Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 2 Out of 200: Detailed Timeline From 2012 (Attack on Reporters That Question Restricted Boot) to 2024 (Lawsuit Against Reporter and His Wife in Another Continent)
Yesterday we began a long new series about efforts by Microsoft staff and friends (we already have admission under sworn oath they're connected and were connected right from the very start) throwing several SLAPPs at us, then aiming to drain out our legal budget, knowing that in order to present evidence at trial one needs to have a lot of money available. Today, in parts 2 and 3 (or later), we reproduce a document produced 2 years ago to give people more context and more easy-to-follow facts.
We begin with a note on style because the Judge commended me for being courteous while acknowledging Garrett is facetious (her word) and has a ruder communication style.
A Note on Style
"Social interaction with Debian-the-distribution makes me want to stab people"- MATTHEW J. GARRETT, CASE FILER or herein the Claimant (his own words in his own verified blog with his real name as captured in 2023).
In his personal site he spoke of "axe-murdering", punching people, and joked that he would code for “sexual favours”. It is the Claimant’s own vocabulary and colourful description of violence (like boasting that he wishes to hit or kill other people). It can be asserted those were “jokes”, but people do not joke about physically attacking or even murdering other people. Those statements, taken or judged on their own, should be grounds for seriously doubting whether anyone ruined his reputation other than himself (with his own rude ravings). He keeps using very rude words in his public online account, certainly not something that any respectable employer would seem acceptable.
TIMELINE
For the sake of concision the Defendant will be referred to as “Roy” (the main subject of harassment before Rianne too was picked on) and the Claimant will be named as “Matt”.
Chronology
Chronicled point by point (with dates where applicable):
2012: Roy (Defendant) published some blog posts on a technical topic, bemoaning monopoly abuse (blog posts dated 2012-06-05). To understand the technical and legal nature (competition law) one may need to look into UEFI and the system wherein certificates get issued to couple perceived “trust” with convicted monopolists. In preconfigured hardware, as shipped by vendor, this cannot be decoupled and therefore any person who buys a new computer – notably a laptop or desktop – would be denied access to the system for no good reason other than to maintain a ruinous monopoly that results in terrible computer security, extensive privacy violations, and many other issues. There are already rulings in very high courts – rulings that forbid bundling to this effect.
Matt (Claimant) responded in Roy's blog many more times (as blog comments), trying to defend what he had done (first comment can be seen on 2012-11-06 if not earlier). The comments were not particularly amicable, but were not (yet) rude either. There was a genuine effort to convince one another, but eventually Matt gave up and just didn’t argue anymore. Instead he primarily used Twitter to talk from a distance about Roy – typically negative things of a personal nature, not related to the subject of the technical dispute.
2012-2019: Roy was repeatedly vindicated for the things he had written and cautioned about, for example many security issues and damage to computer systems. To be a little more specific, every year if not several times per year a system that was originally characterised as a boom for security turned out to be the exact opposite. Roy had already written many articles not only predicting this but also explaining the technical reasons (that this would inevitably happen). To this date, serious incidents occur where millions of computers would refuse to even boot due to “bugs”, not due to a lack of security. The net gain for security has been nill as it was never really the objective to begin with. It was primarily about the financial security of Microsoft, not about computer security. Over time computer users became more reluctant to update their machines for fear that they would not boot anymore – in turn worsening security rather than improving it, set aside the toll of downtimes and several damage to mission-critical operations. There are several more angles that can be elaborated upon, explaining not just using theoretical examples but real-world examples why Roy was vindicated on the matter and actually did receive accolades for this foresight. Matt was likely angered by this, for he could not win the debate or the argument and instead tried to name-drop acronyms and buzzwords, compensating for the lack of reasonable explanation. At one point Matt tried to invite Roy to his home (several times) to “debate” him, but Roy – already knowing the violent rhetoric of Matt – repeatedly declined. The hallmarks of a personal obsessions had become more visible up until 2019 or whereabout when the obsessions turned very combative, not just hostile. It would get literally dangerous for Matt to be anywhere near Roy (or Roy’s wife) because of statements that he made on the record.
It should be noted that Matt only ever responded with dismissive, belittling comments, usually personal attacks rather than a technical defence of what his work had caused. A better approach would have been to take the technical issue and try to refute it based on a scientifically-sound argument. Nevertheless, unlike both Defendants, Matt does not have Computer Science background, he only ever pretends to. Moreover, it angers him when people point this out, as the imposter syndrome inside him puts at risk/peril his career ambitions.
Around 2019: Matt escalated. Matt started stalking and provoking Roy in Roy's IRC channels. In the details Defence below there will be a simpler explanation of what IRC channels actually are, but it’s a free and open protocol developed in the 1980s to be used and deployed by anyone, and leveraged using a wide variety of server and client software. IRC is very much compatible with the values that Roy and Rianne’s sites stand for. It has long been a convenient way to interact with readers, sharing an equivalent of millions of “comments”, albeit in a real-time fashion rather than burst-based fashion like that of a Web site with pertinent pages.
2020: Matt repeatedly defamed Roy in Twitter, trying to connect him to reprehensible things through innuendo and provocation in IRC. Roy was hardly the first person to whom Matt did this. In the context of Twitter, now known as “X”, the practice is sometimes referred to as “lynch mob” or “brigading”. The modus operandi follows the tactics of Ritual Defamation, wherein someone makes highly exaggerated or inflated (or outright false/fabricated) claim about another person and then pleads with many others in the same platform to pass that on and express rage, even contact family members, employers etc. The spouse of Matt already got sued for defamation in the United States for doing this.
Around 2020, following repeated abuse, Roy muted Matt in IRC to stop the provocation. Several people complained about his attempts to bypass these restrictions, but the IRC network also needed to safeguard users’ dignity and prioritise the safety of people in it. The network’s IRC policy, dating back to 2010 (and written in the respective wiki), is that threats are not acceptable form of communication.
May and June 2021: Roy moved the IRC channels to a self-hosted network that he more fully controlled at every level, rather than continuing to share space with another, very large network (one called Freenode). This was a major change after using Freenode since 2008 (Roy had already used IRC in the early 1990s). The move did in fact help reduce the abuse or curtail attempts to bypass moderation using sockpuppet accounts.
Early/Middle of 2021: Matt kept writing nasty words about Roy, if not within the IRC network (where Roy gave him temporarily reprieve or a “second chance”) then outside of it, notably in Twitter. While it’s perfectly OK to disagree or criticise people on various issues, implying that those people are someone pro-rape (when clearly they are not; there’s no evidence to show that either) isn’t fair play, it just feeds into the above-mentioned “Internet trolls” (or slanderous pest) narrative. Roy consistently opposed rape and in fact barely wrote on the subject because Roy’s site is technical. To shift the subject – either in IRC or elsewhere – to something of a sexual nature would be rather blatant baiting, and moreover it’s intended to discourage participation by other people in the network.
Early 2021: Roy publicly accused Matt of defaming him (2021-03-05), making these accusations both in articles and in videos. Roy highlighted the fact that Matt had already done this to other people for many years. Roy gave concrete examples and showed the pattern. Roy’s goal was to make a public message about a chronic source of online abuse and to flag various things to watch out for. The “boy who cried wolf” merits scepticism and criticism because of all the time he cautioned and warned about people (or wolves, to use the metaphor) who turned out to be harmless, non-existent, or innocent.
Late 2021: Matt sent Roy a pre-action letter (2021-11-22), asserting that some tweet from Roy was "defamatory" despite not mentioning Matt by name. The letter was particularly shocking because, as recently as months prior, it was Roy who openly and publicly accused Matt of repeatedly slandering people. An outside observer whom Roy spoke to believes that Matt was embarrassed by his own track record and tried to ‘beat Roy to the docket’ (or to the lawyers who can issue legal letters). Roy did not reply to the legal letters, which he deemed meritless, frivolous, and outright ridiculous on several levels, as Roy later explained in a 2-hour video outlining what happened and why those letters are, in Roy’s view, borderline abusive if not legally-invalid. Matt was so excited about sending those letter that, after sending Roy an E-mail about these, he dodged the IRC ban and came to announce this in IRC, then asking Roy in front of everyone if he had received the letter. This isn’t the behaviour to be expected by a healthy grown-up but a childish man looking to “play fire” with a law firm willing to add a signature to a poorly-thought-out nastygram.
2022-2023: Matt misbehaved a lot in IRC, got called out on it, and continued trying to provoke as he was no longer muted (IRC policy was loosened a little, free speech was always a priority, sans threats and other several breaches of law). He stalked every single active channel 24/7, even though it was Roy's network. There was a bunch of reasons to suspect he did this to relay "dirt" about Roy's views about his colleagues to Roy's and also to Rianne's employer (this happened in late 2022).
Late 2023: Roy started a new series (2023-08-04) detailing the abuse both he and Rianne were subjected to in IRC. This included some videos, e.g. on 2023-09-17.
Late 2023: Rianne also started a series, in her own site, in which she explained and showed detailed proof of the abuse she had been subjected to. All those articles remain online and will be defended as they illuminate information in the public interest. It would be immoral to try to censor them based on grounds like “embarrassment” or “it makes it difficult for me to find a job”. [Editorial note: this was written in 2024; as of 2026, all the articles in question were removed in compliance with an Order]
Late 2023: Matt sent several E-mails to Roy and Rianne demanding the removal of articles. Neither Roy nor Rianne ever responded to any of his E-mails (or messages from his lawyers in 2021).
December 5 2023: Matt publicly ‘joked’ that he wanted a lawyer for cheap (“nominal fee”) to do something "funny". Roy responded publicly to this veiled threat, clarifying that there is nothing “funny” about it and he would stand by whatever he said, more so because he himself was the recipient of long-time, long-term, relentless abuse, even in his very own platform. Reversal of narratives would not be tolerated because it’s unjust and deeply immoral to let that happen just because media lawyers can cost a lot of money.
February 25 2024: Matt chose another law firm (he basically dumped the previous one, maybe for one that would give him poor advice and take instructions that are misguided as long as he paid them) and sent another pre-action letter, this time sending another one (to Rianne). That was not the first such pre-action letter.
February – April 2024: Roy and Rianne did not respond as nothing in the articles had been disproved. Not only was burden of proof a factor; Roy and Rianne both suffered a great deal and were not going to concede for relative “calm”, for there’s danger that it would not only send the wrong signal but also enable Matt to do the same to other people.
April 25 2024, two full months after deadline reached: Matt filed a lawsuit. █