Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Affidavit of Nik Lamas-Richie in support of Defendants' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment

Affidavit of Nik Lamas-Richie in support of Defendants' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment

Ratings: (0)|Views: 32|Likes:
Published by David S. Gingras
Sarah Jones v. Dirty World - Affidavit of Nik Lamas-Richie in support of Defendants' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment
Sarah Jones v. Dirty World - Affidavit of Nik Lamas-Richie in support of Defendants' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: David S. Gingras on Nov 14, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





et al 
., Defendants. Case No. 2:09-cv-00219-WOB Judge William O. Bertelsman
I, NIK LAMAS-RICHIE, declare as follows: My name is NIK LAMAS-RICHIE. I am a resident of the State of California, am over the age of 18 years, and if called to testify in court I could and would truthfully testify to the following information based upon my own personal knowledge. 1.
I am currently employed as the manager of Defendant DIRTY WORLD, LLC (“Dirty World”) which owns and operates the website www.TheDirty.com. 2.
I am aware that on January 10, 2012, the Court in this matter issued an order finding that I was not entitled to immunity under the Communications Decency Act  because, among other things, “The principal content of ‘the dirty.com’ web site is not only offensive but tortious.” To my knowledge, this conclusion is untrue and is without any basis in fact. 3.
As of March 7, 2013, www.TheDirty.com contains a total of 121,863 separate posts in more than 900 separate categories. In addition, the site also contains a total of 3,182,200 comments about posts.
Case: 2:09-cv-00219-WOB-CJS Doc #: 177-1 Filed: 03/07/13 Page: 1 of 94 - Page ID#: 2696
 2 4.
As I have previously stated, users are allowed to submit posts to www.TheDirty.com on any topic they choose -- it is not necessary that the post be negative or derogatory in any way. Rather, users can (and do) submit posts about anything or anyone, positive or negative, and as long as I think the topic is reasonably interesting and not obviously unlawful, I will approve the post for publication. 5.
With more than 120,000+ posts on the site in 900 different categories, it is impossible to make generalized conclusions about what type of “principal content” appears on the site. This is particularly true because new content is submitted every day, and the nature and type of submissions varies based on what is happening in the world at the time. For example, a substantial number of posts I received last November related to the presidential election race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. After the election was over, the number of political submissions decreased. In January each year, submissions often relate to the Super Bowl. This past February, I received lots of submissions relating to the Sandy Hook school shooting in Connecticut followed by a large number of submissions relating to the debate on gun control. 6.
Attached hereto as Exhibits 1–41 are just a small sample of posts currently appearing on www.TheDirty.com about these sorts of general news stories. Again,  because users are permitted to submit posts on any topic they want, content appearing on the site can include general news stories like these, or it can include more personal posts like the ones which gave rise to this lawsuit. I do not have any control over what users choose to submit, so the range of possible content appearing on the site is essentially unlimited.
Case: 2:09-cv-00219-WOB-CJS Doc #: 177-1 Filed: 03/07/13 Page: 2 of 94 - Page ID#: 2697
 3 7.
Contrary to the arguments presented by Ms. Jones in this case, material appearing on www.TheDirty.com is frequently identical to the content appearing on more mainstream sites such as www.facebook.com. In fact, as reflected in Exhibit 42 attached hereto, Facebook contains a page about this litigation which includes a
copy of the allegedly defamatory statements which Ms. Jones wants me to pay her $11 million for “publishing”. Similarly, as reflected in Exhibit 43, Facebook includes numerous news stories about this case including national television interviews given by Ms. Jones in which she actively discussed the facts of this case ensuring that her story reached the widest possible audience. 8.
I completely disagree with the suggestion that all, or even a majority, of the  posts appearing on www.TheDirty.com are unlawful. Because unlawful content increases the likelihood of litigation which has a severe negative impact on the site’s  profitability, I have a vested interest in trying to exclude as much unlawful content as I can, keeping in mind that it is absolutely impossible for me to conclusively determine exactly what content is lawful and what content is not. 9.
To that end, users who submit content to www.TheDirty.com are required to agree to the site’s Terms of Service or “TOS” which are located on the site here: http://thedirty.com/terms-of-use/. A copy of our TOS is attached hereto as Exhibit 44. Among other things, Section 3 of the TOS specifically prohibits users from submitting any false or unlawful content: “Comments or any other material which is false, defamatory, or otherwise unlawful is not allowed.”
Case: 2:09-cv-00219-WOB-CJS Doc #: 177-1 Filed: 03/07/13 Page: 3 of 94 - Page ID#: 2698

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->