![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There's a lot of other noteworthy stuff he's done that deserves mention. His legal briefs are known for their wit and entertainment value. I'm doing an infodump here, hoping to inspire someone else, because I don't have time to find all the best references.
Marc Randazza: First amendment badass is a good summary article. His website terms and conditions are also highly amusing. E.g.
“ | The following individuals or organizations are “blacklisted” and may NEVER read any posts on our network, nor may they ever use any materials from our network, without prior written permission: [...]
|
” |
and
“ |
|
” |
- 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 17:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The user “007news” is violating the BLP policies. There is a very clear SPA set up to push an agenda. /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/007news Although, now with some recent edits, they are trying to make it seem like it is not an SPA, they are not all that creative about it. Recommend that the SPA be blocked from this page.
I would agree that the fact that it is an interim finding would make it inappropriate to report here. Further, yes, perhaps two blogs write about the filing of the bankruptcy, that does not seem significant enough for it to be part of a BLP. Additionally, there may be an absence of direct evidence of the owner of the 007news account, but its activity (especially given the content of its edits) are circumstantial evidence that it is a SPA. The post-hoc attempts to make it appear otherwise are not compelling.
Ok, so how about this, do you deny that you are either an employee or a contractor of Liberty Media / Excelsior Media?
This is the best place for any discussions on edits, possible SPA/BLP violation issues, etc (as opposed to edit comments). Thanks! 007news ( talk) 01:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I gather from the entry that Mr Randazza is a wonderful, wonderful person with absolutely no faults at all. A quick web search, though, turns up a very different story. Ars Technica has two articles that are somewhat less glowing in their opinion of Mr Randazza; the first is " Embattled copyright lawyer uses DMCA to remove article about himself", while the second seems even more concerning, discussing as it does " Bribery, gay porn, and copyright trolls: The rise and fall of lawyer Marc Randazza". It is unclear how none of this news has made it to Wikipedia; please, can the page be made slightly less hagiographic?
I am also puzzled by the long list of seemingly every time the subject has been seen in public - does this add any value to the entry? As for the sources, pointing to the subject's own blog does not seem to provide an independent source! 45.74.43.63 ( talk) 12:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Nevertheless WP can stick with something along with lines of "noted 1st Amend. lawyer Randazza agued such and so" without editorializing. " Just the facts, ma'am."-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 21:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)"Readers of this site will be familiar with Randazza and his reputation for repudiating bogus takedowns and lame uses of intellectual property in this matter. His involvement does not bode well for the Mormon Church's prospects for the continued bullying of MormonLeaks through the inappropriate application of copyright law. The site is clearly well within the boundaries of Fair Use. And, while Utah's version of an anti-SLAPP law is horribly neutered, limited only to suits involving "the process of government", Randazza's otherwise congenial notice to the Church hints that there will be consequences of it doesn't walk away from all of this."-- Link
WaPo article mentioning Randazza'a letter on these Nevada-based journalists' behalf.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 01:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Marc Randazza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Marc Randazza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://entlaw.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/prisco.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://entlaw.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/skydiving-magazine.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://entlaw.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/character_counts.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://entlaw.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/republicans-save-us-jobs-first-2257.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://entlaw.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/foreign-content-and-2257.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://entlaw.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/2257-regs-a-boon-to-patriotic-porn-producers.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://entlaw.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/condo-casino-oct-fla-bar-j.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I would like to update two sections of the Marc Randazza's page: Career and Controversies. The new information describes the most recent lawsuits that Mr. Randazza has been working on. Please review them:
Marc Randazza filed a First Amendment civil rights lawsuit on behalf of American Performance Artist Vermin Supreme after the City of Concord in New Hampshire denied Supreme a permit to bring a live pony to protest Hillary Clinton. [4] Randazza successfully protected Supreme’s right to protest with the pony and the City gave Supreme the permit. [5]
Randazza often represents controversial public figures in First Amendment cases which has resulted in criticism. The New York Times highlighted Randazza’s representation of neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin of the Daily Stormer and “ Alex Jones, an online conspiracy theorist” in First Amendment cases. [6] Vice News, while covering the Daily Stormer case, also pointed out that Randazza often represents, “high-profile clients who test the limits of free speech: 8chan trolls, porn site operators, and even Mike Cernovich.” [7]
References
Kind regards, Wise-Rachel ( talk) 14:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC) Edited 10:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Kind regards, Wise-Rachel ( talk) 10:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Regards, spintendo 03:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello!
Thanks so much for your edits and suggestions.
I understand your point of view regarding the New York Times article, here is another resource that can be referred to Alex Jones case. https://www.law.com/ctlawtribune/2018/07/05/attorney-defending-right-wing-conspiracy-theorist-alex-jones-says-1st-amendment-is-the-only-litmus-test/?slreturn=20180625065134 .
Wise-Rachel ( talk) 19:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Hello! A request has been made to make mention of the attorney as having been retained in Connecticut by a notable individual. That client is also being sued in Texas. The case in Connecticut has not had any preliminary hearings. There is a mention in the New York Times, but since the client's suit in Texas was filed earlier, the article's only courtroom information comes from their case (attorneys other than Mr. Randazza.) To round out their article, the Times makes mention of another client of Randazza's which is similar in tone to the first client, but also with minimal court records generated owing to its recent nature. Because there is little courtroom-generated info from these cases to mention other than the retention, the attorney wishes to make mention of the other cases discussed in the Times article. My guess is the Times combined coverage of all three cases into one article because none of the cases on their own have generated much in the way of information.
Three questions:
Thank you in advance for any feedback editors can provide, its most appreciated! spintendo 12:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
So there’s this story. Are you SURE you want your client associated this particular client? -- Calton | Talk 08:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
This is regarding this revert.
There is a lot to go over.
First, having a WP:CSECTION in a WP:BLP is usually a bad idea. Having a section solely dedicated to the TST issue is something which should've been addresses earlier, but expanding that section to indiscriminately lump half of his notable clients together seems like it's making the problem worse. His entire career is a controversy, so slicing it up this way is arbitrary, and invites editorializing. He represents many extremist clients, but so does the ACLU, so does Ron Kuby, so do lots of civil rights lawyers. Few are as unpopular as Randazza for various reasons, but we need to summarize sources, not editorialize. So find reliable sources which indicate why this is a controversy, and incorporate that information into the body in a balanced way.
Randazza's representation of neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin is certainly significant. The specific details of this incident are already covered at The Daily Stormer, so duplicating it here to paint a suggestive picture of Randazza seems like a WP:COATRACK. We, as editors, might chose to describe Randazza as a hypocrite for defending Anglin's right to harass an innocent person, while also defending "Krystall.night"'s right to complete anonymity and insulation from any consequences, but we need reliable sources to point that out for us. Get it? Trying to nudge readers towards a specific conclusion not made by any sources is WP:SYNTH. It's also leaning way too hard on some weak sources, but perhaps that's a separate issue.
I have a problem with naming a woman who's sole claim to notability is being targeted for harassment, as well, and will discuss this at that article's talk page. The plaintiff from Montana in the lawsuit against Anglin is a WP:NPF, and even if reliable sources provide her name, we are not obligated to repeat it without a good reason. I do not believe such a reason has been established. We should not be amplifying this person's harassment beyond what is absolutely necessary for the article... but this article isn't really about her, is it? It's about someone else's lawyer. Summarizing this according to WP:DUE is tricky. I think it can be expanded, but this seems excessive in the extreme and the use of lengthy quotes is cherry-picking. He got dunked-on in court. Certainly wasn't the first-time, and probably won't be the last time.
As for the issues with the Nevada bar: This has been brewing for a while, and will probably develop further, but for one thing, WP:NOTNEWS, and for another, we absolutely should not be trying to summarize WP:PRIMARY court documents in a BLP. This is specifically cautioned against in WP:BLPPRIMARY. Explain how reliable, independent sources explain it. Trying to figure out which parts of a court document are important enough to include here is WP:OR. If this leads to something, we'll know, and if it doesn't, it wouldn't belong here anyway, right?
Finally, the sourcing was very inconsistent. I already went through these sources once, and they don't always support the statements they are attached to. This is not acceptible, as every claim needs to be supported by a reliable source.
Hopefully that explains why I reverted this content. Grayfell ( talk) 07:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Grayfellfor your guidance. I have made some additional edits as they violated the following Wikipedia rules WP:QS, WP: NPOV, WP:SELFPUB, WP:Sources, WP:Notreliable, WP:blog, WP:BLP and because were neither verifiable or neutral. Tech dirt is a personal blog it is questionable sources and is neither verifiable or neutral and Legal satyricon is a Blog of Randazza. I appreciate your valuable feedback. There is a new article in the Washington Post today that might be of interest and might be worth adding. I removed the content that was based on Techdirt or Legal Satyricon as they did not meet the above Wikipedia policies. MKPatel66 ( talk) 04:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There's a lot of other noteworthy stuff he's done that deserves mention. His legal briefs are known for their wit and entertainment value. I'm doing an infodump here, hoping to inspire someone else, because I don't have time to find all the best references.
Marc Randazza: First amendment badass is a good summary article. His website terms and conditions are also highly amusing. E.g.
“ | The following individuals or organizations are “blacklisted” and may NEVER read any posts on our network, nor may they ever use any materials from our network, without prior written permission: [...]
|
” |
and
“ |
|
” |
- 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 17:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The user “007news” is violating the BLP policies. There is a very clear SPA set up to push an agenda. /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/007news Although, now with some recent edits, they are trying to make it seem like it is not an SPA, they are not all that creative about it. Recommend that the SPA be blocked from this page.
I would agree that the fact that it is an interim finding would make it inappropriate to report here. Further, yes, perhaps two blogs write about the filing of the bankruptcy, that does not seem significant enough for it to be part of a BLP. Additionally, there may be an absence of direct evidence of the owner of the 007news account, but its activity (especially given the content of its edits) are circumstantial evidence that it is a SPA. The post-hoc attempts to make it appear otherwise are not compelling.
Ok, so how about this, do you deny that you are either an employee or a contractor of Liberty Media / Excelsior Media?
This is the best place for any discussions on edits, possible SPA/BLP violation issues, etc (as opposed to edit comments). Thanks! 007news ( talk) 01:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I gather from the entry that Mr Randazza is a wonderful, wonderful person with absolutely no faults at all. A quick web search, though, turns up a very different story. Ars Technica has two articles that are somewhat less glowing in their opinion of Mr Randazza; the first is " Embattled copyright lawyer uses DMCA to remove article about himself", while the second seems even more concerning, discussing as it does " Bribery, gay porn, and copyright trolls: The rise and fall of lawyer Marc Randazza". It is unclear how none of this news has made it to Wikipedia; please, can the page be made slightly less hagiographic?
I am also puzzled by the long list of seemingly every time the subject has been seen in public - does this add any value to the entry? As for the sources, pointing to the subject's own blog does not seem to provide an independent source! 45.74.43.63 ( talk) 12:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Nevertheless WP can stick with something along with lines of "noted 1st Amend. lawyer Randazza agued such and so" without editorializing. " Just the facts, ma'am."-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 21:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)"Readers of this site will be familiar with Randazza and his reputation for repudiating bogus takedowns and lame uses of intellectual property in this matter. His involvement does not bode well for the Mormon Church's prospects for the continued bullying of MormonLeaks through the inappropriate application of copyright law. The site is clearly well within the boundaries of Fair Use. And, while Utah's version of an anti-SLAPP law is horribly neutered, limited only to suits involving "the process of government", Randazza's otherwise congenial notice to the Church hints that there will be consequences of it doesn't walk away from all of this."-- Link
WaPo article mentioning Randazza'a letter on these Nevada-based journalists' behalf.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 01:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Marc Randazza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Marc Randazza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://entlaw.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/prisco.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://entlaw.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/skydiving-magazine.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://entlaw.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/character_counts.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://entlaw.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/republicans-save-us-jobs-first-2257.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://entlaw.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/foreign-content-and-2257.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://entlaw.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/2257-regs-a-boon-to-patriotic-porn-producers.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://entlaw.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/condo-casino-oct-fla-bar-j.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I would like to update two sections of the Marc Randazza's page: Career and Controversies. The new information describes the most recent lawsuits that Mr. Randazza has been working on. Please review them:
Marc Randazza filed a First Amendment civil rights lawsuit on behalf of American Performance Artist Vermin Supreme after the City of Concord in New Hampshire denied Supreme a permit to bring a live pony to protest Hillary Clinton. [4] Randazza successfully protected Supreme’s right to protest with the pony and the City gave Supreme the permit. [5]
Randazza often represents controversial public figures in First Amendment cases which has resulted in criticism. The New York Times highlighted Randazza’s representation of neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin of the Daily Stormer and “ Alex Jones, an online conspiracy theorist” in First Amendment cases. [6] Vice News, while covering the Daily Stormer case, also pointed out that Randazza often represents, “high-profile clients who test the limits of free speech: 8chan trolls, porn site operators, and even Mike Cernovich.” [7]
References
Kind regards, Wise-Rachel ( talk) 14:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC) Edited 10:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Kind regards, Wise-Rachel ( talk) 10:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Regards, spintendo 03:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello!
Thanks so much for your edits and suggestions.
I understand your point of view regarding the New York Times article, here is another resource that can be referred to Alex Jones case. https://www.law.com/ctlawtribune/2018/07/05/attorney-defending-right-wing-conspiracy-theorist-alex-jones-says-1st-amendment-is-the-only-litmus-test/?slreturn=20180625065134 .
Wise-Rachel ( talk) 19:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Hello! A request has been made to make mention of the attorney as having been retained in Connecticut by a notable individual. That client is also being sued in Texas. The case in Connecticut has not had any preliminary hearings. There is a mention in the New York Times, but since the client's suit in Texas was filed earlier, the article's only courtroom information comes from their case (attorneys other than Mr. Randazza.) To round out their article, the Times makes mention of another client of Randazza's which is similar in tone to the first client, but also with minimal court records generated owing to its recent nature. Because there is little courtroom-generated info from these cases to mention other than the retention, the attorney wishes to make mention of the other cases discussed in the Times article. My guess is the Times combined coverage of all three cases into one article because none of the cases on their own have generated much in the way of information.
Three questions:
Thank you in advance for any feedback editors can provide, its most appreciated! spintendo 12:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
So there’s this story. Are you SURE you want your client associated this particular client? -- Calton | Talk 08:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
This is regarding this revert.
There is a lot to go over.
First, having a WP:CSECTION in a WP:BLP is usually a bad idea. Having a section solely dedicated to the TST issue is something which should've been addresses earlier, but expanding that section to indiscriminately lump half of his notable clients together seems like it's making the problem worse. His entire career is a controversy, so slicing it up this way is arbitrary, and invites editorializing. He represents many extremist clients, but so does the ACLU, so does Ron Kuby, so do lots of civil rights lawyers. Few are as unpopular as Randazza for various reasons, but we need to summarize sources, not editorialize. So find reliable sources which indicate why this is a controversy, and incorporate that information into the body in a balanced way.
Randazza's representation of neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin is certainly significant. The specific details of this incident are already covered at The Daily Stormer, so duplicating it here to paint a suggestive picture of Randazza seems like a WP:COATRACK. We, as editors, might chose to describe Randazza as a hypocrite for defending Anglin's right to harass an innocent person, while also defending "Krystall.night"'s right to complete anonymity and insulation from any consequences, but we need reliable sources to point that out for us. Get it? Trying to nudge readers towards a specific conclusion not made by any sources is WP:SYNTH. It's also leaning way too hard on some weak sources, but perhaps that's a separate issue.
I have a problem with naming a woman who's sole claim to notability is being targeted for harassment, as well, and will discuss this at that article's talk page. The plaintiff from Montana in the lawsuit against Anglin is a WP:NPF, and even if reliable sources provide her name, we are not obligated to repeat it without a good reason. I do not believe such a reason has been established. We should not be amplifying this person's harassment beyond what is absolutely necessary for the article... but this article isn't really about her, is it? It's about someone else's lawyer. Summarizing this according to WP:DUE is tricky. I think it can be expanded, but this seems excessive in the extreme and the use of lengthy quotes is cherry-picking. He got dunked-on in court. Certainly wasn't the first-time, and probably won't be the last time.
As for the issues with the Nevada bar: This has been brewing for a while, and will probably develop further, but for one thing, WP:NOTNEWS, and for another, we absolutely should not be trying to summarize WP:PRIMARY court documents in a BLP. This is specifically cautioned against in WP:BLPPRIMARY. Explain how reliable, independent sources explain it. Trying to figure out which parts of a court document are important enough to include here is WP:OR. If this leads to something, we'll know, and if it doesn't, it wouldn't belong here anyway, right?
Finally, the sourcing was very inconsistent. I already went through these sources once, and they don't always support the statements they are attached to. This is not acceptible, as every claim needs to be supported by a reliable source.
Hopefully that explains why I reverted this content. Grayfell ( talk) 07:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Grayfellfor your guidance. I have made some additional edits as they violated the following Wikipedia rules WP:QS, WP: NPOV, WP:SELFPUB, WP:Sources, WP:Notreliable, WP:blog, WP:BLP and because were neither verifiable or neutral. Tech dirt is a personal blog it is questionable sources and is neither verifiable or neutral and Legal satyricon is a Blog of Randazza. I appreciate your valuable feedback. There is a new article in the Washington Post today that might be of interest and might be worth adding. I removed the content that was based on Techdirt or Legal Satyricon as they did not meet the above Wikipedia policies. MKPatel66 ( talk) 04:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)