TL;DR: ZivZo filed a “supplement” asking a federal judge to force takedowns, pre-approve any future posts I write about them, and strip a criticism domain. That’s textbook prior restraint. My response explains why the Constitution doesn’t allow it, why their new spin doesn’t fix anything, and why their claims still fail on the facts and the law.

What They’re Asking the Court to Do

• Erase an entire article (and “related links”).
• Ban any future posts about them unless a judge pre-approves my speech.
• “Disgorge” a domain name (a criticism site not for sale).
• They also toss in a new angle about “personal-name cyberpiracy” (15 U.S.C. § 8131) that wasn’t pled in their complaint and still doesn’t fit the facts.

What I Told the Court (Plain English)

1. Prior restraint isn’t allowed. You can’t get a speech ban first and argue about truth later. Their relief—takedown, pre-clearance of speech, and grabbing a domain—is the paradigm of prior restraint, which the Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit have repeatedly rejected.
2. They still can’t show likely success. My article and related posts are opinions and analysis with disclosed sources—protected speech. They still identify no specific false statement proved by evidence; indeed, I kept asking them what, specifically, was false.
3. Their “extortion” story is just settlement talk. They’re trying to recast ordinary settlement dialogue (“dismiss the case,” “reimburse costs,” “apologize”) as extortion. But the record shows back-and-forth negotiations—including their own takedown/non-disparagement ask—which Rule 408 bars them from using to prove liability.
4. The domain-name pivot fails. Their complaint pled the ACPA (15 U.S.C. §1125(d)), not §8131. The site is clearly a criticism/gripe site, not a for-sale diversion. Section 8131 requires a specific intent to profit by selling the domain—which they don’t allege and the record doesn’t support.
5. No “emergency,” no irreparable harm. They waited months after my April 22 post to seek a TRO and now admit the Nautical Bowls disputes are settled, undercutting any claim of urgent harm. Delay plus available damages equals no TRO.
6. Their proposed order still violates Rule 65. It’s breathtakingly broad (“remove from any Internet platform,” prior permission for “any subsequent Internet postings,” “disgorge” a domain) and doesn’t reasonably describe what’s restrained, which Rule 65 forbids.

The Record Matters

• The April 22 article is in the record; it discloses sources, evaluates ZivZo’s marketing claims and Mr. Fischer’s litigation history, and ends with risk-based opinions—protected opinion with disclosed bases.
• The LinkedIn exchanges they submitted show Mr. Fischer demanding removals and me asking what, exactly, is false. That’s not coercion; it’s protected expression.

Why This Should Matter to Everyone

If a business can get a court to pre-approve your opinions before you publish—or yank down lawful criticism wholesale—we don’t have a First Amendment worth the paper it’s printed on. Public-interest commentary about marketing claims, litigation history, and due-diligence risks is precisely the kind of speech courts protect, and for good reason.

Full Filing

For readers who want the details, here’s my full filing: “Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ ‘Supplement to Petition for Temporary Restraining Order’.” (PDF)

Related Posts (context + timeline)

• Benson Fischer Files Peace Order — After Repeatedly Contacting Me – served Oct 13; hearing Oct 15.
• Documenting Fischer’s Continued Harassment: Another Email After Repeated Cease Requests
• Peace Order Dismissed — Another Lawfare Loss for Benson Fisher & Richard Schimel
• Lawfare Gone Wrong: How Benson Fisher & Richard Schimel’s Attempts to Silence Critics Keep Failing

Closing

I will not engage with Mr. Fischer or his counsel outside of court filings and will continue to document what happens. I will update this page after the hearing.

— Dennis Yu