Wikipedia describes Anthony Watts as “a climate change denial blogger” who “opposes the scientific consensus on climate change.” The Daily Kos published an article about Watts, “Heartland Fundraising For Tony Watts’ $2,000 Thermometers To Compete With Global Temp Network,” that was uploaded by a third-party “contributor,” “ClimateDenierRoundup.” The article contains the following line with links:
Are the $2,000 stations going to be purchased from Anthony Watts’ side hustle running a weather monitoring parts store registered to a $795,000 home purchased last year in Nevada?
The “$795,000 home” link takes readers to a Zillow entry for a house in Sparks, Nevada that presumably is Watts’, and the “Nevada” link takes readers to a Google street view of the home. Nothing in the post expressly said that the home was Watts’, nor did the post itself disclose the address (it just linked to third-party websites displaying the address).
Note: it is trivially easy to find websites linking Watts to the Sparks home address because, at minimum, it appears he used that address for official filings for his Open Atmospherics Society project. See, e.g., Guidestar, GoFundMe, CharityNavigator (maybe these services are Watts’ next defendants?). In other words, Watts appears to have repeatedly self-doxxed. I wonder if Watts has considered getting a PO Box?
This incident brought to mind how Musk called the tracking of his private jet’s movements (which are public records) “assassination coordinates.” (Musk went on a censorship binge to control this information). Watts is essentially making the same argument, i.e., linking to his home address (which he apparently freely disclosed in public filings) provides assassination coordinates to his enemies.
Despite the lack of any secrets here, Watts brought a lawsuit under Nevada’s sui generis anti-doxxing law (NRS 41.1347), claiming that “due to his status as a well-known climate pundit, the release of his address on the internet increased his risk of death or bodily injury by climate activists.” This lawsuit is obviously meritless in multiple ways. Among other deficiencies, it doesn’t satisfy the prima facie elements (e.g., the statute requires scienter towards death/bodily injury, not just an elevated risk) and conflicts with Section 230 and the First Amendment.
[The Section 230 analysis: Watts is trying to hold the Daily Kos liable for publishing a third-party article that links to third-party websites that disclose the allegedly tortious information. There are two layers of third-party content, which should easily insulate Daily Kos.]
The Daily Kos sought to dismiss the lawsuit on a statutory exclusion in the sui generis law, NRS 41.1347(6), which excuses “any interactive computer service for any content provided by another person.” This exclusion seems designed to avoid Section 230 preemption of the law. I can’t tell if the Daily Kos sought relief under both Section 230 and the sui generis exclusion or just the latter. The district court dismissed Daily Kos based on the sui generis exclusion.
On appeal, things go sideways. The appeals court credits Watts’ allegation that “‘an individual associated with or employed by KOS Media LLC, and not a third party posted the content’ alongside several other references noting that KOS ‘created’ or ‘supplied’ the content that disseminated his personal identifying information.” The appeals court reverses the dismissal based on the sui generis exception and sends the case back to the district court for more proceedings. Thus, the ruling hasn’t reached Section 230 yet, though the court is addressing the exact same issues raised by Section 230. I think the remand only delays the inevitable dismissal.
It’s a frustrating ruling, because the appeals court credulously accepts factually unsupported allegations from the complaint. Every plaintiff can easily claim without evidence that third-party content was really authored by the publisher-defendant and thereby defeat motions to dismiss, but courts don’t have to accept that allegation on its face if it lacks any support. We saw the Seventh Circuit make a very similar mistake in Huon v. Denton, a Section 230 case. The Daily Kos should be able to expose the inadequate evidence on summary judgment, but that outcome will come at a higher cost to both parties.
This case also stood out to me because Watts appears to be using Nevada’s sui generis anti-doxxing statute as a weapon against content he considers to be critical. I see this as a microcosm of how Team MAGA is frantically embracing any laws that can give them control over third-party publications and/or can be used to drain their adversaries’ budgets.
The misuse of anti-doxxing statutes is hardly surprising to free speech advocates, who for years have been highlighting this risk. A vague “privacy” law restricting the publication of truthful speech enables plaintiffs to impose significant defense costs on publishers, which chills constitutionally protected speech and enables strategic litigation misbehavior.
And for what benefit? Watts’ lawsuit bears little resemblance to the paradigmatic scenarios for anti-doxxing statutes. Instead, it demonstrates how a putatively “well-intentioned” (at least in the minds of the advocates) but broadly drafted privacy law can be easily misused. A sarcastic “thanks” to all of those who contributed to the passage of anti-doxxing laws for disregarding the free speech warnings and helping to consolidate power in the hands of people hoping to avoid accountability. Protip: if you advocate for a new private right of action and haven’t publicly acknowledged the worst possible ways the law could be misused, U R doing it wrong.
Case Citation: Watts v. The Daily Kos, 2025 WL 855280 (Nev. Ct. App. March 18, 2025)
