Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 6 Out of 200: Intentionally Misnaming Women, People Who Offered to Testify That They Too Had Been Subjected to Similar Abuse
Today it is International Women's Day
5 days ago we began this long series, whose composition began years ago.
Yesterday we covered credentials and credibility. Remember this whole thing started in 2012 because I had published many articles about 'secure' boot, which is a giant Trojan horse and bug/back door. The attack on me, as a person, was not a response to me attacking anybody. I kept criticising Red Hat (a large American company and war contractor) and some other companies such as Canonical. The timeline of articles makes it very abundantly clear. I focused on the companies, not the people. The ad hominem (to the person) attacks on me were simply efforts to "shoot the messenger" and it carried on for well over a decade.
Today, in Part 6, I reproduce my response from 2024.
1.2 After many months of harassment against Dr. Schestowitz’s wife and even horrible, hateful attacks on Dr. Schestowitz’s mother (this was reported to the police and pertinent police cases were opened at the request of Dr. Schestowitz and Mrs. Schestowitz) Rianne Schestowitz decided to research and write a multi-part series about the abuse she had endured. She did that in her site, Tux Machines, which over the past 20+ years published about 200,000 pages, the vast majority of which of a technical nature and not personal/opinion/political pieces. Rianne wanted readers of the site to be aware of what she had been subjected in order to and caution others about the perpetrators, who very clearly worked in close coordination, both behind the scenes and in public. All of her publications that are referenced by the Claimant are her sincere responses to attacks which she had endured. The importance of what she did cannot be overstated because, as the Defence will illuminate later, many others have suffered similar abuse from the same perpetrators, going back over 15 years and never stopping since. Making the facts known is a matter of broader public interest. Bad actors deserve to be named and shamed, along with supportive evidence and testimonies from victims, witnesses and so forth. The legal process, while admirable at its core, ought not interfere with victims’ eagerness to express their thoughts, especially if they respond to vicious attacks of a racist, sexist, and outright menacing nature (even allusion to violence and death). The basis upon this Defence is prepared isn’t formally hinged upon public interest, however there is clearly an element of it that can arguably protected as the public’s right to know, the needed to be properly informed of poor behaviour by rogue actors.
1.3 Since the lawsuit was filed the Defendants received testimonies from people who alleged they too had been defamed, repeatedly in fact, by the Claimant, and this defamation lasted several years, going back almost 20 years. The Defendants did not proactively ask any witnesses to come forth or for any testimonies; they received those passively, i.e. people who became aware of the case (in the public register once inside the docket) wanted to intervene at a personal capacity, acting collectively not just on their own behalf but also others’. Several NGOs got involved as well. This troublesome practice of publicly humiliating people using false assertions is well known and well documented (some have expressed eagerness to enter the case and testify about a practice or championing of what they call "serial defamation" against them too by the Claimant). Filing a lawsuit for defamation, as in this case, seems exceedingly hypocritical – an act of projection and an attempt at narrative inversion. The people who contacted Dr. Schestowitz are very high-profile people (in their respective fields) and the false accusations against them is of a serious nature – similar to the accusations thrown Dr. Schestowitz’s way. Some of those who are high-profile victims asked not to be named, at least not yet, as they perceive that to be a risk of becoming the next targets of the Claimant’s “pre-action letters mill” (or just further slandering online; the Claimant kept insinuating some people are supportive of rape, based on no evidence at all, since he had filed the case, so his behaviour is clearly not improving). This isn’t without precedence. A common theme is to claim that those people are either “rapists” or “rape apologists” or “rape defenders” (by various tacit inferences). The consequences of being accused publicly – to hundreds of thousands of people online - of “enabling” or “sheltering” rapists (where no actual evidence exists of the rape; not even a police report) cannot be understated. It should be noted that the Claimant’s spouse has already been sued for defamation for falsely accusing men of “rape”, so there’s a degree of communality in these sinister, notorious, controversial and potentially illegal tactics. The targets of this defamation tend to be very high-profile people, perhaps wrongly assuming that class (or status) association would thus be inherited by the accuser, at least in the media or in the Court of Public Opinion. Put another way, one seeks attention or a sense of importance by tying oneself to someone far above oneself – even when that means upsetting if not lying about that someone. This is not acceptable and ample evidence exists of this longstanding pattern, including in dockets in the United States of America. It is not only obnoxious but also ruinous, exceedingly emotionally-draining, and it interferes with the professional life of otherwise-productive people. This case, by virtue of just being filled, compels both Defendants to spend time and money. At several points already the Claimant sent letters proposing a settlement – that in itself indicates he is unsure or highly sceptical that he can win the case and his real intention is – and all along was - to coerce the Defendants or hurt them financially, distract them from site-related activities (writing articles about important issues), cause anxiety etc. Demoralisation has long been an aim of his, based on his track record of toxic, hostile, derogatory activities in IRC. For that, like many other things, very extensive evidence can be supplied, albeit it’ll take a lot of time to scan 12 years’ worth of IRC logs – that is literally millions of lines of what people were saying through the days (every day). To be clear, IRC is used to disseminate information and collaborate; the Claimant wasn’t interested in any of that; his goal was to misuse, undermine, and occasionally intimidate, hiding behind the veil of “free speech” (which he does not even believe in himself).
1.4 It seems reasonable to appeal and amend the name of Rianne Schestowitz as Defendant because what the Claimant tactlessly did was add her past surname, or maiden name that’s long in the past (she already changed her legal name way back in 2012). The subject was already raised in communication between the Defendants and the lawyers of the Claimant, who repeatedly acknowledged this was in error and unwarranted, albeit it seems reasonable to suspect it was intentional and a snide endeavour, however subtle. Picking on people’s spouses seems inappropriate, especially adding their parents’ surname as if to publicly shame if not intimidate them too, causing them distress (the Claimant already caused some distress to elderly people in their mid-70s, but he seems to lack empathy, hence it would seem pointless to say this). It moreover seems frivolous to name her as a defendant considering the fact that all of her writings were in fact purely a defence of herself – a defence from vicious attacks that she had already reported to British Police with teary eyes. No person deserves this sort of abuse and then, arguably, also misuse of process to add insult to injury with legal papers bearing her name (and even her past name). The Defendants kindly ask the Court to amend the names publicly presented to reflect this. A half-hearted apology was already received from the Claimant’s solicitors, not only in a single letter but in two different letters. While the Defendants remain sceptical that this was done in error, duly apologising and rectifying the matter would only seem fair. Their face-saving letters served to confirm what the Defendants deem an ongoing abuse directed at sensitive targets, seeking to weaken the Defence by pressuring a peer, a marital partner, among others. No sensible legal professional should ever resort to this as it oozes misogyny and harms positive perceptive of an inclusive, tolerant, equitable Rule of Law. Setting aside discriminatory behaviour, however thinly-veiled, the reputation of the process is at stake and there has also been homophobia, racism and so on (referred to later on in more suitable sections).
To be clear, the above refers collectively to abuse, without naming any particular perpetrator. There was coordination of abuse.
Moreover, the Judge did acknowledge that abuse had happened; she was not convinced of who was responsible for it because we did not have sufficient money to present evidence (it's very expensive a process; it would cost us up to $50,000 just for that). █