John Dozier is a very accomplished lawyer. He tell us so right in .
John W. Dozier, Jr., Esq., Internet Lawyer, President of Dozier Internet Law PC (PEER ratings: “AV” by Martindale Hubbell (Internet Lawyer), “Legal Elite in Intellectual Property” by Virginia Business Magazine and Virginia Bar Association, “SuperLawyer” by Superlawyer Magazine, and member of the Bar Register of Preeminent Attorneys in the law of the Internet)
Dozier is also the “internet” lawyer who is known for sending out copyrighted nastygrams, claiming that the recipients can’t post his correspondence online because they are his. For that, he’s suffered rather widespread, make that universal, criticism. It seems that no one respected his authoritah. It’s hard to be a very accomplished lawyer these days.
But Dozier wasn’t put off by having blawg after blawg call him a flaming idiot. He knew what it was really all about, and though he would have to stand alone against the rest of the world, he was prepared to do so.
But Dozier wasn’t put off by having blawg after blawg call him a flaming idiot. He knew what it was really all about, and though he would have to stand alone against the rest of the world, he was prepared to do so.
We’ve been quite vocal at Dozier Internet Law about the nasty habit of the far left leaning and liberal blogosphere attacking through words (and otherwise) individuals who dare disagree with their “information yearns to be free” and “hands off the web” mantra. These interests claim that our free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment protects the right to attack with impunity anyone with whom they disagree.
I have often said that the left wingers are all for the right to free speech, until they don’t agree with it. Time and again you’ll see discussions and postings about using the Streisand Effect to retaliate against someone for offering an opposing voice. It is a policy aimed at destroying dissension, particularly in Internet legal and policy areas. “First things we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Consider the context of the statement if you don’t already know and it quickly becomes apparent that this effort to bully, undermine, attack and destroy lawyers is the rallying cry for the police state…a world in which dissidents are held out to public scorn and ridicule by a vicious mob (Streisand Effect) or relentlessly attacked by masked intruders (anonymous speakers).
Though he may stand alone, he is the victim of the far left who attack him, hold him out to public scorn and ridicule, It’s not easy being John Dozier, the lone honest voice on the internet in a sea of far left, cool-aid drinking liberals.
Of course, it has nothing to do with the far left, or liberals, or any political persuasion. It has to do with the fact that Dozier’s ideas are absurd. It has to do with Dozier’s copyrighted cease and desist letters, which took an otherwise inconsequential lawyer and made him the butt of a thousand jokes. Sorry, John, but an AV rating and being a Superlawyer with Cheese doesn’t really make you special.
More to the point is Dozier’s monumentally poor grasp of the First Amendment. Dozier can assert any bit of nonsense he chooses. He’s got a blog and he knows how to use it. No government has demanded that he shut his digital door, or else. But the First Amendment bears no connection to anyone else taking you seriously, or more to the point, ridiculing you for your bizarre assertions. Write something stupid and people will call you stupid. But you absolutely have the right to be stupid all you want, just not without getting called on it. Because your vicious mob of detractors has the right to speak as well. Typical of the self-proclaimed martyr, Dozier has twisted the right into a one way street.
I would expect that Dozier’s obviously flawed understanding of the First Amendment would find no support from the lawprof community. Yet it bears remarkable similarity to the Cyber Civil Rights ideas propounded by Maryland Law School Professor Danielle Citron, to which many lawprofs have rallied in their zeal to show their gender equality bona fides. One element of this fight against the vicious mob is that attacks on ideas by women have created a hostile environment. Just like Dozier claims that the attacks on his dopey ideas have created a hostile enviroment.
Nobody likes to have people say mean things about them, but it’s part of the give and take of life. Say something out loud, and you invite someone to disagree. If you can’t take the heat, then whisper it only to friends or keep it to yourself. Or if your detractors are the idiots, then let your supporters speak out against them. But no one gets to own the right to speak to the exclusion of those who disagree.
There will be a panel discussion today as part of the AALS meeting, directed toward “outrageous gender- or race specific comments” by law students, and the relation to their fitness to practice law. The gist is that speech that defies their orthodoxy should be banned, and the speakers deemed unfit to be lawyers. Kinda like a vicious mob of left wingers? It’s unlikely that John Dozer, Jr., Esq., will find an empty seat on the panel next to Danielle Citron, but he’ll be there in spirit. The only distinction is whose kool-aid is tastier.
This is the world in which we live today. Honest, honorable, intelligent, well mannered, battle worn veterans of the world rarely participate in online dialogue because of the attacks their participation invites. And so you get a very one sided, jaded, biased perspective on Internet law and policy issues. The far left liberals not only control the message, but police the web for anyone not drinking their kool-aid.One almost feels badly for Dozier. No doubt he believes that he stands for truth, justice and the American way. No doubt he sees that mass of lawyers, ridiculing him for his bizarre ideas, as a vicious mob. When one wraps themselves in a firmly held, yet singular view, it easily seems like the world’s against him. And indeed, when it comes to John Dozier, it is.
Of course, it has nothing to do with the far left, or liberals, or any political persuasion. It has to do with the fact that Dozier’s ideas are absurd. It has to do with Dozier’s copyrighted cease and desist letters, which took an otherwise inconsequential lawyer and made him the butt of a thousand jokes. Sorry, John, but an AV rating and being a Superlawyer with Cheese doesn’t really make you special.
More to the point is Dozier’s monumentally poor grasp of the First Amendment. Dozier can assert any bit of nonsense he chooses. He’s got a blog and he knows how to use it. No government has demanded that he shut his digital door, or else. But the First Amendment bears no connection to anyone else taking you seriously, or more to the point, ridiculing you for your bizarre assertions. Write something stupid and people will call you stupid. But you absolutely have the right to be stupid all you want, just not without getting called on it. Because your vicious mob of detractors has the right to speak as well. Typical of the self-proclaimed martyr, Dozier has twisted the right into a one way street.
I would expect that Dozier’s obviously flawed understanding of the First Amendment would find no support from the lawprof community. Yet it bears remarkable similarity to the Cyber Civil Rights ideas propounded by Maryland Law School Professor Danielle Citron, to which many lawprofs have rallied in their zeal to show their gender equality bona fides. One element of this fight against the vicious mob is that attacks on ideas by women have created a hostile environment. Just like Dozier claims that the attacks on his dopey ideas have created a hostile enviroment.
Nobody likes to have people say mean things about them, but it’s part of the give and take of life. Say something out loud, and you invite someone to disagree. If you can’t take the heat, then whisper it only to friends or keep it to yourself. Or if your detractors are the idiots, then let your supporters speak out against them. But no one gets to own the right to speak to the exclusion of those who disagree.
There will be a panel discussion today as part of the AALS meeting, directed toward “outrageous gender- or race specific comments” by law students, and the relation to their fitness to practice law. The gist is that speech that defies their orthodoxy should be banned, and the speakers deemed unfit to be lawyers. Kinda like a vicious mob of left wingers? It’s unlikely that John Dozer, Jr., Esq., will find an empty seat on the panel next to Danielle Citron, but he’ll be there in spirit. The only distinction is whose kool-aid is tastier.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
” “First things we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Consider the context of the statement if you don’t already know and it quickly becomes apparent that this effort to bully, undermine, attack and destroy lawyers is the rallying cry for the police state”
Actually, if you consider the context of this statement you’d know it was Dick the Butcher’s, the villain of Shakespeare’s Henry VI, first step to staging a coup. Sheesh.
I wondered how long it would take for someone to go after him on the Dick the Butcher quote.
He can hurt his client, misinterpret the US Constitution and be a raging online self promoter but when he misunderstands the bard a line simply must be drawn.
No article on Dozier is complete without mentioning, regarding those “Don’t print this” cease and desist letters, is that his bluff was called.
Public Citizen printed the letter and said “sue us.” And to the best of my knowledge, Dozier went crawling away.
“Honest, honorable, intelligent, well mannered, battle worn veterans of the world rarely participate in online dialogue because of the attacks their participation invites.”
When it comes to the 1st Amendment (or any other constitutional right, for that matter), I fail to see what is honorable about sitting on the sidelines. Either Dozier surrounds himself with sheep or, just perhaps, the “right” thinks his ideas are wrong, too.
Don’t assume that his blaming the “far left” means he has support from conservatives. No side owns support for jerks. Dozier has simply decided that it’s the “far left” because he’s decided they own the internet, but nobody wants Dozier sitting next to them.
This is the first I heard of the guy. What is an Internet lawyer, anyhow?
You don’t even know this guy and already you’re creating a hostile speech environment for internet lawyers, you left-wing zealot?
Norm, for the first time, took the words right out of my mouth – never heard of this guy. That’s pretty much my comment on this entire issue.
You should heed Norm on a regular basis. And that pretty much my comment on your comment.