Mr. Randazza was articulate and well behaved in the NPR interview.

I am a former student of his and his teachings / beliefs affected me in a very positive way. I am now a criminal defense attorney however, I took every class that I was able to get into just to listen to him wax poetic about the Constitution and specifically the First Amendment.

It was refreshing to have a professor who is truly passionate about the area of law that they taught. He conveyed his beliefs about freedom of speech during our classes years before the controversy with Ms. Cox was born. Mr. Randazza would always create a hypothetical just as in the present controversy where speech was used against him, or at the time his unborn child, and he would always and unequivocally defend the right to free speech.

He taught us that although speech should not be censored by THE GOVERNMENT it doesn't come without consequences. If you accept those consequences you should have the right to say what’s on your mind.

I applaud the way he has risen to this challenging issue and held fast to his beliefs. After looking at both parties views it is apparent that he continues to practice what he preaches.

That's really great about free speech and all. But what about after? Supposing she wins on appeal, what's to stop Crystal Cox from attempting her extortion racket on someone else?

Did I miss something here? Is it legally permissible to run an extortion racket by hiding behind the banner of free speech!?

Marc said he needed to something because some other person might wind up actually giving Ms. Cox the $2500 she demands to clean up the reputation damage.

But if you delve into the Cox thing a lot deeper, it appears as though some persons may have already been conned by her into doing just that.

What she is doing is ruining peoples' reputations then offering to fix it for a fee. AFAIK. That. Is. Extortion.

Why exactly are we protecting that?
--
Furry cows moo and decompress.