by Jay DeVoy
Tomorrow, our fearless leader Marc Randazza has something to say to the Florida Supreme Court about a little topic known as free speech. It’s an important case addressing the very real threat of jurisdictional chill on all internet users. If you post on the internet, this case is about you. The decision in this case has direct implications on where you may have to defend a lawsuit arising from your internet activities.
The fifty-cent skinny is this: Plaintiff Internet Solutions, a Nevada Corporation, sued Washington resident Tabatha Marshall in Florida for defamation. Marshall’s alleged defamation stems from posts about Internet Solutions business practices. The Middle District of Florida dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction over Marshall. Internet Solutions appealed to the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit then a certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court on whether Marshall’s alleged activities were within the scope of Florida’s long-arm statute. For more comprehensive coverage, check out the Citizen Media Law Project’s Page.
In honor of this momentous occasion, we’re breaking our own flimsy “no drinking before noon” rule. For loyal Satyricon readers, you can play along at home in real time or later, by watching the rebroadcast. Like any State of the Union or other public address drinking game, the rules are simple: Drink as much as we tell you, when we tell you to do it.
1 Drink
“Internets”
“Unprecedented”
“Novel”
“Pennoyer v. Neff”
“International Shoe”
“Long-arm”
“Great,” when in reference to the state of Florida.
“Precedent”
“Judge,” when addressing the justices, which is a no-no.
“Due process”
“Counsel(or)”
“Chill(ing)”
“Factors”
“Constitution(al)”
“Unconstitutional”
“[Audible sigh]”
“Minimum Contacts”
2 Drinks
“Slippery slope”
“Tubes”
“Interwebs”
“Moron”
“Equit(ies/able)”
“Policy”
“Over 9,000”
“Founders”
“Opponent”
“Illogical”
“Pavlovich”
“Sliding scale”
“Jeremiad”
“Shame”
“Fair Play”
“Substantial Justice”
3 Drinks
“Webbernets”
“Where do we draw the line?”
“Ass hat”
“Unconscionable”
“Blumpkin”
“Desecrate”
“Retarded”
“Unintended consequences”
“Suspicio(n/us)”
Waterfall (don’t stop until the Florida Supreme Court does)
“Fucking asshole”
“TTT”
“America’s wang,” again in reference to the state of Florida.
“Goose Stepping”
“Don’t you know who I am? I’m Marc Motherfucking Randazza!”
“Goddamn-dipshit-Rodriguez-gypsy-dildo-punks. I’ll get your ass. “
By Email
By RSS Feed
The Legal Satyricon 
Thanks for the heads up, guys. I’m looking forward to it. But by “now” you mean “tomorrow at approximately 1120am,” right? Or does the Florida Supreme Court have a Night Court session during which I’m also likely to hear the phrase “America’s wang?”
Opposing counsel uses the phrase “world-wide internet” in its complaint. This should be good.
Good luck Randazza and the First Amendment. You shouldn’t need it, but from all I’ve heard about the “great” state of Florida…
By the way, is there a site that is dedicated to naming and exposing individuals and companies that use the judicial system in an attempt to stifle criticism and speech? I would love to see a concentrated resource listing all the asshats and blowhards. I know there are many names scattered throughout the interwebs, including this site, but it would be nice to have a one-stop shop.
I’ll pay triple my annual registration fee for this forum if he slowly says Flori-duh.
No love on a waterfall for “Cream Pie”?
BTW-I still remember that day when the class video projector mysteriously redirected to a little site labeled “Asian Cream Pies” with video evidence of course…
What?! Marc didn’t use “zombie monster” in this case? I’ve seen him use it before in legal briefs!
ANY reference at all to Repo Man (you saved the best for last) should be an automatic shotgun of at least a sixer. I vote for “May it Please the Court – don’t mean shit to me.”