it, there are only two options facing the court he’s chosen to sue in: strike down Section 230 of the CDA for “abridging the right to petition the government for redress of grievances” or allow Florida’s new, blatantly unconstitutional anti-social media law to bypass any and all legal challenges for its First Amendment violations. Once again, IANAL but I can’t tell how being unable to sue Twitter over account moderation is “petitioning the government.”

While still not a lawyer, I can’t help but wonder if using superheated language is the best approach when you have neither facts nor the law on your side. I know the general tactic is to “bang the table” when you lack facts/law but

(?°?°)?? ???

I mean…

Social media websites injured the Plaintiffs by falsely marketing themselves as a place where the Plaintiffs were free to exchange their political and religious views. After inducing the Plaintiffs to create and invest heavily in their user profiles on social media webistes that marketed themselves as glorified digital bulletin boards that were neutral on religious and political expression, the social media websites arbitrarily shifted their standards and were no longer neutral towards religious and political speech, engaging in self-help reprisal actions. The social media websites changed the deal terms in bad faith after having reached critical mass and having successfully created a monopoly on the digital public square to the shock and awe of users like the Plaintiffs. The bad faith censorship in the wake of arbitrary shifting standards that were designed to elevate the religion of Secular Humanism over non-religion and other religions has economically and emotionally injured the Plaintiffs. Social media websites have been permitted to get away with these consumer protection violations because of a Congressional action in making Section 230.

Lot of swipes at the internet in this paragraph. Almost makes it seem as though Sevier doesn’t enjoy being on it. But his lawsuit is all about being allowed to be back on it, which is some supreme sour-graping: the equivalent of “the food was terrible and such small portions.”

According to Sevier (who should never be relied on for legal advice, free or otherwise), the Thing To Do would be to say the new Florida law is cool and legal and unassailable.

In determining the trajectory of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the public’s interest would likely best be served if the Court goes with the second option presented.

Or, if not, there’s always the compelled speech option Sevier touts in footnote 4.

In this case, the Plaintiffs seek a legal path so that social media websites that were never affiliated with a religious institution or political party from their inception will be forced to keep their promises to consumers to remain neutral on political and religious speech.

From there, the lawsuit moves on to discuss Sevier’s various bootings (along with those of his co-complainants) as well as the shitload of stupid anti-Section 230/anti-First Amendment laws that have been introduced around the nation — some of which are straight-up reposts of Sevier’s bespoke legislation, the “Stop Social Media Censorship Act.” That takes up about five pages and concludes with this:

The Plaintiff, along with hundreds of legislatures, have spent an enormous amount of time, money, and resources working on this issue because it is vital to the strength of our democracy and the welfare of our citizens. The Court could hold that the “cure-all” to the problems presented by this case is the state legislature must be responsive in enacting the Stop Social Media Censorship Act, if they want their constituents to be protected from the deceptive trade practices perpetrated by social media websites.

Dude, you misspelled “wasted.” And I doubt Sevier is really out any real amount of money for the anti-First Amendment fanfic he banged out on his presumably non-Apple computer and thrust into the hands of idiot legislators who couldn’t be bothered to run a perfunctory Google search on their interloping patron.

Since we know this lawsuit is doomed (DOOMED!), let’s just do some WTF-ing at the stuff Sevier has inserted into his litigation for no discernible reason.

After engaging in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, some of the members of De Facto Attorneys General and Special Forces Of Liberty joined groups of former Special Forces and FBI to do extractions in the area of sex trafficking overseas.

I’m sorry, but what? Were they just “in the area” of sex trafficking or did they extract sex trafficked people? I mean, this sounds like they parachuted into “an area” to hang out with Gary Glitter before returning home to file baseless litigation.

“…the concerted efforts of manufacturers and retailers of Internet-enabled devices to distribute prostitution websites and pornographic websites in flagrant disregard of obscenity codes and products liability statutes.”

Yes, the major tech companies are very definitely trying to flood everyone with porn and prostititution, especially now that FOSTA is in effect.

Sevier may have given up the porn, but that won’t stop him from masturbating.

In 2021, Rep. Sabatini introduced the Stop Social Media Censorship Act (HB33), and subsequently, for unknown reasons, Rep. Sabatini got into some kind of squabble with Speaker Sprowls, as passions do tend to run high in the legislative branch and there are a lot of opportunities for conflict in the legislative branch. This dust-up caused the members of the Florida House to oppose Rep. Sabatini’s bills simply because of “who he was” and not because of “the meritorious substance of his bills.” In the wake of the Sabatini/Sprowls spat, Governor De Santis got his staff to use the Stop Social Media Censorship Act as a preliminary foundation to draft the monstrosity that became SB7072.

At the risk of sounding snarky, SB7072 – although well-intended – was distorted by ambitions and legal ignorance. Upon information and belief, personal glory might have been prioritized over substance and the rule of law. The judicial branch can help the legislative branch get things right.

To sum up, just completely fucking wrong about everything.

The Plaintiffs challenge every section and every subsection of Section 230, collectively and individually, for having been misconstrued or written to prevent citizens from acquiring relief from the government for the bad faith act of social media websites in violation of the petition and access clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Once again, getting booted from a platform is not government action. Suing social media companies isn’t seeking redress for government-caused harms. If Sevier wants to sue the government over its legislation, he can do so. What he can’t do is sue to stop platforms from exercising this immunity in cases where it’s appropriate. And that includes this case, where Sevier wants Section 230 and the First Amendment ignored because he and his moronic co-conspirators are unhappy about being booted from social media platforms for being their unhinged, bigoted, stupid selves.

Dozens of pages follow this assertion. None of them are worth reading for anything more than comic relief. There’s an inexplicable font change on page 132 of the 145-page filing — one padded by a duplication of the original complaint. And there’s reference to “amici,” suggesting parties other than the plaintiffs wish to express their views on this litigation, but the “amici” appear to be nothing more than Sevier dumping in some arguments from another lawsuit where he’s hoping to be allowed to file an amicus brief.

For no discernible reason, there’s this:

WHAT IS THEIR INTEREST

LEGISLATION

ARGUMENT

And this (quoted verbatim):

Our rights come from God. Our rights

Just like on the dollar bill. [Patriotic music swells.]

There are other moments of pure insanity, like this suggestion that preventing people from suing social media companies over moderation decisions violates both the First Amendment and consumer protection laws.

Section 230(b)(l) asserts that “it is the policy of the United States to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media” but that policy must fail if completely blocks aggrieved parties, like the Plaintiffs and the Trump plaintiffs, from having the opportunity to petition the government for redress against social media websites that have engaged in harmful consumer protection violations in view of the FirstAmendment.

And I apologize for quoting this much of a very long footnote, but I don’t even know what to make of the first paragraph’s take on Section 230. And the second paragraph must be read in its entirety to truly comprehend the extent of Sevier’s (and his co-plaintiffs’) delusions.

The social media websites shifted their standards in bad faith and censored the Plaintiffs because their Constitutionally protected religious and political speech offended the delicate sensibilities of the employees who happened to work for the social media websites at the time. At the time of each censorship, the Plaintiffs had previously invested a ton of time and money in their user profile accounts. Every time the Plaintiffs have threatened Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube with legal action, the social media websites promise to immunize their deceptive and destructive trade practices by invoking Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This assumption based on the public record that social media websites might have total immunity under Section 230 has given rise to the Plaintiffs cause of action here in which the Constitutional or the parameters of Section 230 are in question.

The Plaintiffs collectively consists primarily of Christ-followers, who served in the United States Military in foreign theaters of war, namely on the rule oflaw mission, which is purposed to better ensure a government’s compliance with their highest Constitutional authority. The Plaintiffs have continued that mission state-side in America even though they no longer officially operating under Title 10 jurisdiction on behalf of the Armed Forces. The Plaintiffs routinely file comprehensive lawsuits across the United States on different controversial and complex issues that typically concern the “culture wars” and First Amendment issues that are too “politically hot” for the government-funded Attorneys General to pursue. In bringing such lawsuits, the Plaintiffs – without apology – often end up converting Article III Courts into their own private legislative research commission. Out of the overflow of the litigation pursued by the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs subsequently draft legislation for all 50 states and for the federal government, which is then routinely introduced by a bi-partisan network of sponsors that stretches across the Country before the Article I branch. The legislation authored by the Plaintiffs that gets presented to the members of legislative branch is legally vetted ad nausem and is calculated to survive judicial review, if subsequently challenged once enacted.

Sevier will be laughed out of court again. The clerk won’t be expected to transcribe the judge’s LOLing. This is stupid stuff done by a stupid man who is apparently incapable of learning from his multitudinous mistakes. Twitter is not the government. THE END. Expecting the First Amendment to be abridged and Section 230 to be struck down just because no platform is willing to host your shitty content is the epitome of entitlement. No one owes you anything, Chris (and cohorts). No one owes you a platform. And, given your general output, it’s completely unsurprising no one’s willing to give you one.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, chris sevier, content moderation, free speech, section 230

Tennessee Lawmakers Decide Chris Sevier Has Good Ideas, Push His Bill To Compel Speech From Media Outlets

from the SLANDER-MACHINE-has-entered-the-chat dept

There’s no freer speech than compelled speech. That’s the conclusion some Tennessee legislators have come to. Sure, they managed to whip up an actual anti-SLAPP law that’s starting to curtail the state’s reputation as a place where anyone can be sued for anything they say… including things they didn’t actually say.

But the stuff flowing out the state’s legislature lately has been atrocious. Late last year — shortly after Donald Trump’s election loss — a state senator asked the federal government (Congress, specifically) to craft a law that would make flag burning illegal.

A few months later, the conservative hobby horse was taken for spin, resulting in an attempt to neutralize Section 230 protections by making it pretty much impossible for the state government to invest in anything. The bill pitched by legislators would prevent the state from investing money in any entity that benefitted from Section 230 immunity. Since Section 230 provides immunity to both providers and users, any users of internet services would also be deemed ineligible for state investment.

The state legislature isn’t done threatening free speech and free speech-adjacent protections. For reasons only known to a few lawmakers, it’s apparently time to start compelling speech. And for reasons no one will be able to adequately explain, presumably non-insane legislators are allowing Chris Sevier — perhaps most famous for suing Apple for not preventing him from watching porn on his laptop — to speak through them by introducing his whereas-heavy rants as legislative proposals.

Sevier managed to do the same thing in Rhode Island last year. He shoved a bill into some legislators’ hands and somehow legislators thought attacking free speech with laws was a good idea. It’s happening again in Tennessee: same legislation, same stupid name, same not-so-benign idiot pushing it.

The so-called “Stop Guilt by Association Act” takes aim at… something. What it actually does is compel speech. The bill would be an entertaining read if it were satire. But it’s very real and there are already two versions (House and Senate) awaiting debate in the Tennessee legislature.

The bill [PDF] tosses around a lot of invective and inadvertently hilarious phrases. It opens up with some lip service to the constitutional right it’s going to be violating shortly thereafter:

WHEREAS, the general assembly finds that the first amendment of the United States constitution asserts that the government “shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press”;

and WHEREAS, freedom of the press in the United States is not absolute and is subject to certain restrictions, such as defamation law;

and WHEREAS, the state has a compelling interest to compel the press to promote the objective truth for the sake of the viability of democracy; for the safety, health, and welfare of our communities; for keeping with the spirit of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment; and for stopping the press from serving as a slander machine…

Slander Machine is my new favorite post-punk band.

The only thing “compelling” here is the speech the legislature is planning on forcing out of media outlets. It’s basically a “right to be forgotten” bill stapled to incredibly novel theories about what a free press is obliged to do when reporting on arrests, indictments, lawsuits, etc.

WHEREAS, there has been a growing trend for individuals to abuse process and maliciously prosecute someone they disagree with ideologically by filing spurious cases and controversies in various government venues for ulterior motives, knowing that certain segments of the media that align with their ideology would serve as an accomplice by engaging in a form of defamation in-kind by selectively reporting on the facts of the original case but not on the actual outcome in actions where the petitioner received less relief than originally sought, which cultivates an unjust prejudicial conviction in the court of public opinion, causing the cause to be shunned, avoided, and marginalized, and the media outlet guilty of defamation in-kind to the point that it unduly decreases the quality of life for the accused…

Hey, that sucks. But that’s not a free speech issue. The government has no business — much less a “compelling interest” — telling media outlets they need to report on all aspects of any litigation or criminal case. Sure, it would be great if press outlets reported that the person they splashed all over the pages three months ago has been cleared of all charges, but that’s just not going to happen in most cases, and the government has no right to force media outlets to publish articles detailing these often-ignored outcomes.

The legislation is completely unconstitutional. There’s just no way around it. And allowing an unedited Sevier to engage in proxy speechmaking is just all kinds of stupid.

WHEREAS, the purpose of this act is to prevent unchecked media outlets from acting as slander machines by engaging in defamation in-kind, abusing the general public, and degrading the integrity of our institutions of justice through selective reporting on cases and controversies that cultivate false narratives to the point that it unduly injures the accused by eroding their civil liberties, causing them to be shunned and avoided by the general public due to a cloud of suspicion of wrongdoing that does not exactly align with the original allegations or the relief provided in a case and controversy lodged before a government body; protect the integrity of the press and encourage good character of the members of the press corps; deter malicious prosecution, abuse of process in general, the overcharging of defendants by prosecutors, and the seeking of excessive relief in the original cause complaint by plaintiffs; promote a mercy-centric justice system because no human is perfect; and deter convictions in the court of public opinion that do not necessarily align with convictions by our institutions of justice…

Left unexplained is how compelling speech “protects the integrity of the press.” And while it’s great to see someone (sort of) acknowledge prosecutors engage in overcharging and the criminal justice system is largely devoid of mercy, this bill was written solely to give government officials the power to make press outlets cover what they want them to cover. Everything else is ornamental, added to the bill to give the impression the sponsors aren’t interested in respecting the First Amendment or editorial decisions made by press outlets.

This is some super-weird Fairness Doctrine-esque bullshit:

(a) A media outlet shall provide equal coverage in comparable time, place, magnitude, prominence, scale, and manner in the same format as the original reporting of a case and controversy, if:

(1) The media outlet reported on the facts of a case and controversy and the final verdict provided less relief against the accused than originally sought by the petitioner or less than could have been obtained by the petitioner; and

(2) The accused or the authorized agent of the accused sends an electronic or written notice demand to an authorized agent of the media outlet within twenty (20) days after the verdict or outcome, demanding that the facts surrounding the final and actual decision or outcome be reported and published as a follow-up to the original reporting

Who will run the press? Everyone but the press themselves apparently.

(d) If a media outlet reports on the facts of a case and controversy and displays the mugshot of the accused, and the accused is acquitted, enters into a plea of no contest, or receives an outcome more favorable than originally sought by the petitioner or available to the petitioner, then the media outlet shall:

(1) Take down or remove the mugshot from any digital publication, if possible; and

(2) Not display the mugshot in any follow-up publication that reports on the actual outcome of the case and controversy and shall only display images that the accused has authorized the media outlet use.

Whew. That’s a lot of wrong to fit into eight pages of performative lawmaking. And that’s what it is. It’s a bill specifically written by one person who has an outsized axe to grind because of his inability to stop turning himself into the target of public ridicule.

What’s worse is the legislators pushing this, who are apparently going to pretend the bill isn’t a transparent attack on First Amendment protections.

Constitutionality issues aren’t deterring the bill’s two conservative sponsors, Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Old Hickory, and Sen. Janice Bowling, R-Tullahoma. They have introduced the legislation as House Bill 1219/Senate Bill 1297.

“You know what, I think you ask a lot of attorneys, line them all up, some would say that it’s unconstitutional, some would say it’s constitutional, some would probably have a mix,” Lynn told the Times Free Press. “There’s differing opinions.”

LOL oh my no. That’s self-deception right there, Rep. Lynn. No lawyer is going to tell you this bill is constitutional.

Said Bowling: “It’s just to make certain that someone’s reputation, in fact their life, gets kind of restored because it’s hard, one person at a time who looks at you and says ‘Wasn’t that your picture on the front page or wasn’t that your picture on the newscast or whatever?’ And they say ‘No, I’m innocent.’ You know, well sure. It’s just inequity.”

Maybe so, but due process (which is also namechecked multiple times in the bill) is something to be expected from the government in criminal cases. The lack of follow-up on cases by the press doesn’t violate anyone’s due process rights.

It made the final legislative cut for the next season of Tennessee law-wrangling, which begins in just a couple of days. If there’s any intelligence left in the legislature, the bill will get laughed out of the Capitol, rather than inch closer to the governor’s desk.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, chris sevier, compelled speech, free speech, freedom of the press, tennessee

Rhode Island Legislators Decide To Introduce Some Random Dude's First Amendment-Threatening Legislation

from the have-you-tried-approaching-your-job-professionally dept

Today’s most inexplicable legislative news comes to us from the state of Rhode Island, where legislators are apparently accepting (and submitting!) unsolicited pre-written bills from strangers on the street.

[Rep. Grace] Diaz told The Journal she introduced the legislation at the request of a man named Chris who approached her after a State House hearing, wearing what appeared to be a military uniform.

According to Diaz, Chris told her he had been “accused of something,″ and then found not guilty.

Diaz said the man told her the media reported the accusations, but not his acquittal, so he was left with a damaged reputation and no recourse. Diaz said the man gave her a copy of the bill, which appears to echo a bill filed in Mississippi.

Rep. Diaz asked Senator Sandra Cano to introduce the bill in the Senate, promising to do the same thing on the House side. Diaz did not do this and now Sen. Cano is trying to separate herself from a bill that openly threatens First Amendment protections while citing the enshrined right on its way to tarnishing it shortly thereafter.

The “Stop Guilt by Association Act” [PDF] threatens journalists with punishment if they don’t report on the outcome of court cases, civil and criminal. The incredibly stupid act is pure cognitive dissonance that would fine newspapers up to $10,000 for “failing” to report on lawsuit dismissals and dropped charges — supposedly with an eye on maintaining some bizarre level of “fairness” for subjects of news coverage.

In their legislation, the lawmakers acknowledge that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says the government “shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.”

But they make this argument in their bill:

“The state has a compelling interest to compel the press to promote the objective truth for the sake of the viability of democracy and for the safety, health, and welfare of our communities and in keeping with the spirit of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and to stop the press from serving as a slander machine.”

For many reasons, legislators shouldn’t accept pre-written bills handed to them by people outside the legislature. They especially shouldn’t accept legislation written by this particular “Chris,” no matter what he’s wearing.

The man who spoke to Diaz was Chris Sevier, an anti-gay and anti-abortion activist who at one point was accused of stalking country music star John Rich.

This is the idiot behind multiple states’ declarations that porn is a “public health crisis.” This is the same man who once sued Apple because its products didn’t prevent him from viewing porn. He has also previously talked Rhode Island legislators into introducing extremely questionable legislation, so perhaps someone should have called bullshit on this before tossing it into the Senate’s inbox.

While it’s understandable people might not recognize Sevier on sight, despite his insistence on thrusting himself uninvited into the legislative limelight, it’s pretty much inexcusable to take a handful of paper from some rando on the street and ask other legislators to damage their own reputations by association.

Rep. Diaz at least appears to be properly horrified by this experience.

“My feeling is beyond what I can express,″ Diaz told The Journal on Thursday, after learning of Sevier’s history. “If I knew, I would run ten-thousand-million miles away from that guy.”

She said she sympathized with the issue Sevier raised in their very brief conversation, but regrets not doing more homework on him — and the legislation.

“I didn’t do my research,″ she said. “This is an experience that will teach me a lot for the future.”

But Senator Cano — despite withdrawing the bill — seems far too sympathetic to First Amendment-threatening legislation. Calling the lack of followup to indictments and lawsuits by journalists “fundamentally unfair,” Cano says she sympathizes with the intent of the bill, even if she realizes it runs afoul of the First Amendment.

No legislator should feel sympathetic to Sevier or his word salad. His bill is an unedited letter to the editor — one that makes its point about as skillfully and subtly as a Larry Klayman lawsuit.

“There has been a growing trend for individuals to abuse process and maliciously prosecute someone they disagree with ideologically by filing spurious cases and controversies in various government venues for ulterior motives, knowing that certain segments of the media that align with their ideology would serve as an accomplice by engaging in a form of defamation … by selectively reporting on the facts of the original case but not on the actual outcome.”

TIL: reporting on facts is defamation if it doesn’t include the facts someone might prefer to be highlighted. OK, then.

Fortunately, the bill is already dead. Unfortunately, this shows how little due diligence legislators do before submitting bills for consideration. A few minutes of Googling would have seen this headed to the trash receptacle, rather than the state legislature’s permanent record. And even the most cursory glance at its contents would have made it clear the bill was unconstitutional. Better late than never, I guess. But in this case, never would have been the much better option.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, chris sevier, defamation, free speech, freedom of the press, grace diaz, rhode island, sandra cano, stop guilt by association

Hawaii The Latest To Push Bullshit Porn Filter Law Pushed By Sketchy Backers

from the round-and-round-we-go dept

Fri, Feb 8th 2019 10:43am - Karl Bode

For several years a man by the name of Chris Sevier has been waging a fairly facts-optional war on porn. Sevier first became famous for trying to marry his computer to protest same sex marriage a few years ago. He also tried to sue Apple after blaming the Cupertino giant for his own past porn addiction, and has gotten into trouble for allegedly stalking country star John Rich and a 17-year-old girl. Sevier has since been a cornerstone of an effort to pass truly awful porn filter legislation in nearly two dozen states under the disingenuous guise of combating human trafficking.

Dubbed the “Human Trafficking Prevention Act,” all of the incarnations of the law would force ISPs to filter pornography and other “patently offensive material.” The legislation would then force state residents interested in viewing porn to pony up a one-time $20 “digital access fee” to whitelist the internet’s naughty bits for each internet-connected device in the home. The proposal is patently absurd, technically impossible to implement, and yet somehow these bills continue to get further than they ever should across a huge swath of the boob-phobic country.

Hawaii this week was the latest to take Sevier’s unworkable draft legislation and turn it into unworkable real legislation. According to CNN, several incarnations of the bill have been proposed in the Hawaii legislature, after a similar measure failed to pass last year:

“It doesn’t make sense for children to have to access to X-rated material on their cell phones,” said Hawaiian State Sen. Mike Gabbard, who sponsored the Senate bill. He also introduced a similar bill during last year’s legislative session. “By making it harder for people to access these porn sites, we can make prostitution hubs harder to access which will reduce sex trafficking,” Gabbard said in an email to CNN.”

Except the proposed legislation has nothing to do with human trafficking, something other states (like Rhode Island) discovered after they realized that the folks pushing these bills may not be, well, ethical. CNN doesn’t even mention Sevier’s checkered past, and also floats over the fact that these filters don’t work, something anybody who actually understands technology already knows. Porn filters routinely not only wind up censoring legitimate content, but, when they work at all, they’re usually easily bypassed by any nitwit with even a fraction of technical knowledge. That’s oddly omitted from most of these stories.

Journalists writing about these porn filters often lose the forest for the trees in their coverage. The story isn’t really about porn filters, though pointing out that porn filters don’t work is certainly important. These stories are about how somebody with a terrible track record and zero meaningful expertise in either technology or law has been able to convince countless states to push ridiculous, unworkable, speech-stifling legislation in a country facing an ocean of more pressing problems.

Filed Under: chris sevier, hawaii, mike gabbard, porn filters

Arizona The Latest To Explore Dumb Porn Filter Law, This Time To Help Fund Trump's Fence

from the filtering-the-naughty-bits dept

Thu, Jan 24th 2019 06:22am - Karl Bode

For some time now, a man by the name of Chris Sevier has been waging a fairly facts-optional war on porn. Sevier first became famous for trying to marry his computer to protest same sex marriage back in 2016. He also tried to sue Apple after blaming the Cupertino giant for his own past porn addiction, and has gotten into trouble for allegedly stalking country star John Rich and a 17-year-old girl. Sevier has since been a cornerstone of an effort to pass truly awful porn filter legislation in more than 15 states under the disingenuous guise of combating human trafficking.

Once people have realized the ignorant futility (and under-handed sales pitch) of such model legislation, it usually fails to gain any steam in most states. But it’s back this week with a decidedly new wrinkle in Arizona, where State Rep. Gail Griffin is pushing Arizona House Bill 2444. HB 2444 would mandate that any Arizona internet user would need to file a request if they want to access porn online, proving they’re at least 18 years of age. Porn seekers would then pay a one-time fee of $20 (plus additional fees) to access porn. Of course since this effort (like past efforts) is technically futile, the proposal is going nowhere.

But it’s getting some extra attention this week because the bill mandates the creation of something called the “John McCain Human Trafficking and Child Exploitation Prevention Fund,” which, if past precedent for these bills holds, likely has less than nothing to actually do with, and was never sanctioned by, the family of John McCain.

That fund, in turn, would go to a number of different causes, including a program designed “to uphold community standards of decency” and develop “programs for victims of sex abuse.” But Arizona’s incarnation of this dumb law has a small wrinkle in that Griffin is trying to claim this money could also be used to help fund Trump’s unnecessary border fence:

“At the top of the list of 10 explicit things the grants can be used for is ?build a border wall between Mexico and this state or fund border security.” Other grant purposes include mental health services, temporary housing, assisting victims, training, assisting school districts and assisting law enforcement. It is unclear if the McCain family is supportive of the legislation or a fund created in the late senator?s name.”

Again though, that funding is never going to happen because this law, like the last fifty times we’ve covered it, isn’t likely to pass. It isn’t likely to pass because filtering porn on such a level is arguably impossible, as we’ve seen every time someone attempts to erect such government-mandated censorship of porn. And it’s not going to pass because the folks behind the draft legislation it’s based on not only have absolutely no idea how the internet actually works, they consistently misrepresent what the law is supposed to actually do (and fund).

But the real story here isn’t the dumb filter, or the Trump wall wrinkle (though both will happily feed the clickbait machine for much of the week). The real story is how successful Sevier has been, despite his very checkered past, at getting more than a dozen state legislatures to mindlessly embrace terrible, unworkable legislation that happily gives a giant middle finger to the Constitution.

Filed Under: arizona, chris sevier, donald trump, filters, gail giffien, human trafficking prevention act, john mccain, porn, porn laws, porn license, wall

Rhode Island Backs Away From Incomprehensibly Stupid Porn Filter Law

from the stop-doing-that dept

Wed, Mar 28th 2018 03:36pm - Karl Bode

For years now, a guy by the name of Chris Sevier has been waging a fairly facts-optional war on porn. Sevier first came to fame for trying to marry his computer to protest same sex marriage back in 2016. He also tried to sue Apple after blaming the Cuppertino giant for his own past porn addiction, and has gotten into trouble for allegedly stalking country star John Rich and a 17-year-old girl. Sevier has since been a cornerstone of an effort to pass truly awful porn filter legislation in more than 15 states under the disengenuous guise of combatting human trafficking.

Rhode Island was the latest state to consider such legislation, their version of the law (pdf) imposing fines up to $500 for each instance of offensive content ISPs failed to filter (costs that would, as always, just be passed on to the end consumer while tech-savvy porn users simply tap-dance around the restrictions). Sevier’s garbage legislation saw some success in the state after Sevier randomly affixed kidnapping-victim Elizabeth Smart’s name to the proposal to help sell it (her name is referenced on his website), something Smart herself has been none too happy with.

Thanks to Smart’s recent disgust at having her name hijacked, the original backer of the law in Rhode Island, State Senator Frank Ciccone, has decided to scrap the proposal after learning about its “dubious” origins:

Sen. Frank Ciccone, D-Providence, said he asked that the bill be killed upon learning that Elizabeth Smart, who was kidnapped as a teenager and whose name was attached to the bill in legislatures across the country, wanted nothing to do with it.

“In light of recent nationwide reporting about the dubious origins of this bill, I have requested that the legislation be withdrawn from today’s Judiciary Committee hearing,” Ciccone said in a Tuesday news release. “Also, after learning that Elizabeth Smart was in no way involved with this legislation, and the fact that 18 other state legislatures have received the same erroneous information leading to similar bills being sponsored across the country, I am withdrawing this legislation from the 2018 Senate session.”

And while that’s great and all, it would have taken Ciccone all of five minutes of internet research to discover the dubious origins of these proposals, since this bullshit has been going on for several years now. Again, none of these proposals should be getting anywhere close to being seriously considered, and the guy crafting them shouldn’t be writing commercial jingle ideas on cocktail napkins, much less state law.

Filed Under: chris sevier, elizabeth smart, filters, first amendment, frank ciccone, free speech, porn filter, rhode island

Bonkers, Unconstitutional Rhode Island Porn Tax Law Faces Backlash From Elizabeth Smart Over Use Of Her Name

from the revictimizing-again-and-again dept

It may be time to do some tests of Rhode Island water for heavy metals, as the state is experiencing a spasm of stupid when it comes to lawmaking. You will recall that there have been two recent proposals for new taxes in Rhode Island, one that would target video games rated “Mature” or higher, and one taxing the removal of porn-blocking software from any internet connected device sold in the state. If both sound almost hilariously unconstitutional to you, don’t worry, they are. These laws likely won’t pass and, if they do, the Supreme Court will certainly look upon them the same way a professional golfer looks at a two-inch putt. That the work of the anti-porn law is largely that of Chris Sevier, or Mark Sevier when the mood strikes him, who once tried to marry his own computer in protest of gay marriage and has been charged with stalking people twice, gives rise to one question: why are legislators in several states paying any of this any attention at all?

Sadly, it’s an open question. Mostly unreported in the past is that Sevier is pitching this law, formally the Human Trafficking and Child Exploitation Prevention Act, by slapping Elizabeth Smart’s name all over it and promoting it as the Elizabeth Smart Law. Smart, should you not know, was kidnapped when she was a teenager and forced by her captor to do all sorts of inhuman things, including the forced watching of pornography. Smart now often speaks about the harm of some pornography in some situations for some people. What she has not done, apparently, is consented to have her name used to push this particular bill in Rhode Island.

Smart, who was kidnapped from her Utah home as a teenager in 2002, sent a cease-and-desist letter to demand her name be removed from it. And the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, an anti-pornography advocacy group, demanded last year that the man behind the legislation, Chris Sevier, stop claiming it supported his work.

Sevier said he chose Smart’s name because she has spoken about the negative effects of pornography, including saying that pornography during her captivity “made my living hell worse.”

After being told by AP earlier this month that Smart’s lawyer was sending a cease-and-desist letter, Sevier said the name “Elizabeth Smart Law” was an “offhand name” that had been given to the legislation by lawmakers. The bill is also being promoted as the Human Trafficking and Child Exploitation Prevention Act.

Cute, but Sevier’s site still has Elizabeth Smart’s name slapped across the top of his website he’s using to push the bill at the time of this writing. Regardless of who came up with the idea to use her name, Sevier has used it, is using it, and by all accounts isn’t intending to stop using it anytime soon.

Asked if he would take her name off the site, Sevier wouldn’t say.

“It’s not that we will take it down or won’t take it down,” he said. “It’s irrelevant.”

And, yet, not irrelevant to the person who’s name Sevier is using so brazenly. Let’s not forget that Smart is herself a victim of horrible, horrible crimes. She has since made a job of advocating for child safety and also contributes to news organizations. Whatever you might think of her stances, she is a smart, courageous woman who has tried to make something meaningful out of an absolutely awful deck of cards she was dealt. This pernicious continued use of her name should certainly qualify as re-victimization.

So, again, why are legislators working with this clown?

Filed Under: chris sevier, elizabeth smart, laws, porn filter, pornography, rhode island, tax

Rhode Island Law Would Mandate Porn Filters, Charge You $20 Per Device To Bypass Them

from the good-luck-with-that dept

Wed, Mar 7th 2018 08:31am - Karl Bode

Rhode Island lawmakers are proposing a new law (pdf) that would force ISPs to filter pornography and other “patently offensive material.” It would then force state residents interested in viewing porn to pony up a one-time 20“digitalaccessfee”towhitelisttheinternet’snaughtybits∗∗foreachinternet−connecteddeviceinthehome∗∗,themoneypurportedlygoingtowardhelpingcombathumantrafficking.ISPswouldberequiredtobuildentirenewsupportsystems(ontheirdime)tohelpcombatporn,andwouldfacefinesof20 “digital access fee” to whitelist the internet’s naughty bits for each internet-connected device in the home, the money purportedly going toward helping combat human trafficking. ISPs would be required to build entire new support systems (on their dime) to help combat porn, and would face fines of 20“digitalaccessfee”towhitelisttheinternet’snaughtybits∗∗foreachinternet−connecteddeviceinthehome∗∗,themoneypurportedlygoingtowardhelpingcombathumantrafficking.ISPswouldberequiredtobuildentirenewsupportsystems(ontheirdime)tohelpcombatporn,andwouldfacefinesof500 for each instance of offensive content that ISPs failed to censor.

The bill is worded vaguely enough to suggest that hardware vendors could also be held liable if they failed to help censor said “patently offensive” material:

“If a person who manufacturers, sells, offers for sale, leases, or distributes a product that makes content accessible on the Internet is unresponsive to a report of sexual content or patently offensive material that has breached the filter required by this section, the attorney general or a consumer may file a civil suit. The attorney general or a consumer may seek damages of up to five hundred dollars ($500) for each piece of content that was reported but not subsequently blocked. The prevailing party in the civil action may seek attorneys’ fees.”

Upon initial inspection, this awful proposal would just appear to be garden-variety vanilla stupid. It’s technically impossible, annoyingly expensive, unlikely to ever pass, and (like most filter programs) would likely only cause collateral damage to the access of legitimate content. But the proposal is actually just one of more than a dozen similar proposals winding their way through numerous state legislatures. All of these bills follow the same, absurd playbook, and all falsely try to use child trafficking as a bogus straw man to justify censorship.

And they’re all being spearheaded by a man named Chris Sevier, whose checkered history suggests he shouldn’t be writing love notes on cocktail napkins, much less helping craft state-level legislation:

“Chris Sevier, 40, who sometimes goes by Mark Sevier in court and Chris Severe in communications with state legislators, has a contentious and often intentionally provocative relationship with the American court system that is news to at least some of the bill?s co-sponsors. He once famously tried to legally marry his computer to protest same-sex marriage, and was charged with stalking and harassing both country star John Rich and a 17-year-old girl.”

Lovely. Sevier’s war on porn, and his effort to obfuscate his real agenda by professing to be combating human trafficking, isn’t new. Sevier has also filed suit against Apple in the past for the company’s failure to implement more robust porn filters. Said lawsuit was jam-packed with spelling and other errors, and he claimed that Apple’s failure to police porn resulted him in seeing “pornographic images that appealed to his biological sensibilities as a male and lead to an unwanted addiction with adverse consequences.”

Somehow, Sevier has had some notable success convincing lawmakers to push their own versions of the same draft legislation. We’ve covered previous iterations of these efforts, which all use human trafficking as a bogeyman to justify ham-fisted and technologically unworkable censorship efforts. South Carolina Senator Bill Chumley pushed one-such incarnation of this effort in late 2016. We’ve also covered similar efforts in Virginia. Time and time again, the lawmakers backing these proposals fail utterly in explaining how their legislation actually harms human trafficking in any material way.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation last week did a good job highlighting the scope of this absurdity, noting that more than fifteen states are now pushing some flavor of the ?Human Trafficking Prevention Act? (HTPA). Again, none of the bills actually do anything to stop human trafficking, but do appear to enjoy using the subject to obfuscate the problems inherent in hysterical puritanical hyperventilation and censorship. And as the EFF notes, the fact that these proposals are logistically unworkable doesn’t appear to bother their backers in the slightest:

“The bill would force the companies we rely upon for open access to the Internet to create a massive, easily abused censorship apparatus. Tech companies would be required to operate call centers or online reporting centers to monitor complaints about which sites should or should not be filtered. The technical requirements for this kind of aggressive platform censorship at scale are simply unworkable. If the attempts of social media sites to censor pornographic images are any indication, we cannot count on algorithms to distinguish, for example, nude art from medical information from pornography. Facing risk of legal liability, companies would likely over-censor and sweep up legal content in their censorship net.

Numerous states (like New Mexico) have backed off their own proposals after the EFF raised the alarm, but it remains stunning just how much traction these efforts have seen despite being technologically impossible, hugely expensive, utterly disingenuous, and the intellectual and legislative equivalent of some random internet troll’s epic brain fart.

Filed Under: chris severe, chris sevier, filter, htpa, human trafficking prevention act, mark sevier, porn filter, rhode island

Guy Who Sued Apple For Not Preventing Him From Accessing Porn Now Suing A&E And Obama For Religious Persecution

from the to-say-the-filing-is-'problematic'-would-be-to-destroy-the-word-'und dept

Chris Sevier, the Nashville attorney* who sued Apple back in July for failing to prevent him from accessing porn on his iPhone (citing unfair competition and breach of marital contract — apparently, Mrs. Sevier can’t keep up with the seductive wiles of thousands of interchangeable “21-year-old porn stars”), has decided to return to the public eye with another baffling legal filing. This time, Sevier is targeting A&E for cutting ties with Duck Dynasty figurehead Phil Robertson** over his anti-gay remarks delivered earlier this month.

* The term “attorney” is used loosely here. As a whip smart and deadly handsome commenter pointed out back in July, Sevier’s license to practice law has been temporarily revoked and placed on “disability inactive status,” which basically means the court finds him (at this point) too mentally incompetent to represent others in the legal arena.

** Despite Robertson’s name being all over the news and Sevier a self-avowed “member” of Robertson’s “church,” Sevier misspells his name as “Roberson” dozens of times throughout the filing.

Sevier’s 92-page filing is a heavily-illustrated half-rant that seeks injunctive relief for Chris Sevier, who feels he too will be “unfairly discriminated against” (like Phil Robertson) because of his religious beliefs. (Obviously, he can’t represent Robertson, what with being short both Robertson’s permission and a license to practice law in Tennessee.) For added fun, Sevier also lists GLAAD, Wilson Cruz (actor and member of GLAAD) and President Barack Obama as defendants. [All misspellings and grammatical errors are from the original.]

Like Mr. Roberson, I have a continuing economic expectation with the Defendants, and I now because of their reckless decision without due process, I myself directly have the reasonable apprehension of being discriminated against under the “chilling effect doctrine.” This fear of inevitable discrimination for being a Christian, who ardently opposes something as despicable as homosexual conduct gives rise to a claim under 28 U.S.C. 2201 against the Defendants, who are obviously furthering the “pro-gay” agenda through their “symbolic” and “joint” relationship with the Obama administration, which has reduced itself to the poster child of poor leadership. It was not by accident that President Obama felt “compelled” to inject himself in this controversy after the fact to try to reverse the damage caused by his backfiring social agenda that blatantly affronts the will of God.

Sevier’s one saving grace is that he doesn’t approach this as a First Amendment issue like many others have. Instead, he presents A&E’s actions as a violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act — discrimination based on religion.

In response, A&E took adverse administration action against him without due process, discriminating against him, and members of our organization for beliefs that we hold as sacred and self-evident knowing that Mr. Robertson legally classifies as a “public figure.” A&E took these measures in step to further a political initiative acting under the color of a state actor to send a chilling effect to Christians to further a “hot button” political matter. It was not by accident that President Obama involved himself directly in this matter, speaking out against after the fact that engaged in per se discrimination and “hypocrisy.”

Now, part of Sevier’s argument hinges on Obama’s supposed involvement in this debacle. According to him, Obama’s choice to “inject” himself into this debate makes A&E a “state actor,” and as such, its actions are unconstitutional. The only problem with this — and it’s a major problem — is that this supposed “injection” never happened. Sevier quotes an entire article he found online, supposedly featuring President Obama calling for Phil Robertson’s reinstatement. (A screenshot of this article can be found in the attached exhibits, half of which have been attached upside down.)

On December 19, 2013, Calling suspension of ‘Duck Dynasty’ patriarch Phil Robertson “a chilling crackdown on free speech in an artistic community that should value individual expression,” President Barack Obama urged the Arts Entertainment network to reinstate Robertson immediately, and to apologize for its “hypocrisy.” (see exhibit)

President Obama stated: “There are no bigger fans of Duck Dynasty than Michele and me. . . .and while I have my disagreements with Mr. Robertson’s Views on homosexuality, as expressed in GQ magazine, I’ll defend with my last breath Robertson’s right to express those views…”

The post he quotes appears in the Chat section of Free Republic. It is tagged with “humor” and “satire” as can clearly be seen in the screenshot. The original post appeared at ScrappleFace, a conservative humor site that contains “thousands of satirical articles” written by site owner Scott Ott. In real life, President Obama has made no statement on Robertson’s quotes or A&E’s reaction.

This matters little to Sevier, who states the following:

The significance of President Obama’s involvement in this controversy shows that under the current political climate in this country was acting under the color of state action when it took adverse administrative action against Mr. Roberson without due process.

Except that this NEVER HAPPENED.

Once the court addresses this issue, Sevier’s case will be gutted. Not that it isn’t already pretty much just a shell already, seeing as Sevier is seeking an injunction to ensure that he won’t be persecuted in the future for his religious beliefs. (Which aren’t really “religious beliefs” as much as they are personal beliefs being propped up by convenient pull quotes from the Bible…)

Sevier’s rambling wreck of a lawsuit stumps for Rick Santorum’s Christian TV network, calls pro-gay rights activism racism, name drops both Bill Maher and Ke$ha, and uses his military career as a flag-waving place to make logical leaps from.

It is also been the Obama administrations overt policies to persecution Christians. As a combat Army Officer and member of the United States Judge Advocate Core, who served in an 06 capacity (Full Bird Colonel*) during operation Iraqi Freedom, I can personally attest to seeing Obama’s pro-gay-self-justification activity play out first-hand. The repeal of “don’t ask don’t tell” and making “proselytizing illegal” in the military were just the first steps in the quest to convert America from a “Christian nation” into a “gay one,” elevating mans Ways over God’s.

* Sevier’s attached filing seeking reinstatement directly contradicts this claim of “bird colonel” rank, pointing out that he topped out at First Lieutenant.

As further “evidence,” Sevier quotes indie rock darlings The Postal Service…

So, in turning to a secular rock band other than* ZZ top, Death Cab’s side project, The Postal Service, release a single “Such Great Heights.” The lyrics read, “God himself did make us into corresponding shapes, like puzzel pieces from the clay.” One does not have to have much in the way of common sense to use their own two eyes and see that a males body parts correspond with a females.As these lyrics indicate, God obvious created “the round peg to go into the round hole” so to speak. When these corresponding shapes are put together, such a union has the potential to be life giving, not only metaphysically, nerochemically, emotionally, socially, but literally.

* Well, if we must…

compares homosexuals to a variety of human debris, including drug addicts and *gasp* skate boarders…

The Pope encouraged the body of Christ to welcome homosexuals into the church in the same Way that the church is expressly commanded in the Bible to embrace prisoners, prostitutes, drug addicts, thieves, rabble rousers, adulterers, skate boarders, EDM singers, porn addicts, rednecks, and all other types.

points out how A&E and Obama are almost literally Hitler…

The only way to stop the Christians is to persecute and them suppress them into silence. That is what Himmler planned to do and that is precisely what did when it took unilateral adverse action against brother Robertson. This is also exactly what the Obama Administration’s agenda has set out to accomplish in a direct and round about way*…

* ‘direct and round about way?’

uses made-up words as scientific evidence…

This does not leave room for the idea that members of the same sex should be molesting each other, which serves to not only deplete oxytosen levels but causes them to miss out on a prospective life giving relationship that with the potential of being marked with God’s favor.

and points out that mainstream America has no interest in ungodly, gay-loving TV stars.

The Defendants needs to take note of the fact that nobody wants to buy an American Hoggers T-shirt. Upon information and belief, there is not a single person in the Universe wearing the “Kardasian family” t-shirt. But the merchandise in stores like Walmart that associate with the Roberson family continues to fly off the selves. This is because we are spiritual beings, and millions of Americans connect with the Roberson family and what they represent.

Sevier also grants himself multiple opportunities to fully explore his persecution complex:

It should be abundantly clear to this Court by now given other controversies I have been involved in that I am both a whistle blower and no strange to persecution for my religious beliefs. [As the Court has seen in pre-existing lawsuits, I have received actual death threats, after demanding that Apple and Hewlett-Packard comply with the laws that prohibit the selling of obscene pornography to minors.]

He also trots out some advanced sexual theory that puts gay sex in the same neighborhood as bestiality while proposing that people can switch teams by simply having orgasms with the opposite sex. (And leaves everyone unsatisfied by dangling an unclosed bracket…)

Homosexual men and women can become conditioned to desire members of the opposite sex because of classic conditioning that is reinforced by orgasm through sexual encounter with the member of the same sex. This principle could apply to beastiality as well, if one were to use a animal as a sex object. [There are studies cases of men who prefer a blow up dolls to a real woman because they get conditioned to having intercourse with a blow up doll – causing them to miss out on a superior prospective life giving relationship with a tangible member of the opposite sex…

He also takes partial credit for the UK’s stupid porn-filtering system.

In June of 2013, I filed a lawsuit against Hewlett Packard and Apple to make them comply with the laws that prohibit retailers from selling smut to minors that can be found on the books of every state in our union for good cause. That lawsuit made international news for good reason. The evidence* shows that partly in response to the discussion that I started, the British Prime Minister began championing my proposed solutions to make it harder to access pornography online, which would push our world back towards innocence. The evidence demonstrates through studies, like those released by the Withspoon Institute, that online pornography is proliferating the demand side of sex trafficking, child pornography, and reaping havoc** on intimacy, marriages, and the quality of life for millions of Americans.

* You keep using that word…
** As they sew, so shall they reap…

The insanity doesn’t stop with the complaint, though. As an added bonus, Sevier has attached a petition to have his license reinstated — a petition that leaves no bridge unburnt.

I am not in the mood to be violated any long by Tennessee Supreme Court justices, who are not only past their prime for practicing law in terms of their age and career wise, but who have acted immorally by ratifying discrimination against a combat veteran, engaged in libel per se, and implicated themselves in abuse of process and malicious prosecution…

Since the Tennessee Supreme Court members are literally acting like children, I have the right to expose you as such to the public so that you will not be re-elected to the bench. The Tennessee Supreme Court has demonstrated contempt for service members and for HIPPA in these matters. Anyone with common sense can see that I have been completely violated by the Tennessee Supreme Court’s actions given the pending lawsuit against the Board members and the Tennessee Supreme Court’s acknowledgement that it reached its decision on medical records that were confidential…

To be fair, Sevier doesn’t seem to have much interest (or much hope) of being reinstated. This may be mostly sour grapes, though. He seems mainly interested in getting the final word.

I want to be able to say that I deactivated my TN law license out of protest because I do not want to have anything to do with such a dishonorable entity. I also want my status switch to remove the public stigma that the TNSC helped create in conjunction John Rich* that I am a “mentally ill stalker,” so that my efforts to fight the hell out sex trafficking and child porn will not be interfered with, given the pending Apple/HP lawsuit in Federal Court.

*Some evidence does exist that lends credence to Rich’s claim.

Sevier also threatens the court with the combined weight of his recording industry connections, something that will undoubtedly force it to continue ignoring his requests.

[I] have worked in the music business. I will use every resource I have in that industry to bring accountability to the individuals on the bench making this decision through the Court of public opinion* You’ll find yourselves outmatched here.* I’ll even humbly ask Rolling Stone Magazine to cover these matters, along with my simultaneous musical developments in EMD** (that’s electronic dance music for those who are too out of touch to know)… Additionally, I’ll ask these musical publications to keep track of my Apple lawsuit along with a serious of other ones that are bound to make international news once again. I am presenting a new kind of “rock star,” one who not only makes music, but who lashes out publicly against people in positions of authority who elect to misuse it for personal reasons…

Normally, I have great respect for authority. It is a privilege to be submissive…***

* Whoa, we’ve got a badass here.
** Well, not when it’s abbreviated that way…
*** Or not.

Sevier points out early in his novel-length filing that he’s going to use “layman’s terms” in order to make everything abundantly clear to both the court and other readers. That’s a nice thought, but I would imagine his use of layman’s terms has more to do with a limited legal vocabulary than a desire to connect with the “common man.” This is the same man who claimed in his lawsuit against Apple that he accidentally typed in “fuckbook” rather than “facebook,” a finger fumble that led directly to his porn addiction — an addiction that is totally the fault of Apple, HP… anyone else who isn’t Chris Sevier.

Now, Sevier’s worried that his religious anti-gay beliefs will keep him from successfully licensing his next album of “dubstep-electronic-trance-house-hardstep” songs to production companies like A&E or Disney. As a member of Robertson’s church (more accurately described in his filing as being a member of Robertson’s church’s Facebook group), Sevier can only look forward to a future of gay marriage and declining income. And it’s all Obama’s fault.

Filed Under: barack obama, chris sevier, duck dynasty, lawsuits, phil robertson, porn, religious persecution

Lawyer: Apple Should Protect Me From My Porn Addiction

from the because-its-unfair-competition-with-my-wife dept

Cross-posted from

Earlier this week, I wrote about a lawyer in Florida suing Apple for millions because he couldn’t be bothered to figure out how iTunes works. Little did I know that this wasn’t the craziest law suit brought by a lawyer against Apple.

A tipster pointed us to a 50-page complaint filed in federal court last month seeking damages and injunctive relief against Apple for making devices that can display porn, or as the rest of us call it, the Internet. The complaint gracefully skips from pop psychology, to comparing porn to handguns, to appeals to the divine rule of the Almighty.

This wasn’t the best week for Apple in the courtroom, but at least the in-house lawyers have this suit to look forward to defending…

The plaintiff, Chris Sevier, is an attorney in Nashville. A news report of his arrest last month on unrelated charges of stalking country music star John Rich (the guy whose obnoxious song mars my weekly viewing of College GameDay) states that Sevier’s 36, though his Model Mayhem bio says he’s 26. For someone mad about porn on the Internet, he’s already adopted its first cardinal rule: models always lie about their age.

Sevier’s complaint makes a simple request: Apple should sell all products with an installed filter blocking all Internet porn. If the buyer, over the age of 18, wishes to unlock the Internet, he or she is free to contact Apple, sign a form acknowledging the ills of pornography, and receive a code to remove the filter. Sevier argues that the burden must be shifted from parents to the manufacturer to sell a locked device. That sounds like a fair enough, even laudable goal. But Sevier also wants these filters installed lest the responsibility be up to *shudder* individuals exercising self-control.

The complaint describes some of the societal harm porn causes, such as “lead[ing] to American girls traveling abroad to be abducted and cast into sex trafficking.” Someone was watching Taken while drafting this complaint. But Sevier has also suffered personal harm:

The Plaintiff is a victim of Apple’s product that was sold to him without any warning of the damage the pornography causes. “But for” the Plaintiff’s use of the Apple product, the quality of the Plaintiff’s life would have been much better and injury would have been avoided. The Plaintiff sustained these unwarranted damages in the course of using Apple’s product as designed. Apple’s product was not adequately equipped with safety features that would have otherwise blocked unwarranted intrusions of pornographic content that systematically poisoned his life.

Sevier got his J.D. at Vanderbilt Law, and perhaps they should revisit the role Palsgraf plays in their 1L Torts lectures. Based on the tale outlined, there are a few intervening acts between Apple building a web-ready computer and Sevier joining Adult Friend Finder. This is not to deny that sex can have addictive qualities, but just as drug and alcohol rehab focus on individuals facing up to their personal role in facilitating their disease, Sevier might want to look in the mirror before blaming Apple.

But Sevier maintains the proximate cause is Apple’s browser and an honest spelling error:

In using safari, the Plaintiff accidentally misspelled “facebook.com” which lead him to “fuckbook.com” and a host of web sites that caused him to see pornographic images that appealed to his biological sensibilities as a male and lead to an unwanted addiction with adverse consequences.

I’m incredulous. But in fairness to Sevier, the complaint is so riddled with spelling and grammatical errors (including a few in that block quote) that maybe typing just isn’t his thing. I, however, posit that he made all these mistakes intentionally to bolster the credibility of this argument. Well played, sir.

Apple basically should have known better:

As human beings themselves, Apple employees know that a man is born full of harmonies and attacked to by women engaging in sexual acts with the intent to cause vicarious arousal.

I’m guessing he meant “hormones.” Unless he was making a very highbrow reference to the Temptations.

The complaint, brilliantly, alleges “Unfair Competition” — between hot, hot porn actresses and Sevier’s wife:

UNFAIR COMPETITION AND INTERFERENCE OF THE MARITAL CONTRACT: The Plaintiff became totally out of synch in his romantic relationship with his wife, which was a consequence of his use of his Apple product. The Plaintiff began desiring, younger more beautiful girls featured in porn videos than his wife, who was no longer 21. His failed marriage caused the Plaintiff to experience emotional distress to the point of hospitalization. The Plaintiff could no longer tell the difference between internet pornography and tangible intercourse due to the content he accessed through the Apple products, which failed to provide him with warnings of the dangers of online pornography whatsoever.

“Who was no longer 21.” No further comment, that was just an awesome sentence.

The best part of his suggested solution to America’s online porn addiction is that it will help out businesses. Porn businesses:

THE PLAINTIFF’S SUGGESTION HELPS THE PORN ECONOMY: For the proponents of the bricks and mortar pornography industry, the Plaintiffs reasonable request here supports their cause. Forcing Apple to install preset porn filtering software could have a positive financial impact on the traditional porn trade. The porn industry has the same regulatory and supply and demand problems that the music business and print media does, as a consequence of the free flow of information online. There is so much free porn on the internet that ultimately its going to be difficult for porn providers to rely on the income generated from their work to continue to make a living….

***

…unregulated internet porn is hurting brick and mortar or “mom and pop” porn shops. This is no different than how illegal downloading of musical content and movie content has caused the collapse of traditional record stores and video rental entities, such as block buster.

First of all, “mom and pop” porn shops is going in the pantheon of greatest phrases in a legal complaint. Second, there’s something admirable about Sevier’s commitment to professional porn. As Jackie Treehorn put it, “standards have fallen in adult entertainment.” Modern porn viewers constantly find themselves asking, “but why was she ordering a pizza?”

In the end, the complaint is not just about protecting kids and even protecting Sevier from his interest in the naked ladies, but a jeremiad against the modern age:

In the 1950s, before there was in the internet and the ACLU, we had prayer in school, males were not flaming out academically, there was no need for viagra commercials to clog up our televisions late at not, homosexuals were substantially fewer in number, sex trafficking was virtually nonexistent, prostitution was way down, and child porn was unheard of. Why are things different – easily accessible pornography accessible through high speed internet and devices like Apple products is one contributing factor in that complex answer.

Except the ACLU was alive and active in the 1950s, school prayer was never as widespread as its advocates suggest, men still got Fs, gay folks were still there (just closeted), America had just completed a war against Germany and Japan (both of whom engaged in large-scale sex trafficking, e.g., the Joy Division without Ian Curtis), prostitution was rampant (as Don Draper’s childhood flashbacks attest), and child pornography and pedophilia persisted as the Catholic Church scandals are bringing to light. There just was no golden age, certainly not in the 1950s that Sevier longs for, yet never personally saw, regardless of which age he admits to being.

There’s nothing really wrong with the suggestion that Apple should default to stronger parental controls. There’s a logic to the idea that it’s easier for parents to disengage a lock than to install one. However, implementing the procedural hurdles Sevier seeks for the sake of protecting him from himself crosses into a disciplinary nanny state.

But, maybe he’s into that.

The full 50-page complaint is reproduced below. If you can suffer through the typos, there are many more gems, including an explanation of Apple’s role in creating the proliferation of male enhancement drug commercials and how Sevier knows what women really want. Enjoy!

Filed Under: chris sevier, liability, porn, unfair competition
Companies: apple