An “Attaboy” for Marcus Owens’ Fight Against Doxing
Doxing means publishing private information about someone online to harass or intimidate them.
So there is a tax exempt organization called the Global Disinformation Index. Its a British organization with US affiliates. Here is how it describes its mission:
Malicious actors peddle disinformation for myriad reasons. They may be highly organised nation states motivated by geopolitical aims, private marketing companies acting on behalf of political or commercial organisations, or ad hoc communities of like-minded individuals motivated by a shared ideology. But GDI’s founding thesis is that the majority of disinformation on the web is motivated by financial gain, the result of the dominant attention-driven business models that drive today’s internet.
This is where GDI focuses its efforts. To reduce disinformation, we need to remove the financial incentive to create it. Brands unwittingly provide an estimated quarter of a billion dollars annually to disinformation websites through online advertisements placed on them. GDI uses both human and artificial intelligence to assess disinformation risk across the open web. We then provide these risk ratings to brands and advertising technology partners, providing them with a trusted and neutral source of data with which to direct their advertising spend.
GDI brings lies and “fake news” to the attention of sponsors, in hopes that sponsors will pull advertising from disinformation sites. Some folks don’t like other folks trying to counter disinformation on social media. Those who oppose GDI’s efforts are making IRC 6104 requests for copies of the organizations tax filings. Marcus Owens invoked the “harassment campaign exception” on behalf of CDI, according to the Washington Examiner. Owens dotted and crossed everything, notifying all parties — the IRS and the Examiner — by letter, presumably asking the IRS to rule on the assertion of an exception based on a harassment campaign.
I’d sure like to see how the harassment is described in Marcus’ letter telling them to kick rocks. The Examiner apparently has it but it hasn’t published it. Send me a copy if you are allowed. Anyway, the Examiner accuses Owens of relying on an “obscure” provision of law to justify GDI providing only redacted copies of its 990, omitting the names of Directors and other principals for fear that those opposed to GDI will use the information to dox GDI directors and officers. In fact, I’d give good odds that Marcus is being doxed right now, his name is mud all over the right wing crazy media for this. But the regs don’t say anything about redacted copies, Marcus must surely know all this. The Service explains the harassment exception in this document that Marcus no doubt wrote or edited probably, one Saturday afternoon while watching the team formerly known as the ‘Skins.
Some of the experts interviewed by the Washington Examiner expressed surprise that the harassment campaign exception would be used to justify redactions. I find it surprising too, but it seems a good move strategically. Marcus ain’t playing checkers here. This is Bishop to f3, right here. GDI released all the information, except that which it asserts is requested as part of a harassment campaign. Kinda makes GDI seem like the reasonable party. “Here is an accounting of our money, here is how we spend it. What difference does it make how many kids we have and what schools our kids go to?” GDI has a legitimate concern.
Check, maybe, but not checkmate. Being reasonable and legitimate ain’t got nothing to do with it, I’m afraid. The Examiner is gonna argue that the harassment exception allows for non-disclosure only in response to requests that constitute harassment in and of themselves. And I am talking about plural requests intentionally. I didn’t write or approve the regs, Marcus did. And the examples in 301.6104(d)-3 all involve multiple requests from the same people, or people acting in coordination. None of them identify harassment accomplished by means other than by making of multiple requests. I haven’t done any deep research I am just giving my impression from the regulations themselves.
But on the other hand, 6104(d)(4) only requires that requests be “part of a harassment campaign” and maybe even a single request can be part of a harassment campaign. So I would not have qualms about invoking the exception for the reasons asserted by GDI and asking for a ruling. The argument passes the straight face test, I mean. The worst that could happen is that the Service withhold the necessary finding and GDI releases unredacted 990s. And one more thing. The Washington Examiner is a newspaper and there is Example 4 in 301.6104(d)-3(f), indicating that what feels like harassment is just part of news reporting, and therefore the exception will not normally apply to news media requests. I bet Marcus threw that example in himself, trying to be true to the Constitution according to his oath and unlike R. DeSantis. Still the Service should rule for the Examiner.
Marcus deserves an “attaboy” for effort, though. Not just for representing GDI skillfully but for writing reasonable regulations that are, alas, gonna kill his case. Attaboy Marcus! Lose the battle, win the war.
darryll jones