I certainly admire Marc Randazza's commitment to free speech rights. But I'm a little bit confused by his refusal to bring claims against Crystal Cox. Is he arguing that the First Amendment should overwhelm any kind of action, civil or criminal, for defamation, invasion of privacy, harassment, or racketeering? It seems like Randazza might have a plausible claim for any of these things or more, all based on the content of Cox's speech. While I am a free speech advocate, I think all these kinds of claims are valid. Why did he think he could assert only a domain name cybersquatting claim against her?
Jan. 26 2014 11:22 AM"
Well, A.C. Senray, you see, Marc Randazza LIED and has NO CASE for Extortion, so he wants the Civil Courts to take his word and simply RULE that Cox is an Extortionist, based on no evidence because HE SAYS SO.
More on What Drives Riddler Randazza and his Over the Top, "doth protest too much" RANT and hate campaign against Blogger Crystal Cox.