Two weeks ago we published a blog about a financial advisor from Connecticut who worked for the New Canaan Group named Joseph Milici, after he harassed and demeaned a woman he met on a dating app because she changed his mind about having sex with him. He later vowed to sue Turtleboy, telling me that he would pay lawyers “anything it takes” if I did not remove the initial blog about him. He also called me a homophobic slur during Pride month.
I immediately contacted First Amendment Attorney Marc Randazza, since il Douchie Gucci sounded very serious and was so determined to take me down in court. Here’s our response:2022.06.28 Letter to Milici re Turtleboy
This law firm has the privilege and honor of representing the First Amendment rights of the Turtleboy website and its principal, Aidan Kearney. I write to you today to educate you on his rights, and to try to dissuade you from taking any further action. What you do is up to you, but I do not believe that legal action would be to your advantage.
You threatened my client that you would spend “any amount necessary” on lawyers to “take him down.” You are free to spend your money any way that you like, but I believe that your money would be better spent. In fact, I think the more you spent on your desire to “take him down,” the more you would simply injure your own interests.
We note on your profile you quote Wayne Gretzky, when he said “you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.” That may be true. However, sometimes when you take a shot, the puck can bounce off something and smack you right in the face. In that circumstance, you not only missed the shot, but your nose is busted, all because of your own foolishness.
Taking any legal action against my client would be the equivalent of you taking the shot, the puck bouncing back into your face, then you smashing your own head on the glass.
The facts, as I understand them
You met a woman on a dating app. We will call her Jane Doe. At some point, Ms. Doe lost interest. You then got angry at her for (as you put it) “chickening out” from an invitation to have sex with you.
This appears to have perturbed you and angered you in some way. During your conversation with her, you continued by informing her that in your opinion her “tits are not even that nice, I thought they were bigger.” You also informed her that if you had sex with her, “[She] would be the ugliest girl ever fucked.” You also told her that you wanted her to “come over midday so I could kick you out and go out at night.” You then informed her that you believed she was a “tub of lard” and a “fat dumb bitch” and then added to that “who prob makes 50k a year at most.”
The woman reached out to Mr. Kearney to show him the conversation, which he then reproduced on his blog. The conversation, in its apparent entirety, is published on the Turtleboy blog.
This made you angry, and you have threatened legal action against him because he wrote about the encounter.
Mr. Kearney is unlikely to be voted “most socially conscious” or “male feminist ally of the year” this year or next year. Who knows? Maybe in 2024 he has a shot. Nevertheless, your approach to this unnamed woman seems to have managed to offend even his sensibilities. Mr. Kearney wrote a blog post discussing your misogyny and your apparent lack of ability to understand boundaries.
Boundaries mean that a woman has every right to express a desire for sex with you, and then change her mind. Not only is that her right, but even if it wasn’t her right, it is a lot more fun to have sex with a willing partner, not one who you convince that she is obliged to put out for you because she may have indicated a theoretical willingness at one point. Expressing a possible desire to have sex with you does not create a contractual obligation nor a moral obligation, to actually copulate with you. Because you seem to misunderstand boundaries, let me offer you some free advice – even if you’re right at the point of penetration, she gets to “chicken out” as you put it. Hell, even if you started having sex, and she changed her mind mid-coitus, she has the right to do that. Your only option is to then respect her decision. Full stop, bro.
Another boundary here is the boundary created by the First Amendment. Mr. Kearney has every right to speak to this woman, listen to her story, and then share her story with his readers. I can empathize with you feeling embarrassed that this story became public. Maybe you’re not a sorta rapey vibe amazing douchebag. Maybe you had a momentary lapse of judgment. Maybe this doesn’t represent the real you – and now this article (or series of articles) portrays you in a way that you’d rather not see.
Well then, the first step in getting out of a hole is to stop digging.
If you were to take any legal action against my client, I fail to see how that legal action would be successful. What it would do is put you in a position of bringing him to court and praying that the judge was not a woman, or was not a man with a daughter, sister, or mother.
In the event you managed to find a judge who was not so appalled by your actions, you would likely not find one that was so poorly versed in First Amendment law that they took the position that you have any more legal right to suppress this publication than you have to try and enforce her momentary gratuitous expression of desire.
This is one shot you should not take. Should you decide you want to take the shot anyway, you will not need to serve your complaint. My client has authorized me to accept service of any further communications or formal legal process pertaining to this matter.
My client has also authorized me to extend an invitation to you to appear on his show, to explain your actions. You are under no obligation to do so, but if you did, and expressed some contrition to this woman, I imagine that he would treat you fairly. But, that’s your right to do so or decline.
I sincerely hope that this is a learning experience for you. If not, we will be pleased to give you a very expensive education in order to defend Mr. Kearney and/or Jane Doe, should you make that necessary.
We attempted to email our letter to Mr. Milici but his work email address is no longer active, nor is he listed on the New Canaan Group’s website.
It appears as if il Douchie Gucci has dug his own plot in the Turlteboy graveyard. It remains to be seen if the threats of legal action on his end come to fruition, but we are prepared to defend the First Amendment in court as we always are.
Look folks, it’s simple – if you ever end up on a Turtleboy blog this is the exact opposite of what you should do. People make mistakes and sometimes the behavior that ends up getting a person on a blog isn’t reflective of who they really are. I’m empathetic and have been known to take down blogs if the blog subject appears to be a decent person who genuinely regrets their behavior.
But most of the time people end up on Turtleboy for a reason. Their behavior is part of a self-destructive pattern that routinely harms innocent people. People like Joe Milici are incapable of any sort of humility because they’ve never been held accountable for their behavior. They’re too cocky, and they’ve gotten away with treating other people like garbage for too long.
Then Turtleboy comes along and puts them in their place, and the first thing they do is try to censor us. Sorry dude, but you got the wrong guy if you think those those kind of threats will get you desired result that you think they will.
Don’t. Poke. The. Turtle.