It’s
not
every
day
you
watch
a
company
faceplant
so
theatrically
in
public,
but
Cloud
Innovation’s
latest
stunt
deserves
a
slow
clap.
Cloud
Innovation,
which
you’d
probably
never
heard
of
unless
you’re
neck-deep
in
African
IP
registry
battles
(stay
tuned),
just
managed
to
make
a
legal
play
whose
end
result
should
be
calling
a
lot
more
attention
on
its
own
legal
actions
and
threats.
The
move?
They sent
a
cease
and
desist
letter to
Joe
Hall—demanding
Hall
delete
a
tweet.
Not
a
tweet
where
he
said
anything
defamatory.
Not
a
tweet
where
he
made
false
claims.
Indeed,
not
a
tweet
where he said
anything
at
all.
Just…
a
tweet
with
a
link.
Literally,
a
URL
to
a
Medium
article
discussing
the
AfriNIC
saga,
in
which
Cloud
Innovation
is
a
central
player.
That’s
the
entire
complaint:
someone
shared
a
link.
The
letter,
signed
illegibly
by
someone
calling
themselves
“Legal
Counsel,”
gives
Hall
24
hours
to
remove
his
tweet
sharing
Emmanuel
Vitus’s
Medium
article
“AfriNIC:
Hope,
Hijack,
and
the
Harsh
Lessons
of
African
Multistakeholderism”
or
face
a
lawsuit
for
“defamation,
unlawful
publication
and
dissemination
of
defamatory
article.”
So,
of
course:
you
should
go
read
that
article.
Cloud
Innovation
seems
desperate
for
you
not
to.
It’s
also
both
a
fascinating
and
depressing
deep
dive
into
what
happened
with
AfriNIC—something
I
never
would
have
learned
about
if
Cloud
Innovation
hadn’t
been
so
hellbent
on
making
sure
I
never
saw
it.
Still
let’s
pause
here
to
appreciate
the
legal
theory
being
advanced
by
Cloud
Innovation:
that
sharing
a
link
to
an
article
someone
else
wrote
makes
you
liable
for
defamation.
This
is
roughly
equivalent
to
claiming
that
the
person
who
hands
you
a
newspaper
is
responsible
for
everything
printed
inside
it.
The
Backstory:
AfriNIC’s
Institutional
Collapse
The
article
Hall
shared
tells
a
genuinely
important
story
about
AfriNIC,
the
African
Network
Information
Centre
responsible
for
distributing
IP
addresses
across
the
continent.
What
was
once
a
symbol
of
African
digital
sovereignty
has
been
paralyzed
by
a
number
of
issues,
with
much
of
it
coming
from
an
aggressive
legal
campaign
from
Cloud
Innovation,
which
has
filed
dozens
of
lawsuits
to
block
the
registry’s
governance
and
operations.
Among
many
other
things,
the
piece
details
how
Cloud
Innovation
obtained
control
of
millions
of
IPv4
addresses—worth
potentially
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars—and
those
IP
addresses
appeared
to
be
“redirected
to
data
centers
abroad,”
rather
than
used
in
Africa.
When
AfriNIC
tried
to
audit
and
potentially
reclaim
these
resources,
Cloud
Innovation
responded
with
a
legal
blitz
that
has
effectively
shut
down
the
institution.
More
than
fifty
legal
cases
were
filed
in
rapid
succession.
Some
were
emergency
applications.
Others
aimed
to
freeze
bank
accounts,
block
board
meetings,
suspend
elections,
or
issue
restraining
orders
against
AfriNIC’s
leadership.
The
goal
was
not
just
to
defend
a
legal
position.
It
was
to
paralyze
the
registry
entirely.
And
it
worked.
As
AfriNIC
tried
to
clean
up
its
records
and
assert
control,
it
faced
a
coordinated
legal
pushback.
Every
step
taken
by
the
registry
was
met
with
a
countermeasure
in
court.
Every
attempt
at
reform
was
slowed
by
injunctions.
The
legal
process
became
a
tool
of
exhaustion.
It’s
a
story
of
institutional
capture,
regulatory
failure,
and
the
vulnerability
of
critical
internet
infrastructure.
Oh,
and
abuses
of
the
legal
system.
In
other
words,
exactly
the
kind
of
story
that
deserves
widespread
attention
and
discussion.
And
also,
exactly
the
kind
of
thing
Hall,
who
is
a
distinguished
technologist
at
the
Internet
Society,
would
want
to
share
with
his
followers.
Enter
the
Streisand
Effect
Which
brings
us
to…
well…
you
know.
By
trying
to
suppress
discussion
of
an
article
that
documents
their
use
of
aggressive
legal
tactics
to
silence
critics,
they’ve…
used
aggressive
legal
tactics
to
try
to
silence
a
critic.
And
they
didn’t
just
go
after
Hall.
According
to
the
response
letter,
“substantially
identical
letters
were
sent
to
other
people
who
posted
links
to
the
same
article.”
Multiple
people
have
reported
receiving
similar
threats
just
for
sharing
the
link
(and,
tragically,
it
appears
at
least
some
removed
their
tweets).
Either
way,
the
end
result
is
that
way
more
attention
is
likely
to
go
to
the
underlying
story
than
it
would
have
received
otherwise.
Before
the
legal
threats,
this
was
a
somewhat
niche
piece
about
African
internet
governance.
Now
it’s
a
case
study
in
how
not
to
handle
public
criticism.
And
a
reason
to
read
the
article.
How
to
Respond
to
a
Censorial
Legal
Threat
Hall’s
response,
crafted
by
lawyer
Kendra
Albert
of
Albert
Sellars
LLP,
is
a
masterclass
in
how
to
handle
bullshit
legal
threats.
The
letter
methodically
demolishes
Cloud
Innovation’s
claims
on
multiple
grounds:
Section
230
immunity:
Hall
shared
someone
else’s
content
on
a
platform
(ExTwitter).
Section
230
explicitly
protects
users
from
being
treated
as
publishers
of
third-party
content.
Game
over.
Fair
report
privilege:
The
article
reports
on
actual
legal
proceedings
that
Cloud
Innovation
filed.
Accurate
reporting
on
court
cases
is
privileged
from
defamation
claims.
No
false
statements
identified:
The
cease
and
desist
letter
doesn’t
point
to
any
specific
false
statements,
let
alone
prove
they’re
false.
Public
figure
standard:
Even
if
the
above
didn’t
apply,
under
US
law,
Cloud
Innovation
would
need
to
prove
“actual
malice”—that
Hall
knew
the
statements
were
false
or
showed
reckless
disregard
for
their
truth.
The
SPEECH
Act:
Even
if
Cloud
Innovation
won
a
defamation
judgment
in
another
country,
they
couldn’t
enforce
it
in
the
U.S.
without
meeting
American
free
speech
standards.
You
can
read
through
the
analysis
of
all
of
those,
but
just
to
whet
your
appetite,
here
was
the
description
of
the
third
item
in
that
list:
Even
if
Dr.
Hall
was
the
original
author
and
thus
not
immunized
by
Section
230,
and
even
if
the
fair
report
privilege
did
not
apply,
Cloud
Innovation’s
claim
would
fail
for
a
third
reason.
Under
the
First
Amendment,
Cloud
Innovation
Ltd
would
need
to
show
that
a
defamation
defendant
published
an
identifiable
false
statement
of
fact
that
harmed
its
reputation,
and
that
the
speaker
did
so
with
the
requisite
level
of
intent.
Cloud
Innovation
has
already
admitted
that
the
facts
in
Mr.
Vitus’
article
are
true,
and
any
statements
of
opinion
cannot
be
defamatory
under
U.S.
law.
Cloud
Innovation
would
also
have
to
identify
those
statements
with
specificity.
We
note
that
your
letter
does
not
identify
any
particular
false
statements
in
Mr.
Vitus’s
article,
let
alone
any
such
statements
from
Dr.
Hall.
The
response
letter
notes
that
“it
would
be
inappropriate
for
legal
counsel
to
send
a
demand
letter
without
research,
which
should
have
turned
up
at
least
one
of
the
five
independent
reasons
why
Cloud
Innovation
has
no
claim
against
Dr.
Hall.”
It
concludes:
We
will
refrain
from
providing
a
count
of
the
reasons
why
a
lawyer
from
any
jurisdiction
should
know
better
than
to
use
baseless
threats
to
intimidate
a
perceived
critic.
Ouch.
The
Bigger
Picture:
Standing
Up
to
Censorial
Bullies
This
case,
once
again,
illustrates
why
we
need
more
people
willing
to
stand
up
to
legal
intimidation,
as
Hall
has
done
here.
The
letter
he
received
was
clearly
designed
to
shut
down
discussion
through
intimidation,
not
to
address
any
legitimate
legal
grievance.
The
24-hour
deadline.
The
vague
threats.
The
failure
to
identify
specific
false
statements.
The
targeting
of
multiple
people
for
simply
sharing
a
link.
These
are
all
classic
signs
of
a
SLAPP
attempt—designed
to
chill
speech
through
the
threat
of
expensive
litigation.
And
it’s
working
on
some
people.
As
the
letter
notes,
at
least
one
person
has
already
deleted
their
tweet
in
response
to
the
threat.
That’s
exactly
what
these
campaigns
are
designed
to
achieve:
silence
through
intimidation.
Of
course,
now
Cloud
Innovation’s
legal
strategy
about
the
story
has
become
part
of
the
story,
perhaps
the
key
part
of
the
story.
The
original
article
documented
how
the
company
used
aggressive
litigation
to
paralyze
AfriNIC’s
governance.
Now
they’re
using
similar
tactics
to
try
to
suppress
discussion
of
that
very
behavior.
The
crazy
thing
about
the
Streisand
Effect
is
that
it’s
so
predictable,
yet
people
keep
falling
for
it.
It’s
like
watching
someone
step
on
the
same
rake
over
and
over
again,
except
the
rake
is
“trying
to
suppress
information
in
the
internet
age”
and
the
person
is
“a
company
that
should
probably
know
better.”
So,
if
you
hadn’t
checked
it
out
yet,
now
is
a
good
time
to
read Vitus’
reporting
on
AfriNIC.
Litigious
Company
Demands
Removal
Of
A
Tweet
Linking
To
An
Article
About
How
Litigious
They
Are
More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:
Idaho
AG
Office
Forces
Schools
To
Take
Down
‘Everyone
Is
Welcome’
Signs
For
Being
‘Political’
Oklahoma
Sued
Again
For
Mandating
Students
Be
Taught
Election
Conspiracy
Theories,
Bible
Stories
U.S.
Consumer
Protection
Is
Dead:
Lobbyists
And
Lawyers
Kill
New
FTC
Rule
That
Would
Have
Made
It
Easier
To
Cancel
Subscriptions