It looks like one of the pseudonymous posters in the AutoAdmit case has decided to fight the plaintiffs’ discovery efforts.
The motion to quash makes some good points. Mr. AK47 is correct — his statement was outrageous, nasty, and mean… but it does not seem to speak to any of the claims in the case. His sole statement is here. Does he deserve a slap upside the head? Absolutely. I’d even like to be the one to administer it to him. Nevertheless, just because he needs someone to slap him doesn’t mean that the First Amendment should be trampled. The right to anonymous speech trumps the right to punish someone for offending you.
My prediction — had Mr. AK47 written his motion a little more skillfully, he might have had a great chance. Unfortunately for him, the motion is so poorly drafted that it will take some charity on the Court’s part for it to fly. I hope that for the First Amendment’s sake, the judge is feeling the love.
By Email
By RSS Feed
The Legal Satyricon 
what exactly about the motion is “poorly drafted”? I don’t claim to be an expert, but it seemed to be well reasoned.
Take a look at this amicus brief on the same issue.
I guess that Mr. AK47’s motion isn’t bad for a first or second year law student. I just hope that the poor writing doesn’t cause Judge Droney to make some bad law.
[…] have to agree with Filipovic. When I criticized his motion, I didn’t go into a lot of detail. Nevertheless, this was certainly his least persuasive […]
[…] merry way, with his “klan hood” intact. He still may prevail, even pro se. As much as his memo flails and makes some poor arguments, there are a few gems hidden in it. I would prefer that he not […]
[…] It appears that Keker & Van Nest opened up the whup ass file in drafting this opposition to AK47’s terrible motion to quash. […]
[…] defendant, AK47, had his motion to quash heard on Monday, May 5. He was represented by court-appointed […]
[…] Next error in judgment – this pro se motion to quash. […]