Lawsuit update #6: Let’s take a look at the documents


Techdirt’s article on my lawsuit mentions a key issue:

…. [Gina’s brief] then says that the move away from the second host, DaringHost, was because the site was getting too much traffic, and the owner of DaringHost, supplied a deposition stating that he had explained this to Tuteur.

Gina seems to go to great lengths to make this point. The only problem is, it’s not true. This is the email that Nick Esposito, the owner of Daringhost, sent to me on 1-25-13:


I spoke with the lawyer I’ve used with my businesses earlier today about the situation with your website and it being targeted. He informed me that hosting your website is a liability on a few different levels which is a risk to my business. While I support your cause and understand the situation you are in, I will no longer be able to host your website due to the risk and liability it poses to my business.

I do not want to leave you and your website out in the cold because I can understand that fighting against the people who are targeting you is not an easy task. I have done some research for you and found a couple of different businesses that should be able to host your website better in terms of dealing with it being targeted.

The first host I’ve found is called On their website they state “AlibabaHost provides freedom of content and speech. Regarding the DMCA complains, we forward them to you and you decide how to proceed next.” …

The second host I’ve found is called They have servers located in the Ukraine which has been known to host freedom of speech web sites before…

The third host I found is called They offer VPS plans in Iceland. Iceland has recently passed a law that allows for freedom of information, speech, and expression…

I sincerely apologize that I have to turn you away. I value your business however I’d like to keep the risk and liability as low as possible for myself and the business. I hope you understand where I’m coming from.

Nick Esposito
Daring Host Owner

The email makes it absolutely clear that I was forced to leave Daringhost because of Esposito’s concerns of legal liability related to the DMCA notices.


Yesterday I posted a screenshot of Gina exulting that Bluehost (my original host) had taken down my website for copyright violation. That wasn’t just wishful thinking on her part. That’s what actually happened.

Here’s the email I received from Bluehost on 12-21-13 at the same time as the shutdown:

Your web hosting account for has been deactivated, as of 12/21/2012. (reason: terms of service violation – copyright violation)

This deactivation was due to a Terms of Service violation associated with your account. At sign-up, all users state that they have read through, understand, and agree to our terms. These terms are legal and binding.

Although your web site has been suspended, your data may still be available for up to 15 days from the date of deactivation; if you do not contact us during that 15 day period, your account and all of its files, databases, and emails may be deleted…

Thank you,
Bluehost Terms of Service Compliance

This email makes it clear that I my website was taken down specifically because of the original DMCA notice filed by Gina.


The Motion Picture Association of America has also entered the case ( They have offered support of Gina’s interpretation of the DMCA. This is not a surprise, merely additional confirmation that the issues raised by my lawsuit are of weighty public importance.

In my view it helps everyone understand what is at stake here. Gina’s position is supported by an organization whose members send a lot of DMCA notices and who would find it harder to do so if they had to determine whether copyright had ACTUALLY been violated before they sent the notices.

My position is being supported by two organizations that champion the right of free expression on the internet.

I’m good with that.


Addendum 5-14-13: I’ve filed a motion with a brief attached, responding to Gina’s claims, presenting the actual correspondence with my webhosts.

“Defendant Crosley-Corcoran’s Response to Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law To ShowCause purports to feature a compelling story about how Dr.Tuteur’s webhosts ( and DaringHost) never actually removed or disabled anyaccess to materials on her website (The Skeptical OB) – and “certainly” did not do so “inresponse to Crosley-Corcoran’s DMCA takedown notices . . . .”
Needless to say, all of these allegations – falling, as they do, outside the pleadings – are out of bounds at the motion to dismiss stage, and Defendant knows it. But worse still, like many of the most compelling stories, Defendant’s tale is simply a work of fiction.”

You can read the rest here:

62 Responses to “Lawsuit update #6: Let’s take a look at the documents”

  1. Amy Tuteur, MD
    May 16, 2013 at 10:12 am #

    MPAA Freaks Out: Insists That Having To Consider Fair Use Before Filing A DMCA Takedown Would Be Crazy:

    • May 16, 2013 at 1:56 pm #

      But it is getting more annoying that the techy people keep on regarding it a some petty squabble. Gina’s actions may have been petty, but defending your right to free speech is just as important as anyone else’s right to free speech. What kind of case/cause would they consider to be worthy, I wonder?

      • May 16, 2013 at 2:23 pm #

        Eh, the tech people are like that for just about anything that’s not tech. It’s annoying, but it’s not misogynist. Just very tunnel-visioned.

        • Amy Tuteur, MD
          May 16, 2013 at 2:37 pm #

          I’m afraid it is sexist. Had Dr. Paul Offit been arguing with Andrew Wakefield about whether vaccines cause autism, I doubt if anyone would characterize the dispute as silly.

          • May 16, 2013 at 2:54 pm #

            I think techdirt would, actually. Some of the dismissals are clearly misogynist, I just don’t think this one is. If it’d been Dr. Paul Offit arguing with Andrew Wakefield in blogs, they’d have been equally dismissive I think.

            They’re dead wrong, of course. This IS important because it is a free speech issue.

          • LukesCook
            May 16, 2013 at 3:01 pm #

            If it had been Dr Paul Offit arguing with Andrew Wakefield about a photograph of Wakefield giving Offit the finger, on the other hand…

            Even if there had been no photo, I’m not sure that any debate with Gina Crosley-Corcoran could be anything other than trivial.

        • theNormalDistribution
          May 16, 2013 at 2:57 pm #

          I have to agree with Amy. I’m a computer scientist, and pretty much all of my friends are also computer scientists or engineers of one form or another, and very few of them, if any, would take that sort of stance. Misogyny and the internet are good buddies.

      • theNormalDistribution
        May 16, 2013 at 2:25 pm #

        I was having the same thought. It doesn’t help that Gina keeps showing up in the comment sections to advertise her special attention-hungry brand of crazy.

      • Amy Tuteur, MD
        May 16, 2013 at 2:25 pm #

        I agree. The underlying issue is NOT two bloggers disagreeing with each other. The underlying issue is one blogger trying to SILENCE another. It doesn’t matter if we were writing about childbirth (which isn’t “silly,” in any event), or climate change or national security.

        This is about abusing the DMCA to censor speech.

  2. Amy Tuteur, MD
    May 14, 2013 at 4:47 pm #

    I’ve filed a motion with a brief attached, responding to Gina’s claims, presenting the actual correspondence with my webhosts.

    “Defendant Crosley-Corcoran’s Response to Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law To ShowCause purports to feature a compelling story about how Dr.Tuteur’s webhosts ( and DaringHost) never actually removed or disabled anyaccess to materials on her website (The Skeptical OB) – and “certainly” did not do so “inresponse to Crosley-Corcoran’s DMCA takedown notices . . . .” Needless to say, all of these allegations – falling, as they do, outside the pleadings – are out of bounds at the motion to dismiss stage, and Defendant knows it. But worse still, like many of the most compelling stories, Defendant’s tale is simply a work of fiction.”

    You can read the rest here:

  3. That_Anonymous_Coward
    May 13, 2013 at 7:21 pm #

    OHAI Dr. Tuteur!
    I had the misfortune of meeting the other half of your lawsuit over on TechDirt.
    I’d like to point out I have no idea what the lawsuit is all based on, I was more interested in what it might mean to the DMCA. (between you and me, I think shes a little bit to into herself.)

    Forgive me I’m more into tech stories.

    I just wanted to stop by and wish you well in your case.

    After having “chatted” with whats her name, I made the snap decision that because your not chasing every possible mention of your name to screech your side of the story you might actually have a valid case rather than some sort of slapfight gone wrong where you want to convince the world your this awesome person under attack by evil doers.

    So thank you for fighting the fight, the outcome will reach much further than your problems and I hope you win. Fixing the DMCA would be great, seeing whats her name meltdown that little bit more will be the icing on the cake.
    And if your feeling blue, read my comments over on TechDirt. Its good for a laugh or two.

    • Amy Tuteur, MD
      May 13, 2013 at 8:31 pm #


      When I first filed the lawsuit, I was simply trying to save my blog and I had no idea about the underlying problem with the DMCA. Now I hope we will be able to clarify the law so that DMCA notices cannot be used to silence speech simply because someone disagrees with it.

      • That_Anonymous_Coward
        May 13, 2013 at 9:23 pm #

        As a recipient of 3 (now 2) defamation lawsuits meant to silence myself and others, I know your position a little to well for my own good.
        Keep up the good fight, and don’t let the stupid people get you down.

  4. moto_librarian
    May 13, 2013 at 10:24 am #

    Wow, Gina, you got the MPAA to file a brief on your behalf? You realize that this seriously mars your status as a badass, stick it to the man kinda gal, right? Some people might consider this selling out…

  5. lucy logan
    May 12, 2013 at 9:52 pm #

    anyone else find it disturbing that our rights to free speech are dependent on having for profit businesses that ‘specialize’ in free speech?!

    • LibrarianSarah
      May 13, 2013 at 1:56 am #

      I’m not sure what you are talking about. Bot the Electronic Freedom Foundation and the Harvard Digital Media Project are nonprofit organizations not corporations. The MPAA does not ‘specialize’ on free speech nor do they really care about free speech. The only thing they care about is protecting the profits of the movie indistry. So don’t be disturb there aren’t any for profit corporations that specialize in free speech.

      • lucy logan
        May 13, 2013 at 6:37 am #

        i was talking about the daring host suggestion that amy go to his competition

  6. anne
    May 12, 2013 at 3:17 pm #

    If Gina thinks she had it bad from GOMI, SOB and Banned by the Feminist Breeder then wait till she sees how difficult it will be to hide her actions from the tech geeks that have a vested interest in this case.

    • KarenJJ
      May 12, 2013 at 11:56 pm #

      Yeah she’s poked a hornets nest there. Nothing wrong with that, if you enjoy a bit of a debate, have some good arguments and have a thick enough skin to not take insults too personally….

  7. The Computer Ate My Nym
    May 12, 2013 at 11:58 am #

    So if TFB’s lawyer was arguing that the EFF’s amicus brief shouldn’t be allowed because Dr. Tuteur’s lawyer is competent, does that mean that he has to also make a motion to disallow the MFAA’s amicus brief or implicitly declare himself to be incompetent?

  8. Amy Tuteur, MD
    May 12, 2013 at 10:05 am #

    Excellent example:

  9. Staceyjw
    May 12, 2013 at 2:54 am #

    I just have to say it-
    “Daring host”- not so daring…..

    • The Computer Ate My Nym
      May 12, 2013 at 11:55 am #

      I was thinking that too. Daringhost is…poorly named. I will give them credit for making at least some effort to help Dr. Tuteur find a new host, but really…if a blog that attracts the ire of a random nut on the internet is too “risky” for them, what is safe enough?

    • Eddie
      May 12, 2013 at 8:31 pm #

      I’ll admit, I thought exactly the same thing. Poorly named.

  10. guest
    May 11, 2013 at 11:18 pm #

    I have a question for actual attorneys or people who just know. When a big organization files an amicus brief, is it totally dependent on the little guy fighting the suit to keep fighting the suit? In other words, two regular people can battle it out in court only as long as their money lasts. Can the amicus give money to its favored party to continue to fight? I ask because I sort of imagined this case ending in a settlement in which the financially outgunned party promised to stop harassing with these notices. But can an interested amicus keep the financially outgunned party going by contributing to their legal fund? I’m assuming they can’t take over representation, because the only way they can be accepted as an amicus is if their interests aren’t already being represented in the case (is that right?) And in theory if they have separate interests, they likely wouldn’t be served well by joint representation (maybe?)

    Someone please set me straight?

    • May 12, 2013 at 12:29 am #

      Anyone can give money to any party in a lawsuit. It’s actually pretty common that an organization will provide lawyers (which is money one step removed) and write amicus briefs when they are not the plaintiff/defendant. The ACLU does it all the time- they support the plaintiff by helping find (affordable or free) lawyers, but since the organization is not the plaintiff, they also file amicus briefs.

    • suchende
      May 12, 2013 at 10:04 am #

      The only condition is that the lawyer must truly represent the interests of the party and not the org footing the bill. So yes, MPAA could hire lawyers for Gina, but the lawyers would have to focus on the best outcome for Gina and not for the MPAA’s larger interests.

  11. Christy
    May 11, 2013 at 8:27 pm #

    I read the affidavid of the web host. After what Dr. Amy posted here about his email to her, I have a hard time picturing him jumping into the fray by himself, so I’m thinking Dr. Amy’s lawyer must have gone to him and warned that he’s likely to be called to the stand. Probably he was confronted about whether or not a DMCA takedown notice can really be a justifiable cause to terminate an agreement, and does he really want to take the stand and say under oath that he had to stop the contract because of the DMCA, etc. Poor guy.

    • PoopDoc
      May 12, 2013 at 9:52 pm #

      I did not get as far as the actual affidavit, but after reading the e-mail Dr. Amy posted above, it looks a awful lot like this guy comitted perjury.

  12. Neonpantsuit
    May 11, 2013 at 4:04 pm #

    Too bad for you, Gina. But this is what happens when you decide to grab a tiger by the tail 😉

  13. LibrarianSarah
    May 11, 2013 at 3:44 pm #

    Holy crap! I looked at TFB’s facebook page to see how she would spin this MPAA thing and one of her cronies called the MPAA feminists because they supported TFB. They really think the MPAA is doing this because they are “down with the feminist cause.” Excuse me while I bust a gut laughing.

    I still can’t believe she can still see herself as an virtuous underdog at this point.

    • Eddie
      May 11, 2013 at 3:48 pm #

      This goes back to a point I like to harp on, that people like to oversimplify and believe that people and organizations are either all good or all bad. Therefore, if a horrible industry organization supports “the cause” well then it must have been good all along and it was just misunderstood.

      Just a lack of critical thinking, and an inability to see self-interest in the actions of a major corporation only when it supports them.

      • May 13, 2013 at 1:58 am #

        I see this all the time, particularly with church goers (ahem some members of my own family) who will gladly dish out money to a ‘Christian’ or ‘Godly’ organisation, completely setting aside all critical thinking and skepticism.

    • Squillo
      May 11, 2013 at 3:49 pm #

      Yeah, and EFF filed their AC because they hate doulas.

    • anne
      May 12, 2013 at 3:13 pm #

      It’s good to know that Gina and her followers just don’t get it on every topic, not just homebirth.

      • KarenJJ
        May 12, 2013 at 9:00 pm #

        No, some supporters on her facebook page seem to be thinking that the MPAA have gotten involved in support of feminism.

    • Squillo
      May 12, 2013 at 11:33 pm #

      Well, to be fair, the motion picture industry is well known for its non-exploitative treatment of women. /saracasm.

  14. Tired Momma
    May 11, 2013 at 2:10 pm #

    Regardless of the outcome of the suit, Gina will be a liar. She either lied on her blog or she is lying to the court. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place.

  15. May 11, 2013 at 1:15 pm #

    Huh, maybe with the EFF and MPAA squaring off in opposite corners, the judge will lose hir attitude of “girls, girls, it’s just a blog, stop fighting” and look at the real issues.

    • suchende
      May 11, 2013 at 2:22 pm #

      Now the whole world is watching. Bound to have a different attitude.

    • Eddie
      May 11, 2013 at 3:27 pm #

      It would be about time. These are really important issues.

      I suspect that Gina really believes the things she says (even when they are mutually contradictory), and really believes that this is all about her.

    • LibrarianSarah
      May 12, 2013 at 10:54 am #

      Am I the only one who finds it ironic that sexism would be one of the few things that could save the feminist breeder in regards to this lawsuit?

      • Susan
        May 12, 2013 at 12:04 pm #

        What a great point. I wish I could vote it up to the top!

      • fiftyfifty1
        May 12, 2013 at 4:38 pm #

        Oh leave Gina alone, she’s just a poor little old housewife with 3 babies.

  16. Eskimo
    May 11, 2013 at 11:59 am #

    The MPAA is despised by everyone in the tech world… they issue MILLIONS of notices each year. No wonder they are one of Anonymous’ biggest enemies.

    Sucks to be Gina. That is a pretty shitty organization to be in your corner.

    • OttawaAlison
      May 11, 2013 at 2:51 pm #

      Have thou ever seen Kirby Dick’s fail -‘This Film is not yet Rated’? Would be very interesting if Gina aligned herself with the MPAA.

    • LibrarianSarah
      May 11, 2013 at 3:36 pm #

      How the hell can she think still think that she is in the right when she has an organization like the MPAA in her corner? If I was ever in a lawsuit and the MPAA filed an brief in my favor my next blog post would be entitle “It has been brought to my attention that I have been acting like a total asshole.” Then I’d beg for forgiveness and ask my lawyers to settle. Seriously, isn’t pretty clear that she is not the rag tag underdog when Palpatine is her right hand man.

      • KarenJJ
        May 11, 2013 at 10:13 pm #

        I wonder if Gina is still hoping to make this lawsuit about homebirth and her particular brand of feminism?

        • Eddie
          May 12, 2013 at 8:29 pm #

          Hoping to make? I think in her mind it is and has been all along.

          • KarenJJ
            May 12, 2013 at 9:07 pm #

            On her facebook she believes that Dr Amy and the EFF are out to destroy the copyright laws. She seems to have found another flawed crusade to fight for.

          • Eddie
            May 13, 2013 at 2:04 am #

            Wow. Makes me glad I don’t spend any time trying to read her facebook page. Also makes me aware of just how much drama I missed by only starting to read SOB well after the lawsuit started.

            Aside: It’s bizarre how she writes “dramy” — saw it on techdirt. It took me a while to figure out that meant “Dr Amy.” Is she in the 8th grade or something?

          • Dr Kitty
            May 13, 2013 at 3:08 am #

            I think she does it so searching for Dr Amy won’t find those posts.

          • Frequent Guest
            May 14, 2013 at 8:14 pm #

            Huh. I thought she was trying to say “drama” all stupid and cutesy-like.

          • Eddie
            May 14, 2013 at 8:29 pm #

            I admit, I thought exactly the same. It fits the rest of her writing style.

    • KarenJJ
      May 12, 2013 at 1:37 am #

      Yeah it’s a bit like saying you’ve got Voldemort on your side…

    • anne
      May 12, 2013 at 3:12 pm #

      My husband works in the computer field and has been listening to the case with interest since I mentioned it to him. In the past he’s donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I don’t think Gina realizes how big this case is to people who are invested in the internet remaining a haven for free speech.

  17. attitude devant
    May 11, 2013 at 11:56 am #

    I still am shocked that Gina’s lawyer is actually comfortable with filing demonstrably false pleadings. I guess I’m just old-fashioned, huh?

    • Antigonos CNM
      May 11, 2013 at 2:03 pm #

      Is it possible she has lied to her attorney? It wouldn’t surprise me.

    • Susan
      May 11, 2013 at 3:31 pm #

      No you are a doctor.

  18. Florence.
    May 11, 2013 at 11:39 am #

    It will be very interesting to see what comes out of all of this. Good luck to you.

  19. May 11, 2013 at 11:37 am #

    The amount of people going out of their way to lie is astounding. I knew that you’d not have made this suit had you not had the backup to prove your claims. As is your usual method.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.