Rapid Relief Team v. Cheryl Bawtinheimer

The spirit of the First Amendment applies to the copyright laws at least to the extent that the courts should not tolerate any attempted interference with the public’s right to be informed regarding matters of general interest when anyone seeks to use the copyright statute which was designed to protect interests of quite a different nature. Rosemont Enters., Inc. v. Random House, Inc., 366 F.2d 303, 311 (2d Cir. 1966) (Lumbard, J., concurring).

This case is most clearly one where the spirit of the First Amendment should haunt the plaintiff.

This lawsuit doesn’t seem real when you first look at it.

It is a censorship campaign masquerading as a copyright case over a clip-art cartoon bird logo. Really. Look at that image.

In a video criticizing the organization behind the website here, a mega firm claims that showing the bird logo is “copyright infringement.”

Yes, a video criticizing the organization behind the website, where their logo is on their website, is “infringement” if you ask Brown & Rudnick. Just goes to show you, hiring BigLaw is no guarantee of quality analysis nor quality work.

The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church (“PBCC”), also known as the “Exclusive Brethren,” is an extremely wealthy cult that doesn’t like criticism. It has used SLAPP-style lawsuits in the past to strike back at critics. See

Laura Dyason & Bernard Doherty, The Modern Hydra: The Exclusive Brethren’s Online Critics: A Case Study of Cult Awareness Activism and Community Formation in Cyberspace, 233 St. Mark’s Rev. 116, 124 (2015). This sure looks like the same modus operandi.

Bawtinheimer is a former PBCC member who was sexually abused while a child in the group. After leaving, she started the Get-a-Life Podcast (“GAL”) on YouTube, in collaboration with other former members. The podcast’s purpose is to show solidarity with other former PBCC members, to try and create a community that can act as a support network for those who leave, to provide information about the PBCC, and to comment upon the PBCC to warn the public about this organization.

PBCC has a “Charitable” arm called the Rapid Response Team, or RRT. Bawtinheimer had a series of videos on YouTube that pointed out hypocrisy in the RRT’s communications, contrasting them with how she saw the PBCC act toward members and those who left.

In these videos, Bawtinheimer showed screen shots of the RRT’s website, in which she displayed the RRT bird logo.

The PBCC/RRT then called up the mega firm Brown & Rudnick to censor these videos. The claim was that showing the logo is copyright infringement.

The first step in this campaign was to use DMCA notices, which YouTube honored and took down the videos. Then, they sued Bawtinheimer for copyright infringement.

Even a moron in a hurry would know that this is not copyright infringement. This is abusing copyright law to harass a critic, and our client is not going to take it laying down.

So we defended the case and countersued for abuse of the DMCA, including holding the attorneys responsible accountable for their bogus DMCA campaign.

The case is ongoing. Let’s see how it goes.

But we think the Kookaburra of Censorship isn’t going to fare well against the Eagle of Freedom.

Case documents

Video

Press

The Age	Brethren charity sues woman allegedly abused by an elder
Leighton Associates	The Worst SLAPP We’ve Ever Seen
Leighton Associates	The worst SLAPP we’ve ever seen has spawned a counterclaim
Roys Report	Australian charity sues Canadian abuse survivor over cookie mascot
Technology & Marketing Law Blog	A Religious Organization is Suing its Critics, and the Weapon of Choice is Copyright—RRT v. Cheryl Bawtinheimer
Comtv News	Australian Charity’s Lawsuit Against Canadian Abuse Survivor Raises Free Speech Concerns
Carmen Smith-Studer	Podcast Episode on RRT Lawsuit
Owl News	Coverage of RRT Lawsuit