When @EFF Is Needed Most, There’s Nate Cardozo

At a time when government seeks nothing more than to infiltrate our digital world without any impediment, a group that will stand up and fight against the government where individuals cannot is critical.  The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the EFF, is such a group.

Its motto is “defending your rights in a digital world.” This is certainly a digital world, and we could certainly use someone defending our rights. Like any cause group, we may not always agree with its positions, but we can appreciate that it exists and resists the government’s efforts.

Which makes this all the more sad, because the significance is two-fold. The first is that groups are great, but their efforts are in the hands of the person entrusted with the protection of our rights. The second is the need to believe that the group stands for the cause it claims to stand for, and its mission is embraced by those who serve in the group’s name.  

What if the ACLU was taken over by the cops? What if the NRA was controlled by gun control advocates? What if the EFF was staffed by lawyers who were really social justice warriors? Well, that’s a problem.  The opening salvo came in response to a post at Fault Lines by Judge Richard Kopf, in which he expressed no opinion as to the sentence imposed by Judge Aaron Persky on Brock Turner, but argued that Judge Persky should not be vilified over one sentence decision because some disagreed with the sentence imposed.


A surprisingly nasty response, calling Judge Kopf’s post “garbage,” as opposed to “what Persky actually is.” The peculiar phrasing, “actually is,” is a giveaway. Only myopic zealots believe they know what someone else “actually is.” But then, this wasn’t some random twitterer. Nate Cardozo is a senior staff attorney with EFF.

Nate twitted his personal feelings on the Turner sentence, which I found to be vapid. He then tried to flagrantly mischaracterize what Judge Kopf wrote, thrice, to which I responded, “are you really that disingenuous?”  The exchange appeared to come to an end when Nate twitted “we’re done” and I agreed, saddened that an EFF lawyer fell into the social justice rabbit hole.

But as it turned out, it wasn’t over, though I wasn’t aware at the time.


It wasn’t until later, after some nasty ignoramus appeared to white knight the fragile Nate*, that I learned of this subtwit, with the usual SJW lie of characterizing my challenge to his feelz as making me the “noted rape judge defender.” Ironically, I had written about Judge Persky’s sentence, not that Nate gave a damn about it.

But Nate wasn’t done with me yet. After being challenged by others for his irrationality, he persisted in mischaracterizing matters because he wasn’t about to let facts or reality stand in the way of his feelings.


That’s a remarkably disturbing claim. It’s not that it’s surprising, as screaming racism and sexism is the first line of defense of social justice warriors, but bear in mind, this isn’t your typical 12-year-old, but a senior staff attorney with the EFF making this assertion. Notably, his twitter bio includes the standard disclaimer, “Views expressed herein belong to me, my cats, and my toxoplasmosis, not EFF.”  And I have no doubt this is true, but it’s also unavailing.

But when Nate was challenged to prove his claim, this is what he had to offer:


So those “racist epithets” I “toss around on twitter and [my] blog” consist of . . . gypsy?  As in, this? Well, if gypsy is racist, then mea culpa. And what of the “sexist language all over [my] blog”?


Before you shake your head, bear in mind that the social justice definition of sexist language differs from the language used by others. Anything shy of feminist adoration is sexist, because, well, it’s SEXIST!

But as much as all of this raises the question of whether Nate is a liar or blithering idiot, which might in itself be sufficient to raise a disturbing concern as to the EFF putting our rights into his hands, it wouldn’t have been more than another amusing day of stupidity on the twitters, with some self-righteous moron who didn’t know when to stop digging, and had no compulsion to tell the truth if he was even capable of discerning it.

But then came the coup de grâce.


That Nate suffers from the usual simplistic myopia of social justice warriors may be bad enough, but when a senior staff attorney asserts that due process should be jettisoned when it conflicts with his feelings, he is not merely wrong, but a danger.

On its twitter bio, the EFF claims “We defend your civil liberties in a digital world.”  Not when your senior staff attorney believes that due process only applies when it suits his feelings. It’s not that we don’t need someone, some organization, to do what the EFF claims to do. It’s that it can’t be trusted with our rights when its staff lawyers are either liars or morons, who seek to deny due process when it conflicts with their emotions.  And that, unfortunately, is a problem. A very serious problem.

*A twitterer named Jillian C. York twitted that I was a “fucking idiot” for disagreeing with Nate. As happens routinely, she has since deleted her twit to avoid accountability. But for you irony lovers, she subsequently subtwitted this gem:


28 thoughts on “When @EFF Is Needed Most, There’s Nate Cardozo

  1. Sgt Schultz

    So the usual “if you don’t think all rapists deserve life plus cancer without due process, you are a rapist lover” that every women’s studies major cries. Except this time from an EFF lawyer. Nice.

      1. REvers

        You also need to find a way to use “tramps and thieves” in some post or the other. Cher will give you a +1 if you do.

          1. Dragoness Eclectic

            That is one of my favorite Cher songs, along with “Dark Lady”, and “Half-Breed”. I guess I like her darker ballads.

  2. Richard G. Kopf


    Poor Nate reminds me that I need to reread Studies On Hysteria, 1895, by Freud and Breuer.

    All the best.


    1. SHG Post author

      If there should be a woman at that electronic frontier, perhaps one who has been hurt be mean online speech or an image, whose interests would the EFF put first?

      1. Miles

        The media has looked to EFF on revenge porn laws regularly. I know I sure trust their sympathies with the “survivors” when my constitutional rights are on the line.

    1. SHG Post author

      It’s easy to engage in thoughtful and critical engagement with SJWs. Use only their approved words and ideas, and concede they are right. Anything else, however, is harassment, even if they are the initiators and perpetuaters, because reasons.

  3. John Barleycorn

    ♡Nate is a Senior Staff Attorney on the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s digital civil liberties team. In addition to his focus on free speech and privacy litigation,…♧

    Damn, and here with the case at hand, Nate had a prime oppertunity to talk about electronic file sharing and tits not to mention multi party control of text content.

    Well, you are just lucky he didn’t take his whole “Sexual violence is one space where due process doesn’t work as cleanly.” and call you a “terrorist” and start unraveling himself in 140 characters or less.

    Give the guy a break. Hanging out in Santa Cruz while studying anthropology is bound to leave some sand in your ears before heading off to law school.

    And let’s face it a baby cheeks clean shaven guy who migrates to stubble and doesn’t commit to a mountain beard is bound to leave a guy in a prolonged state of purgatory when it comes to surviving victimhood and the surf not to mention a whole host of other things that don’t cleanly define themselves.

    Just relax esteemed one, I am sure some of his pals over at EFF will have a chat with him. So take a chill on EFF’s worthy efforts and allow Nate some safe space of his own to come up with his “Greenfield is a ___________ AND a terrorist” argument.

    I got 300 bucks says this “fight” goes at least four rounds so don’t fuck it up.

    P.S. You better pad that retainer you have with them CDL’s from Texas that defend accused “terriorists” just in case…

  4. wilbur

    I liked the “creepy male lawyer” line. It reminded me of Beaver and Larry Mondello.

    Now can someone tell me what “TIL” might be?

  5. Suzie

    You demonstrated admirable restraint in not responding to this little girl, Jillian, in kind. Oh, they are so tough, with their curses and name-calling, and so fragile in lying about creepy lawyers harassing them when it’s a flagrant lie. Girls (not women, but girls. Silly, stupid, *vapid* little girls) like Jillian don’t realize the disgrace they bring to the gender and feminism. And they’re proud of themselves for being internet heroes.

    1. SHG Post author

      She was trolling me, to backup a fellow SJW who was doing a particularly poor job of it. I was disinclined to be distracted by her, particularly since she had nothing of substance to add. There were other allies as well, but too facially obvious, silly and insignificant to be worthy of mention.

      What they fail to grasp is that the trolling that works so well, and stings so badly, with children like them doesn’t goad me into being distracted or responding in kind. What they also fail to grasp is that they will win with their fellow SJWs and infants, and lose with anyone thinks. But then, that’s the sort of thing grownups think about. Children are impetuous.

      1. Suzie

        What a good ally Tejas is. She attacks you, so according to him, the problem is she’s a woman on the internet. I hope he got a date out of it, at least.

  6. Pingback: An Imperfect Solution | Simple Justice

  7. Pingback: One Less Twitter Follower For All The Wrong Reasons: @Ebolamerican | Simple Justice

Comments are closed.