I think this is a court hearing, copypasted from original...

(I am aware that some people want to keep ZQ issues separate from gamergate, but given that this community very generously crowdfunded Eron's legal defense, I wanted to make sure that those who are interested know what's going on.)

ZQ filed and was granted an ex parte 209a order against Eron in mid September and on Tuesday it was extended for a year. Note that this is a physical abuse prevention order. It is meant to protect victims of physical abuse, not victims of internet harassment (you want a 258e for that). (Issues relevant to 209a orders that were in the affidavit but not brought up at the hearing are addressed in the footer of this post.*)

The reason you haven't heard anything about the case is that the order contains a written in PRIOR RESTRAINT ON FREE SPEECH, which is absolutely absurd (ZQ reported his participation in this KoP stream to the police as a violation of the ex-parte order, so now he also has to have a hearing for that). I however, have no such restraint, and thus it is entirely within my rights to discuss public court hearings and public court documents. And should any overly litigious public figures with questionable ethical principles think about changing that, I'd recommend they take a look at Nilan v. Valenti first.

My memory is mediocre, so take my version of events with a grain of salt.

---

Her:

Eron posted personal information about me online. As a result, people online have threatened me with physical harm. Eron continues to engage with the mob that is harassing me with no regard to my personal safety. Specifically, Eron threatened to release more information on his gofundme page.

Eron's attorney:

I will speak on my client's behalf, and then acquiesce to my client. Zoe Quinn is a public figure and criticism of public figures is protected free speech (with the specific example of criticism of her interaction with TFYC). ZQ was already receiving harassment before Eron's blog post. Eron has never threatened ZQ with violence and has never encouraged anyone to threaten ZQ with violence. Thezoepost was a story about Eron's life experiences and did not even include ZQ's real name.

Eron:

[Did not get to speak at all because the judge cut his attorney off to ask more questions of the plaintiff]

The judge didn't really say much and started writing half way through the arguments.

*He did not allow Eron's attorney to cross examine the plaintiff

*He did not allow admission of Eron's evidence

*He refused the Attorney's first amendment objection to the gag clause

*He mentioned nothing about his reasoning besides a vague reference to ‘intimidation’.

Order extended until x/x/2015

---

In case it didn’t jump out at you, part of ZQ’s argument as to why she needed a 209a order was that Eron said he was going to publish and comment on public court documents, and the Judge seemed to think this was a threat that constituted ‘intimidation’.

The hearing lasted about ten minutes, after which Eron's attorney was sufficiently outraged that he offered to take Eron through a substantial portion of the appeals process pro bono.

I will be posting all public documents relating to this case along with a transcript of the hearing when I receive it from the court. (If journalists want proof of anything I have said here before then, please contact me.)

To anyone else, feel free to ask questions.

---

"Of all the protections provided by the First Amendment for the free exercise of speech, none is more fundamental to the purpose of the Amendment than its nearly absolute prohibition against prior restraints." - ACLU amicus in Nilan v. Valenti (258e order vacated)

"We conclude that the district court's order of November 13, 1985, was transparently invalid. The order constituted a presumptively unconstitutional prior restraint on pure speech by the press. The burden necessary to sustain such an order is tremendously heavy and was not met in this case. The only potential danger posed by the restrained speech was to an individual's privacy right. That right can be adequately protected by a subsequent damages action." - In Re: Providence Journal Co

"Speech is protected by the Supreme Court’s decisions in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) and Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973), even if some outraged readers make threats as a result, unless the speech deliberately incites such threats." - Hans Bader, senior attorney at cei.org

"only incitement that is calculated to cause, and likely to cause, imminent lawless action may be prohibited or punished." - Ken White of popehat.com

"the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." - Brandenburg v Ohio

---

---

---

The only portions of the affidavit even tangentially related to physical abuse are:

"Was physically violent toward me during our last sexual encounter. Leaving several bruises on my arm."

It is notable that their last sexual encounter happened a few hours after he ran back to her hotel room to make sure she was okay after she told him she had just tried to kill herself. Again, this encounter was not mentioned in court.

The idea of Eron ever being violent is absurd to me. I've known him for over a decade and (despite my best efforts at provocation) I've never seen him get more than mildly frustrated.

"Has admitted mental instability to me, and informed me via email that he had a history of being violent with a family member"

admitted mental instability = mentioned he shows some signs of SPD, which is roughly defined as too much mental stability. It’s rich that someone who claims to fight the stigma surrounding mental illness would so readily instill that stigma to whatever degree benefits her.

history of being violent with a family member = he tackled his grandfather once when he was eight and his grandfather hit his head on a cabinet. (he showed me the e-mail and I am not being hyperbolic.)

Almost anyone with siblings has a "history of violence toward a family member", apparently.