mikeoregon suggests going after John McCain or Paul Ryan equally aggresively. I agree, but don't stop with them, how about Obama who took a peace price under false pretenses (he knew he intended to make war, not love), who exploits people for the benefit of his corporate buddies, who doesn't share nude pictures of people, he kills them. Let's not be naive, NPR goes after the guy who deliberately runs over a family of possums on the road, or the guy who posts naked pictures on the internet. The really big douchebags, they bow down before. Because those are their bosses.

Here's my question: what is the point of tackling Craig Brittain and his web site in On The Media? Yes, he's a sleaze, but he seems like a minor player as sleazy characters go. I'd love to hear Bob take on and dress down somebody like John McCain or Paul Ryan in the same way, for their sleazy conduct that affects everyone in the nation. Craig is too easy a target. Please go back to speaking truth to power.

It is interesting to hear of the assumptions on morality and ethics that is talked about. It definitely points to a foundation-less and subjective morality that some Americans, including the interviewer and interviewees hold to, and this is leading to such evil to exist.

CraigBrittain calls NPR listeners: "Don't drink the Kool-Aid, NPR listeners." And my question is how does he know his standards are correct when so many people say that what he is doing is morally wrong (immoral)?
He also says he has not done anything illegal or wrong, appealing to some sort of standard of right and wrong, but is not telling where he got the standard. Examples: those I listed and him saying that everything is up for debate and there are blind accusations.

One comment against Craig says he cannot justify his existence, so my question is: "who decides how his existence is justified?" and "how do we know that there is a possibility of a justified existence?"

Until Americans discuss and decide how we can trust in morals, where they come from, their trustworthiness, things will continue in the same direction.

craig is probably one of those people that is a forever alone person. So he gets joy at out of it,When people go to his site and post naked pics of their ex.....

"That is why I know, now more than ever, that I've got nothing to fear"...
You sure about that, Craigy baby? How about fathers with shotguns?

1. The power of the interview comes, in large measure, from the break with journalistic norms. For the "objective" press, this should be a tool used exceedingly sparingly, but there are instances when it is appropriate--and this is one of those rare times.

2. People who say "if you don't want your nude photo on the web, don't text or post your photo" miss the fact that at least some private photos are harvested from hard drives and phones by unethical computer repair people, new owners of "deleted" media, and other snoops. Sometimes photos are taken without consent.

3. The guys running this site are not life's winners. The interviewee acknowledges as much, when he says that he wasn't even good at begging. But their most grievous shortcoming may be their utter lack of human compassion.

I feel like 90% of the people speaking out against what "Craig did/ is doing" are promoting the act of not taking responsibility for your own actions... No one mandated that the people had to take revealing photos of themeselves and or let them be taken? here's a simple solution that only requires a bit of common sense to come across, don't "share" naked pics of yourself lol. It's 10x better in person anyway

Is it legal to publish those photos with the identifications without the authorization of those people.
Troy@<a href="http://miamirealestateinc.com/content/Condos-by-Cities">Miami</a>

I am a student at Immaculata University, enrolled in Media Ethics. This semester we have read and discussed excerpts from The Influencing Machine: Brooke Gladstone on the Media and have watched an animated short from the book as well. We have also travelled to the Newseum in Washington, DC, to receive a media ethics lecture from Barbara Pearson, a copy editor at USA TODAY. Recently, in class, we listened to “Reactions to 'Is Anybody Down?'” from On the Media.
After listening to the segment and noting what another listener offered I believe that Craig Brittain is a disgusting person who should be put in jail for what he is doing. It’s one thing to put people’s personal pictures up on a website, but then to deceive them and take money from them is just wrong. He should be upfront about what he is doing, but I don’t think he should be doing that in the first place.
I agree with Zoe from Canada’s post, especially how she stated, “I think Bob's comments were spot on. Posting naked pictures of people online without their prior informed consent is a violation of their rights.” I agree because it is a violation of peoples’ rights. Those people did not send Craig their pictures personally. This is not right what he is doing.
The reporter, Bob Garfield, asked Craig some questions and then grilled Brittain. Garfield accused him of pretty much being a creep. Garfiend asked Brittain why Brittain could not get a real job. At the end of the interview, Bob tells Craig he should starve himself instead of keeping the website up and running. I feel as if Bob’s comments were justified because I believe what Craig is doing is horrible and completely wrong and inexcusable.
Referencing, The Ethics Graphics Guide, Immanuel Kant would disagree with what Craig is doing. Kant is a deontologist and believes in good will, which Craig obviously does not have.

I am a student at Immaculata University, enrolled in Media Ethics. This semester we have read and discussed excerpts from The Influencing Machine: Brooke Gladstone on the Media and have watched an animated short from the book as well. We have also travelled to the Newseum in Washington, DC, to receive a media ethics lecture from Barbara Pearson, a copy editor at USA TODAY. Recently, in class, we listened to “Reactions to 'Is Anybody Down?'” from On the Media.
After listening to the segment and noting what another listener offered I believe that Craig Brittain is absolutely wrong and idiotic in what he is doing. Because people are to blame, to such an extent, for having explicit pictures of themselves out and accessible via the Internet, but that does not justify gathering photos without any consent and posting them on a website. It is basically signing up for porn without any kind of agreement.
Stacey Burns @WentRogue
My favorite part of this week's @onthemedia is at the end, where Bob Garfield tells douchebag Craig Brittain to go ahead and starve to death.
I could not agree more with what listener, Stacey Burns, tweeted to the program, although I may have not worded everything the same way. However, she is as correct as she is blunt.
Bob Garfield came at this interview with a very aggressive approach. He asked Mr. Brittain questions that sparked answers that left me wondering if this guy was some sort of insane lunatic. Garfield stood his ground and was completely straightforward, telling Brittain to “starve to death” after Brittain claimed he had to make money some way in this slow economy.
In our class, we have viewed several clips from movies and television programs. One was “Band of Brothers,” the HBO series based on Steven Ambrose’s work. In a strange way, after I listened to the program again, the “Band of Brothers” clip that we watched in class just weeks ago came to mind. When the soldiers turn up and find the concentration camps full of dead bodies and abused, hungry victims, it leaves a sinking feeling. Well, if I were to log on this website and find my picture on there, the same sort of feeling comes to mind. This is not just some website that has embarrassing pictures of random people, it is clearly wrong! Everyone has the ability to detect right from wrong, and this case is simply a no-brainer.
Mark Twain once said, “It is curious - curious that physical courage should be so common in the world, and moral courage so rare.” I could not agree more, especially with such strong evidence presented in front of my very eyes.

Mr. Brittain is utterly confused in his justification for his actions when he says"the economy is slow, you have to make money somehow"...
What has happened to moral conduct in this society?
This is unconstitutional and mind-blowing that this can actually be done by anyone out there. Thats a scary thought, and Craig Brittain is proving why the Internet can be scary.

I am a student at Immaculata University, enrolled in Media Ethics. This semester we have read and discussed excerpts from The Influencing Machine: Brooke Gladstone on the Media and have watched an animated short from the book as well. We have also travelled to the Newseum in Washington DC to receive a media ethics lecture from Barbara Pearson, a copy editor at USA TODAY. Recently, in class, we listened to “Reactions to 'Is Anybody Down?'” from On the Media.
In reaction to the interview with Craig Brittain by Bob from OnTheMedia, I can only agree with Zoe from Canada. Her insight is spot on and the comparison is one that is familiar to me. I read about young Amanda Todd on MSN News and watch a report about it from Philip Defranco of the Philip Defranco Show, which is a semi-formal newscast on YouTube. Such behavior on the part of anyone is disgraceful and cannot be excuse except in the most alien of circumstances. Sometimes mistakes are made and people expose themselves when they normally wouldn’t but this is no reason to take advantage of someone and possibly ruin their lives. The even more sickening thing is that the majority of these people are young women who are still in their teenage and young adult years. These women likely are making mistakes or performing actions that will help them learn and grow into wiser individuals. By posting them online naked and revealed, Brittain is exposing these young women and turning what may have been an unfortunate occurrence that could have been learned from into a possibly life destroying, confidence shattering, respect crushing disaster.
As for Bob, I can see how some might feel he broke the integrity of objective journalism because of his obvious disgust at Craig Brittain’s actions and his attempts to validate the work he and Chance Trayhan do. While I understand the need for objective journalism and will concede that Bob comes up lacking in objectivity during this interview, I cannot help but be glad that he does. Brittain’s actions should ring as wrong to any member that abides by the rules of civil society. If Bob were objective and entertained Brittain’s argument, it would further the problem that lead to things like “Is Anybody Down?” because such things come from a blur in the moral standards and rules of a given society. The moment we begin to think, “Maybe Brittain has got a point and those people deserve it,” is the moment we are in trouble as civil human beings. So having clear and understandable moral codes about crimes such as this one is more than just a maybe, but a deontological necessity to survive as a civilized society.

I really appreciate Bob's honesty with his opinion. And I don't think it's a new thing with On the Media. I find it really refreshing when Brooke and Bob tell their guests that what they are doing is creepy (which I've heard before in the many privacy issues they address on the show) because that's how I feel.

In an interview, the interviewers are the listener's avatars, asking the guests the kind of questions the listeners want to know. Maybe it's just because I tend to agree with Bob's viewpoint that I find it satisfying that he told Craig Brittain that what he is doing is horrible. From the tone of the comments, it sounds like the other listeners agree. So I would say that Bob is expressing a view that he already knows his listeners are sympathetic to.

The only thing I would have wanted Bob to add is that "do this or starve" is an utterly, shamefully, ridiculously false choice. It's almost parody that someone would say the only job he can do is extorting people on the internet, and also imply that he would literally die if he couldn't do it.

You do not sound classy, Craig Brittain. You sound like someone who no one would ever want to hire.

I have listened to On The Media for years now, and this seemed shockingly out of tone with the sardonic commentary that OTM tends to offer. I wouldn't suggest that OTM is "fair and balanced," but it certainly has attracted a respectable contingent of contrasting viewpoints without representing them as hateful.

Frankly, the tone of this piece was very close to interviews by Glenn Beck, in which he sets up interviews with sexual predators and similarly reviled people for the purpose of presenting public verbal abuse.

I was left asking "why?" since OTM handles many more outrageous stories than this with far more moderation.

Sadly, this interview is part of a change in OTM that has soured my attitude towards the show.

I sent this interview to many of my friends. It was one of the most powerful pieces of journalism I have ever seen. Thank you Bob Garfield for being bold and brave enough to tell Brittain to starve! This show opened viewers eyes to the tragic society in which we live in, where "anything goes" to make money. How can Brittain possibly rationalize this site? Bob Garfield, you are wonderful. Thank you for your courage!

@Frank RE - "Why is anyone arguing with Brittain?"

1.) To annoy him.
2.) To waste his time.
3.) To get a laugh out of his ridiculous responses.

You're 100% correct - there is no getting through to him so posting for that purpose is a waste of time.

I think moral outrage was exactly what was needed in that interview.

This is one of the most hilariously weird comment threads I've ever seen. Why is anyone arguing with Brittain? His website is awful, but there are plenty worse -- his real crime is monumental stupidity combined with monumental arrogance. Does anyone debating this ass think they'll get anywhere with him?

I'm really surprised there are people upset with OTM for Bob's judgmental attitude. I think Bob was, if anything, shockingly restrained in his contempt.

If I had a real complaint, it would be that this willingness to judge -- by NPR-style media in general, not Bob, whose work I don't know except for this piece -- is limited to folks like Craig Brittain, who's convinced absolutely no one that he has the right to do what he's doing. It'd be nice if this attitude was applied now and again to equally amoral public figures like Newt Gingrich.

Craig is a hypocrite. He has a video interview of Hunter Moore that he uploaded to YouTube under his LordAkeneon moniker. There are three such videos he uploaded about Hunter Moore. Go to the first one labeled Dr. Drew Show: Part One - Hunter Moore (isanyoneup) vs. Tucker Max, April 23rd, 2012

On this video he posts the following (don’t worry there are screen captures of it in case he deletes it)

“Good, fuck yourself, commit suicide instead.
LordAkaneon in reply to Devin Siegel(Show the comment) 2 months ago “

So while he’s happy to make up lies by stating that Mr. Randazza wants victims of his to commit suicide, in reality it’s Craig making those statements. Mr. Randazza is trying to help the victims of Craig Brittain and other losers like him. Craig hopes they commit suicide.

Additionally, almost every comment on that video is from some sock puppet account created by Craig Brittain to promote his site. Yet, he calls all the people who post here sock puppets. Seems he likes to accuse others of the things he is actually doing. Therefore he is a hypocrite.

Additionally, I posted comments on that video. He deleted them and then blocked me from posting to the video. So, he is also a coward and a wimp.

He also posts a whole bunch of other garbage about how great he is, etc. - nauseating.

It was embarrassing for OTM and lowered my opinion of the show. This shlock belongs on cable news.

I think Bob's comments were spot on. Posting naked pictures of people online without their prior informed consent is a violation of their rights. It is a tactic that has been used by aggressors to intimidate, harass and shame their victims. In a recent case here in Canada, a 15 year old girl named Amanda Todd committed. She revealed her breasts to someone during a video chat session and photos were taken. A man tried to blackmail her into revealing more of herself, telling her that if she did not he would publish the topless pictures he had of her. She refused and he published the photos. She was cyber stalked, harassed and bullied as a result of this. On October 10, 2012, Amanda committed suicide. So, honestly, I applaud Bob's comments. I think that anyone who posts naked pictures of people online, especially young women and men, without their consent or knowledge, shows a complete disregard for the health, well-being and safety of those people and should be put on trial. Craig Brittain should be ashamed of himself.

Craig Brittian's interview was the same as Hunter Moore's. They are basically children who do not understand that the world exists beyond themselves. "I'll starve...The economy..." grow up. I do think you should integrate critiques on "slut shaming" into these stories and perhaps link these stories in America to what slut shaming looks like internationally.

@adamsteinbaugh

I find it ironic that Chance threatened me with “copyright” violation on my YouTube video that has pictures of Craig and Chance, yet these two don’t seem to think the same law would apply to them. Mostly though I think it is because Craig doesn’t like the photo I’ve used which is the one from his old MySpace page. He’s whined about it on one of his earlier posts from On The Media and also in an email to Ken White

Craig regarding your reply of “You're wrong Jess, they're all worth at least that. Each post is worth at least that. Or more. If Randazza can chase gay porn downloaders for $1,000-$250,000 each, $600 is a very conservative estimate for the hypothetical worth of each post on our site.”

No I am not wrong – you are. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills. What Randazza charges is not relevant to the value of your site – one has nothing to do with the other. The value of your site is not determined by what you believe it is worth, it is determined by what the market believes it is worth. The market does not believe it is worth $300K much less $10K. If it did, you would have advertisers and people looking to actually buy your website. You don’t have either. The fact you still believe your little fantasy further confirms you are nuttier than a fruitcake.

If in fact Randazza made an offer for $2,500 realize it for what it was – chump change to him and an easy and painless way to shut your site down to protect the victims.

"I'm pointing out that their logic itself is circumstantial logic and that all of their statements are entirely dependent upon the circumstances being arranged as they outline them (rather than being based in fact/truth, they are based in circumstance, and are thus circumstantial. In this case, the circumstance is that you live in their alternate reality where the law is whatever they say it is, versus what the law actually says)."

Is it all-you-can-eat day at the word-salad bar, Craig? I'm starting to think you may be in even more dire need of a psychiatrist than you are of a lawyer.

You're citing laws that do not exist and mangling the few that you've correctly cited. Good luck. And, no, there's no reasonable argument that I've infringed on your copyright because your logo happens to be in screenshots. If you believe there is, you're welcome to submit a DMCA complaint to my host.

Heywood:

1. Of, relating to, or dependent on circumstances.

Circumstance:

2. A condition, fact, or event accompanying, conditioning, or determining another.

Basically, I'm pointing out that their logic itself is circumstantial logic and that all of their statements are entirely dependent upon the circumstances being arranged as they outline them (rather than being based in fact/truth, they are based in circumstance, and are thus circumstantial. In this case, the circumstance is that you live in their alternate reality where the law is whatever they say it is, versus what the law actually says).

Adam Steinbaugh: Chasing every potential copyright law violator is a witch hunt. Upwards of 70% of all US internet users are in violation of copyright law. I would not be surprised if you had not violated it at least once yourself in the past year (including your unauthorized use of our IAD logo).

If 70% of the country is in violation of a law or laws, that's usually a sign that the law or laws are A. Not being enforced B. Poorly written C. Impossible not to break D. All of the above.

The USA needs to disband the FCC and re-think copyright law and policy as a whole and shift to a model where users are actually encouraged to contribute legally rather than being threatened with legal punishment.

We are not in violation of any copyright laws, however. In fact, in comparison to 70% of the population, we look absolutely golden.

I have a very good understanding of the criminal, civil and copyright systems in the US.

That is why I know, now more than ever, that I've got nothing to fear, because:

1. There's no criminal case and never will be, because I haven't broken any laws.

2. There's no civil case because the FCA of 1996, section 230, prevents me from frivolous action, and likewise because most people don't want to hire a 'pro bono' lawyer that hopes they kill themselves.
A. See also section 3.

3. There's no copyright case because:
A. Copyright cases are witch hunts that fail 90% of the time.
B. Unlike Hunter Moore or Eric Chanson, there's no infringement of 'IsAnyoneUp'. Also, word is out that those cases will be dismissed soon as well. The Randazza tugboat fleet is sinking...
C. You can't SLAPP us in Colorado.
D. Or in Arizona.
E. There's a very high chance that the frivolous lawsuit you're building falls under the anti-SLAPP guidelines.
F. Marc Randazza has a long record of SLAPPs and being pro-SLAPP.
G. So does Kenneth White.
H. Basically you've got nothing and you're clutching at straws.
I. Every public statement you make about us is more evidence that you're basically promoting a SLAPP campaign.
J. We live in the United States of America, the best country in the world, not the Soviet Union or North Korea, so there's no chance that your left-wing witch hunt will ever result in anything other than a bunch of free press for our website.

Thanks again for the free plugs.

"That 'involuntary' thing is another bogus, loaded, circumstantial diatribe....
I'd like to thank you for telling the media a bunch of inflated, circumstantial lies...."

"Circumstantial." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Craig: morals aside, you have a very poor understanding of both copyright law and how the civil and criminal justice systems work. Each time you open your mouth you are hurting yourself. You just described a system of intellectual property that doesn't exist outside of cow pastures.

If you don't believe me or the other armchair lawyers (or, for that matter, the real ones), please plunk down the basic cost to get your own lawyer's forthright advice. It's a cost of doing business and every successful businessman knows it's better to check with people smarter than him on certain matters, or risk losing it all.

"Involuntary porn" doesn't exist.

All of the pictures on our site are voluntary. The fact that most of the people took them themselves makes them even more voluntary.

That 'involuntary' thing is another bogus, loaded, circumstantial diatribe where you basically imply that the average person is too stupid to acknowledge the fact that these people willingly took photos of themselves and sent them to total strangers, and uploaded them directly to the public internet where anyone could potentially download them.

All of the photos are public domain, they've all been publicly uploaded other places. Thus, your 'involuntary' claim holds no water. You would have to prove conclusively that they had never uploaded the photos to any public website - which is impossible.

Well played, but your case is non-existent and you're in nuclear, last ditch, last resort mode after 2 months, that means it's probably time to abandon ship.

I'd like to thank you for telling the media a bunch of inflated, circumstantial lies (which, by the way, reduces any chance you would have in winning anything against us and basically spits in the face of your 'no-wait-don't-commit-suicide-I'll-represent-you-pro-bono' clients.

Where's Randazza so he can tell the world that he told all of his potential claimants against me to kill themselves?

Again, please note how quickly these idiots wall of text to cover up the fact that Randazza offered me $2,500 for my website and told me that he hopes everyone on my website commits suicide.

Is that the guy you want to represent you? He said he hopes you kill yourselves!

You're wrong Jess, they're all worth at least that. Each post is worth at least that. Or more.

If Randazza can chase gay porn downloaders for $1,000-$250,000 each, $600 is a very conservative estimate for the hypothetical worth of each post on our site.

We'll never be in front of a jury, because we haven't broken any laws, and with each passing second, the credibility of our opponents and their bogus, unsubstantiated, loaded, circumstantial, false interpretations of the law evaporates...

If we had broken any laws, we'd already have been charged. We haven't and we won't be. The end.

"Randazza told me via telephone that he hopes all of the people who are posted on my website commit suicide - he also said that he was happy and that their suicides would be a good thing for the world."

Oh, *do* keep digging, Craig. I'm sure that having a court determine the value of your domain would be hilarious.

Unless you have specific permission, you cannot distribute, copy, publicly display, sell, or otherwise exploit or commercially use someone else's photos. To do so requires the owner of the photo to sign a release and/or be compensated for their use. Might make you wonder if Craig thinks his site is worth $300K-$420K if that money isn’t money that is technically owed to the people depicted in the photographs. Here’s why:

Several of the pictures were clearly taken by the person themselves (as evidenced by the camera flash in the mirror). Therefore that person automatically by law owns the copyright to that photograph. Copyright is normally valid with or without a copyright notice. These photos are not in the "public domain." In fact, with extremely rare exceptions, no recently-created photo is in the public domain. If an ex takes that photograph and uploads it to Craig’s site, then it is in violation of the copyright law because the person who technically owns the copyright to the photo did not authorize/sign a release and was not compensated. The "Fair Use" doctrine almost never excuses infringement of a photograph, particularly where the infringing use is commercial. It is commercial in this case as Craig clearly intends to use his site to attract advertisers and make a profit (although he’s been unsuccessful so far).

Example: if you look at the Girls Gone Wild videos. There was a lawsuit around these videos that never went anywhere for two reasons. The girls signed a release, and they received t-shirts which were considered to be compensation for their appearance.

I had a whole thing written here to put together Craig's ever-evolving string of conspiracy theories, claims of undelivered proof of those theories, and pointing out the absurdity and dishonesty of some of his comments.

But then I realized it will be a better popcorn moment when he gets asked about all that in a deposition, or has to substantiate it with a straight face in front of a jury.

Please, Craig: continue.

@Craig

You’re making another invalid assumption. Namely that myself or anyone posting here is against porn or naked images. I’m not. What I’m against in “involuntary porn”. It appears you don’t believe there is such a thing but it’s easy to define.

Voluntary porn is where the person depicted receives compensation of some sort for their image and where they have voluntarily shared that image with full knowledge of how it will be used.

Involuntary porn is where the person depicted is not compensated for their image and where they may have shared their image with someone with the intent of that image remaining private between them and the other party but where that other party then distributed their image without their knowledge or consent – either to someone else or to a website like yours.
I’m sure there are some people who are depicted on your site who are the ones that actually sent in pictures and I’ve no problem with you displaying those since those individuals sent in their own pictures. However, I do have a problem (and so does everyone else posting against you) with the fact you are also displaying pictures that were private and which were uploaded to your site by someone OTHER than the person depicted in the picture. You state this is not the case, yet there is proof otherwise. Additionally, if each person depicted on your site was the one that sent in the pictures and they did so voluntarily, then why would they need to pay the “takedown lawyer” to have the pictures removed? Why would they want them removed at all? That question has been asked of you no less than 5 times and yet you fail to answer it for the simple reason you already know that several of the pictures posted on your site were NOT sent in by the person in the picture and the person in the picture had no idea their pictures would be posted in public.

Bottom line.

Voluntary porn = OK

Involuntary porn = NOT OK

Lastly, your comment about a phone conversation you had with Marc Randazza where you state “Randazza told me via telephone that he hopes all of the people who are posted on my website commit suicide - he also said that he was happy and that their suicides would be a good thing for the world.” That is nothing but a bunch of BS that you have made up because you are angry that he is helping people pro bono to get removed from your website so you can’t make money off of the removal services yourself through you fake attorney David Blade.

Craig –

I have a Masters degree in Statistics. My math is accurate yours is not. You assume (which is your first mistake) that the 700 people posted on your website are worth something. Many of them I’m sure are nice people but they are not worth $600-$700 each of advertising revenue. You’re making hypothetical assumptions that advertisers would see value in your site due to site traffic that statistically is not relevant enough to justify the spend. I am more than capable of running a correlative analysis on past and present web-site traffic to your site to predict an accurate future trajectory. You are assuming a linear relationship on your website stats – this is an incorrect assumption. If we look at how strongly two pairs of variables are correlated – in this case the # of people posted to your site and the # of visitors/traffic to your site while subtracting the short term anomaly of traffic driven from the recent publicity, we get an entirely different picture of website traffic growth. The main result of a correlation is called the correlation coefficient (or "r"). It ranges from -1.0 to +1.0. The closer r is to +1 or -1, the more closely the two variables are related. If r is close to 0, it means there is no relationship between the variables. In running an analysis on the #’s related to your site r is close to 0. So in summary, your site is worth no where near $300,000 or $420,000. Much like real estate nothing is worth what the owner thinks it is, it’s worth what someone else will pay for it. It would seem to me that before anyone were to buy your site for that kind of money they would do some analysis similar to what I’ve done. If so, they will come to the same conclusion. Namely that your site is not a worthwhile investment. If you want to live in fantasy land about what you think your business is worth that's your choice.

Lastly, the comment about “whether they use a third party service” is an interesting one. Is this where you are alluding to them paying for a service to have their pictures removed? Is part of this revenue model hoping they will pay the “takedown hammer” to have their pictures removed?

P.S. why would I, as a conservative, ask for support from a biased liberal media in a country that is increasingly interested in censorship and taking my rights and freedoms away?

They don't want us to succeed nor do they care what I think nor is it big news that scumbag lawyers are trying to steal someone's money. They have to paint me as the villain otherwise no one would even read this garbage.

So fine, there you have it. I'm the villain. You've decided arbitrarily that you need a right-wing bad guy, and here I am.

Despite the fact that I've done nothing legally wrong and that there's no moralism at all in sending a bunch of bloodthirsty ambulance-chasers after me, it makes for a great story. Doesn't matter if it's all made up.

Randazza and White and their cult are spinning you a wonderful work of fiction. Isn't it exciting?

From now on, that's exactly how you should read the comments posted against me - as artistic works of fiction with no basis in reality whatsoever.

I have a successful business to run, and unlike Randazza, I don't want anyone to commit suicide, and unlike Garfield, I don't want anyone to starve. Good day to you, worthless discarded human trash.

The following is an entirely hypothetical argument that I'm entertaining for the sake of people insulting us.

Jess, your math is wrong. If you're counting it that way (which is entirely false! But let's use it for the sake of your argument) - you have to count each person who is currently posted. There's 700 people posted on our website and counting. Whether or not they actually use a third party service, everyone who is posted on our website is of equal value. Let's say as a hypothetical, that each person's real value as assets by advertising value, i.e. hits, is $600. 700 * $600 = $420,000.

We'd be more than happy to close down the website and never look back if we had that amount.

If a Wal-Mart has $50 million in assets, but they only sell $50,000 a month, does that mean the Wal-Mart is a failure? Or that you wouldn't own a Wal-Mart? Or that the Wal-Mart is really only worth $50,000? Or even their annual take of $600,000? Because no one is going to sell you that $50 million dollar Wal-Mart for $50,000. Sorry, cheapskates.

Randazza offered to buy out our website. The only problem is, he offered us a measly $2,500, instead of what our website is actually worth.

You really want to save these people - but what you don't want is for us to move forward. Thus, you have no ethics or morals to speak of, and like I've pointed out from the very beginning, this entire thing is about fattening Randazza and White's pockets and pushing their publicity.

Randazza told me via telephone that he hopes all of the people who are posted on my website commit suicide - he also said that he was happy and that their suicides would be a good thing for the world.

Thus, his pro bono claim... do you really want someone to represent you who hopes deep down that you commit suicide?

“CraigBrittain
We now have conclusive proof that Randazza and White are intending to start their own website that is like mine and that they are only doing this to attempt to steal our content so they can launch their own website.
The supposed 'lawsuit' is actually a hoax, the real goal is to steal the content from our website and use it to launch their own rival website.
Ignore the lies, realize that Randazza and White are simply trying to steal a functioning business. “

Bwha ha ha - so I needed a good laugh and I got one. Just to make sure I have Mr. Brittains latest rant correct, he seems to believe a website with no visible means of revenue other than 90 or so people who have paid a fictitious lawyer $250-$300 each generating at a maximum a whole whopping $30,090 is so juicy Randazza and White would go to all this trouble to get their hands on it – never would occur to him that the goal might be to shut it down.

More to the point, he wants everyone to believe the fairy tale that a busy lawyer like Marc Randazza (who Mr. Brittain has believes makes around $2.5 a year) is going to fuss around with trying to replicate or take over a poorly designed website that ranks only slightly more interesting than watching grass grow and brings in less than $30,000 annually because ?????? Riiiggghhht – because that totally makes sense – NOT.

I think we could logically reduce this equation to three simple options. Mr. Brittain is either:

1. Trolling and posting outrageous whoppers for the fun of poking everyone and seeing if he can get a rise
2. Doing everything he can to make himself look mentally unbalanced so he can use insanity as a defense when the legal shit storm finally comes
3. Truly believes everything he is saying which makes him certifiably bat crazy

Either way, we cannot expect Mr. Brittain to truthfully tell us which of the above it is.

I thought Trolldown was supposed to be for exactly this: posting "evidence" to "expose" the critics of IAD. Instead, it appears abandoned.

Craig. If you had proof you'd be linking to it, putting posts up on your blog, and calling every media outlet you could google search. You don't. You're just an ex-con out to exploit girls on the internet. You know why you're always going to be a loser? The same reason why you're a felon, you don't respect the rules and eventually it catches up with you.

We now have conclusive proof that Randazza and White are intending to start their own website that is like mine and that they are only doing this to attempt to steal our content so they can launch their own website.

The supposed 'lawsuit' is actually a hoax, the real goal is to steal the content from our website and use it to launch their own rival website.

Ignore the lies, realize that Randazza and White are simply trying to steal a functioning business.

Like many I was shocked by Bob's comments at the end of the interview, but I also agreed with them. The media does have a duty to be objective about its subject matter, and when possible to present both sides of an issue. However, some of the issues that have come to the fore do not have two rational sides. In that case, I believe the media has a responsibility to editorialize the irrational. This is not an issue of infringing freedom of speech or not allowing the public to form its own opinions, its a reasonable reaction to a Troll.

And I hate to break it to you Chris, but if you could manage to contain your negative personality enough to prevent everyone around you from fleeing, you may be able to hold down a job. This article does show that you are resourceful, even if you are an ethically-questionable psychopath (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/436/the-psychopath-test).

Craig, you make sensational claims that would truly be a movie of the week on Lifetime or TNT. However you provide little in the way of details, facts, or explanations of motives that would persuade your audience. You've been asked directly for evidence that any of your claims, counterclaims, or drivel is indeed truth. You don't even address the people asking, rather you make further claims of some sort of grand witchcraft or conspiracy that has wronged you and continues to seek you ill. I fear for your mental state and hope that if you are having trouble coping with all the attention directed at you that you seek help.

Uh craig. I'm not a "cultist puppet".

Nobody I know of is DoSing your server (it seems to crash, but since other systems within the same provider are not seeing outages, and its back up now, I don't think its a DOS.) Sorry to break it to you, but takedown resistant overseas hosting is not always the most reliable.

And you haven't answered my question. Did you solicit women on craigslist in an attempt to get photographs for your site?

If you notice, all of these sudden 'commenters' came directly from Randazza and Whites websites in an attempt to shape public opinion. They are little more than cultist puppets who are engaging in DDoS attacks against our server as we speak and inventing any lies they possibly can in order to attempt to silence us.

Bob did the same thing with Hunter Moore of Is Anyone Up?

I'm okay with it. He's right. You can be a journalist and be a human being, too. In fact, you're a human being first. Not into it? Don't listen to the show. How about that?

Terrible typing on my part for the last comment. Should have been "someone else's fault too*" and "You made* a bad choice." My fault for not proof reading, shouldn't type while distracted.

Lol, are we Ken and Marc or paid by Ken or Marc? You can't seem to get the story straight in your own mind. Which is it?

You said earlier on the other thread:
"You're parroting it from questionable sources, using a fake name and profile - because undoubtedly you ARE Marc Randazza/Kenneth White using fake names and aliases to sock puppet."

Now you say:
"Chris and Joe are paid commenters, by the way, as well as sock puppet accounts."

I've already had you google my name, you know by now that I am undoubtably real. Hell you'll find comments I made under my name up to 12 years ago online. (Before that it wasn't common internet behavior to use your real name.) What Craig doesn't tell people is that because he has a rap sheet, it's hard for him to find a job, but that's someone else's fault to. He'll probably blame Obama, but Obama didn't tell Craig to assault that police officer did he? No that was all Craig. You mad a bad choice kid, chin up, have some respect and get a job in construction, landscaping, or fast food.

Randazza's paying me? Darn it man - where's my check.

Shoot I forgot to ask Craig what his reaction was to the Captain Obvious video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR68gCul148

Seems he is a bit "sensitive" about that old photo from his old Myspace page.

There is significant suggestions from Adam Steinbaugh that at least some of the photographs were obtained directly by Craig or Chance from Craigslist W4W advertisers when Craig posed as a fake female "date". And that Craig and Chance wanted to hire someone to continue this work?

Craig, is this allegation false?

Chris and Joe are paid commenters, by the way, as well as sock puppet accounts. The puppet masters are paid by the Randazza cult to spread his views.

Basically, this is a Randazza attempt to buy the media and to buy the law via his own little cult. The average person is not part of the Randazza cult, luckily.

Don't drink the Kool-Aid, NPR listeners.

Fortunately all of the 'data' is made up. I don't have to prove anything, rather, you have to disprove my claims.

I've disproved the false allegations against me time and time again.

I haven't done anything illegal. It's perfectly open for debate, as long as you use the words 'allegedly' and 'opinion', because that's what it is - it's not factual and consists entirely of blind accusations

Craig thinks anyone who disagrees with him is a sock puppet and not a real person able to form their own opinions based on facts.

Craig doesn’t realize my opinions don’t come courtesy of Marc or Ken or any other third parties. A chunk of the data in Marc and Ken’s possession proving that Craig lied about the fake attorney David Blade is data I provided to them. So, I have based my opinions on the evidence and facts I have uncovered personally and first hand– not on what others have told me. I and others have provided Craig an open opportunity to prove his points - proof not hearsay - and he has been unable to deliver.

The aspect of whether Craig has done anything illegal is most clearly up for debate and that debate is far from settled.

Craig, you've used Steam handles like "Jew Oven" and "God Is White, DIE N**GERS" (my censoring not his). We've traced your IP to those accounts through steam bans for... racist behavior! You've also edited wikipedia to include the definition of "white power" as not being racist. You self admittedly have never succeeded at anything in your life. Not even Is Anybody Down is successful since you have no direct revenue stream. Extorting women to remove their pictures can't be a flourishing business either since you still live at home with mom and dad. So you can be as tickled as you want to be with how you sounded during the interview, you still lead a sad existence that doesn't justify itself whatsoever.

"Honest buck" might be 50% right but definitely 50% wrong. This gut is transparently dishonest. And the interviewer did not tell this guy to starve, he merely said there was more dignity in starving. Any listener who cannot hear the reasonable indignity in how this journalist conducts himself needs to do some serious introspective questioning about what they expect from quality journalism. Kudos to the On the Media team for doing this report, and kudos to the lawyer standing up for the victims of this Craig guy!

Thanks again, NPR, OnTheMedia, Bob, Alex, etc.

Personally, I think I sounded classy under fire the entire way through :)

I don't worry about the allegations - they're all false. A bunch of people repeating the same lie on the internet, and circulating it through the media? That has obviously NEVER happened before! Insert a picture of Dan Rather here.

All the best -

Craig Brittain, Is Anybody Down.

Anyone calling this an "honest buck" didn't actually listen to the story. If all he were doing was posting the pictures and collecting ad money, it would be debatable. But he's also conducting an extortion scheme on the side. Part of that extortion scheme involves creating a fictional persona claiming to be an attorney. If nothing else, that particular piece of the business runs afoul of laws regarding the unlicensed practice of law.

Craig gave Bob two options, to either continue his work or "starve." Rhetorical or not, that was his response. If you were to extract a sentence out of the tone of Bob's response, it might have been: "If your asking me what you should do out of those two options knowing that continuing your work would mean the continued posting of nude photos of people who have no knowledge of it, than I can only answer starve."

Someone actually referred to this as making "an honest buck." That's where we are now. Walmart employees are working to make "an honest buck." What exactly about this is making "an honest buck"?

I question the humanity of anyone who listened to the entire interview and did not feel a profound sense of satisfaction at Bob's withering and incisive barbs at the end of it. I was impressed that he didn't go full Geraldo on the twerp. Chapeau, sir.

I totally think the "starve" comment is justified. Craig stating that his choice was this or starve is total BS. He's not doing this for the money. Want proof? Go to the website (or the multiple screenshots of it posted on Popehat, Adamsteinbaugh, etc) and look for ads. The only ad there? "Who is Kataishin?" If you click on the ad, it takes you to Chance Trahan's music page. I HIGHLY doubt Chance pays himself/Craig to advertise on his own site. So where is the money that is keeping him from "starving" coming from? The only answer is the "Takedown Lawyer." Even if we give Craig the benefit of the doubt and believe that David Blade is truly a real person (and not Craig or Chance) tgey have to be getting a cut of his fee. Other than the Takedown Hammer, there is no other way the website can be making money. So when it comes down to extortion (which comes with jail time and a guarantee of never being hired) or begging on the streets "starving" (I will also point out that there is evidence that Craig lives with his parents) Begging is the more honest/upright choice.