Someone Trying to Vanish My Post About a No-Pseudonymity Decision

Read the original at Reason ↗
Cite

Volokh, E. (2026, September 22). Someone Trying to Vanish My Post About a No-Pseudonymity Decision. Reason. https://reason.com/volokh/2026/09/22/someone-trying-to-vanish-my-post-about-a-no-pseudonymity-decision/

Dated when The Aporia collected the article, usually within hours of publication. Check the original for its exact date and byline.

Reason · collected 2026-09-22 · by Eugene Volokh
Content note This article describes sexual violence.

Quick Summary

A lawyer for a defendant in a dismissed sexual assault case has demanded that Reason remove an article about Judge Jeannette Vargas's decision to deny pseudonymity for the defendant. The demand, sent on July 22, argues that since the allegations are now sealed by court order and the case has been dismissed with prejudice, continuing to publish these details causes ongoing harm to the defendant. Despite this request, Reason has not removed the article as of yet.
Written by AI on 2026-09-22, from this article's own text only (the story summary below draws on all the coverage).

AI analysis

Story summary

In December, Eugene Volokh posted about a New York City court decision by Judge Jeannette Vargas (S.D.N.Y.) in Finley v. Przybylowski, involving two attorneys who met as summer associates at different law firms seven years ago. The plaintiff accused the defendant of violent rape and sexual assault, while he claimed they engaged in consensual activity. The defendant faced termination from his job at a top law firm due to these allegations and feared further damage to his career prospects and physical safety if his name was associated with the lawsuit. He requested to proceed under a pseudonym but was denied by the court, which stated that economic and reputational harms he has already faced or may face are not enough justification for anonymity. Recently, Volokh reported someone trying to remove or modify his original post, likely related to ongoing legal disputes over the case's publication and dissemination.

Written for “Social Media Pseudonymity Controversy” on 2026-11-02, grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.

Story

📰 Social Media Pseudonymity Controversy
Technology · 1 article(s) covering the same event.

Compared with similar articles

This article reads unscored and hedges 15% of its claims. Each row says how that neighbour differs.
Reason
Hedges 9 of 77 claims Outlet record 67/100
“The articles describe different legal cases involving privacy and disclosure of personal information, but they are not reporting on the same specific incident.”
How this article was measured signals, leaning charts, publisher record, byline, topics and claims

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
33
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
15%
5 of 33 hedged ("reportedly", "may", "according to")
Leaning
not political
takes no side on a contested political question
Publisher signals
67/100
Reason's corrections and hedging, across everything collected from it. Not a measure of accuracy.
Outlets on this story
1
Technology
Same framing elsewhere
1
articles that frame the event the way this one does
Analyzed 2026-09-22 · how these are computed

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Publisher

Reason · 1053 article(s) · 4 correction(s) detected
Running correction rate · 4 correction(s)

Who wrote this

Eugene Volokh
183 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 Some excerpts from the long First Superseding Indictment in U.S. v. Hakim (E.D. Mich.), filed Oct. 21, alleging conspiracy to transmit threats in interstate commerce as well as, for two defendants, witness intimidation and destruction of property to prevent seizure (8 of the 12 defendants had originally been indicted in May); the targets included UM officials and businesses connected with them, as well as the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Detroit:
🔮 Because "[t]he costs and efforts required to defend a lawsuit through [discovery] could chill free speech nearly as effectively as the absence of the actual malice standard altogether[,]" a public figure plaintiff must plausibly allege actual malice at the outset of the litigation.
🔮 The First Amendment forbids a State from using its investigative power that way, and I will not allow it while this case is pending.
🔮 The same logic could apply to nuns who had felt religious pressure to do the educational or nursing work that their order was known for, or to monks who had felt religious pressure to do agricultural work that supports the monastery.
2026-10-30 · assertive framing · Amicus Brief in OneTaste Criminal Prosecution
🔮 Before doing so, "he entered the coffee shop to purchase a cookie, which he hoped would be seen as a sign of goodwill."
🔮 While individuals who are the subjects of unwanted speech may be able to limit some speech directed to them, they cannot limit offensive speech about them directed to others.
🔮 Because "the conduct regulated depend[ed] on—and [could not] be separated from—the ideas communicated," Florida's law was "functionally a regulation of speech" implicating the First Amendment.
🔮 You might assume that some judge is "woke" or "Trumpy" or what have you, but there's a pretty good chance that the judge's legal analysis is still correct.
🔮 The hope would be to siphon votes away from Sullivan.
🔮 Alas, like other formerly unique human skills, I expect this one too will fall victim to competition from AI.
Also by Eugene Volokh
Open Thread
2026-11-01 · Reason
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.
All 183 articles by Eugene Volokh →

Topics

Article Court New York City Reason S.D.N.Y.

Subjects

Court ORG · 4× Przybylowski PERSON · 2× Finley PERSON · 1× Florida Star ORG · 1× Jeannette Vargas PERSON · 1× New York City GPE · 1× Reason ORG · 1× S.D.N.Y. GPE · 1× the District Court ORG · 1× the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ORG · 1×

Narrative

While our client hopes this matter can be resolved promptly and amicably, he is prepared to pursue all available legal remedies to mitigate and remedy the harm caused by the continued publication and dissemination of these allegations, including seeking appropriate injunctive relief and recovery of all damages and other relief available under applicable law.
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-09-22
🔮 Defendant claims that he and Plaintiff engaged in consensual sexual activity in May 2018.
2026-09-22 · Reason
Someone Trying to Vanish My Post About a No-Pseudonymity Decision · assertive framing

Claims (33 extracted, 5 hedged)

In December, I posted an item about a decision by Judge Jeannette Vargas (S.D.N.Y.) in Finley v. Przybylowski: asserted
I → post → Przybylowski
Plaintiff and Defendant are attorneys who met seven years ago as summer associates at different prominent law firms in New York City…. asserted
who → meet → City
[Plaintiff] alleges that Defendant violently raped and sexually assaulted her on the night they met, causing her physical, professional, and psychological damage. asserted
they → allege → damage
Defendant denies all allegations of nonconsensual conduct…. asserted
Defendant → deny → conduct
Defendant claims that he and Plaintiff engaged in consensual sexual activity in May 2018. uncertain
he → claim → May
Defendant attests that he was "terminated from [his] employment with a top law firm on October 13, 2025 as a result of the Plaintiff's Complaint and false allegations," and that he fears that it would be "nearly impossible" to obtain employment with his name attached to this lawsuit, He also claims to fear that his physical safety could be placed at risk…. uncertain
safety → attest → risk
Defendant sought to proceed under a pseudonym, but the court said no: asserted
court → seek → pseudonym
[T]he economic and reputational harms that Defendant has faced and may face as a party to this action, substantial though they may be, are outweighed by the public interest in access to judicial proceedings…. uncertain
they → face → proceedings
I excerpted more of the opinion, which you can read here. asserted
you → excerpt → which
Naturally, one can agree or disagree with the court's decision to deny pseudonymity, but in any event, my post passed along that decision. asserted
post → agree → decision
[2.] Then, on July 22, Przybylowski's lawyer (a partner at a small but prominent law firm) sent a letter to Reason, with a "demand" that the post be removed: asserted
post → send → demand
Following publication of the Article, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the underlying action with prejudice. asserted
Court → follow → prejudice
In light of the sensitive nature of the allegations, the Court also ordered that the filings containing those allegations be sealed. asserted
filings → order → allegations
A copy of the Court's order is enclosed as Exhibit B. Because the allegations referenced in the Article have been dismissed with prejudice and the underlying filings have been sealed by the Court asserted
filings → enclose → Court
Nevertheless, the Article continues to republish and disseminate those allegations, causing ongoing harm to our client. asserted
Article → continue → client
IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, DEMAND IS HEREBY MADE that you remove the Article and all statements referencing the dismissed and sealed allegations in their entirety no later than July 27, 2026. asserted
you → make → July
While our client hopes this matter can be resolved promptly and amicably, he is prepared to pursue all available legal remedies to mitigate and remedy the harm caused by the continued publication and dissemination of these allegations, including seeking appropriate injunctive relief and recovery of all damages and other relief available under applicable law. asserted
he → hop → law
But while the District Court did order (incorrectly, I think) the sealing of some of the court filings, it expressly refused to seal its orders and opinions, including the opinion that I was quoting: asserted
I → order → that
[T]he motion to seal the docket in its entirety would have the Court shield from public view decisions already rendered by this Court, which are at the core of the performance of the judicial function. asserted
which → seal → function
The parties' privacy interests are insufficient to justify the sealing of judicial orders and opinions. asserted
interests → justify → orders
I therefore promptly and amicably declined to go along with counsel's demand. asserted
I → decline → demand
Even if the opinion had been retroactively sealed, I believe I would have been within my rights to keep up my post quoting the opinion, under cases such as Florida Star v. B.J.F. (1989). asserted
I → seal → B.J.F.
But given that the opinion wasn't sealed—again, the court expressly declined to seal it—it's hard to see how I could be subjected to an injunction or damages by keeping up a post that was reporting on its contents. uncertain
that → give → contents
(Note that the judge had struck from the docket one opinion that she had released on April 15, because she had learned the same day that the parties had "agreed to a settlement in principle" the day before; but that is not the opinion that I was quoting.) asserted
I → note → that
And indeed no "legal remedies" have been sought against me since my refusal. asserted
remedies → seek → refusal
[3.] But someone (I don't know who) has sought to do something else about my post since that refusal: A few days ago, the Lumen Database reported that Google had received a request that it "deindex" various web pages, which is to say remove them from its search results. asserted
which → know → results
Those pages include my post about the case, a Bloomberg Law article about the case, and several pages that archived opinions about the case or dockets for the case: asserted
that → include → case
] There is of course no legal basis mandating the removal of these materials, nor do I see any justification in Google policies for its deindexing those sites voluntarily (as it is generally free to do). asserted
it → be → sites
And to my knowledge, the attempt to vanish those sites has failed: I don't think Google has indeed deindexed them. asserted
Google → vanish → them
Again, the Lumen entry does not indicate who submitted the deindexing request. asserted
who → indicate → request
Still, someone did submit it, and it strikes me as a helpful illustration of how people, whoever they may be, try—even if often without success—to get matters (even matters of public record) hidden from online viewers. uncertain
matters → submit → viewers
I e-mailed Przybylowski's lawyer (see item 2 above) Thursday night and again Sunday to ask whether he, his colleagues, or his client had a statement on the matter. asserted
he → e → matter
I have not heard back from them; if I do hear something, I'll update the post accordingly. asserted
I → hear → post
💬Give feedback
🕘History 🎫Support