Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson and Others (Page 5)

Introduction (as it appears on Page #1)

Legal counsel advised us to create these pages, which document Nicole Prause’s extensive campaign targeting those who point out possible harms of porn use or issues in the porn industry. “Sunshine” protects the community Prause harasses by preserving facts and permitting visitors and journalists to understand the truth for themselves. Indeed, these pages have already been cited in a defamation case against Prause:

“An extremely detailed and well documented history of Defendant’s with accounts from dozens of her victims/targets dating from 2013 to present, which spans over two thousand pages of documents and evidence, is available at https://bit.ly/32KOa3q.”

Nicole Prause has engaged in a veritable avalanche of false claims, defamation, malicious reporting, targeted harassment, baseless lawsuits, and threats of lawsuits. These pages document many of her smear tactics, although some incidents are not included because the targets fear further retaliation by her (Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5, Page 6).

I (Gary Wilson) am perhaps her favorite target, but she has also targeted researchers, medical doctors, therapists, psychologists, colleagues from her short stint at UCLA, a UK charity, men in recovery, a TIME magazine editor, several professors, IITAP, SASH, Fight The New Drug, TraffickingHub, Exodus Cry, the academic journal Behavioral Sciences, its parent company MDPI, US Navy medical doctors, the head of the academic journal CUREUS, and the journal Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity. These incidents are labeled “OTHERS.” The incidences documented are arranged roughly in chronological order.

With respect to me, early on she falsely claimed that I was the subject of a “no contact” order. She first falsely accused me of stalking in 2013 when she and David Ley began targeting my website with their PT blog post, “Your Brain on Porn – It’s NOT Addictive.” When I challenged some of their false claims, Prause tried to intimidate me to remove my response by accusing me of stalking.

Since then, she has routinely weaponized this accusation against multiple people, embellished with false accusations of “death threats,” apparently to suppress exposure of her bias and malicious activity. In other words, her narrative of victimhood has escalated over the years as has her harassment.

In late 2020, she suddenly began claiming that she had been sexually assaulted in 2019, and that I was mysteriously responsible. She falsely claims that I posted her address on YBOP and that it led to her being grabbed on the street by a young man with a skateboard. She has not provided any objective evidence of either my having posted her physical address or her having been grabbed.

The irony is that Prause didn’t mind disclosing her actual home address to me when she filed bankruptcy to avoid paying me some ~$40K in attorney fees after the SLAPP ruling the court awarded me (see “Legal matters” below). She was confident that I would never reveal it (and I have no interest in doing so) – which shows just how absurd are her claims that I want to put her at risk. Incidentally, in her bankruptcy filing she swore that she has lived at that same address for more than 3 years. Yet she has simultaneously repeatedly claimed (lied) that she has moved multiple times to elude her (nonexistent) stalkers. Anything to feed the myth of her fabricated persecution!

Just to clarify, I have never encouraged anyone to harass Prause. Nor have I seen any evidence that anyone I know has harassed her or placed her at risk. She has a habit of supplying fabricated “evidence” that does not, in fact, establish her claims. For example, she treats her false reports to law enforcement, her C&D letters accusing people of things they haven’t done, her irrelevant screenshots, and her confederates’ unsworn statements as proof, although none supply fact-based evidence to support her claims.

It’s worth noting that Canadian investigative journalist Diana Davison who authored The Post Millennial expose’ on Prause, talked with her on the record for almost a week. In public comments under a related video Davison commented, “Prause said many things to me but none of her “evidence” actually supported her claims. In every instance the evidence reversed who the aggressor was. She basically accuses others of the exact things she herself did. I emailed with her, on the record, for almost a week.” In a second comment Davison said, “When I said I spent two weeks researching this that means I read every court document and every related document and spent a week emailing with Prause herself who cut me off after I started asking for actual evidence of harassment.” Prause responded by threatening to sue both Davison and The Post Millennial, although she did not follow through.

Legal matters

Although Prause and her confederates work hard to paint her as the victim, she is, in fact, the aggressor, both on social media and in legal matters. In court, this hasn’t worked out well for her. This page documents various legal victories over Prause, two of which involved me. I’ll summarize them.

In early 2020, Prause tried to bolster her self-constructed victimhood campaign by filing a baseless restraining order request against me. In her lie-filled filings, Prause went so far as to defame and dox my son. The court denied her request in August, 2020. The judge also granted my SLAPP (“Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation”) motion. This means he decided that Prause’s frivolous legal proceeding was an illicit attempt to suppress my free speech rights.

In short, her claims of victimhood could not be proved. In fact, at the hearing most of her evidence was tossed out as “hearsay,” “conclusory,” “irrelevant” and so forth. One week prior to the hearing, Prause went on Twitter to announce falsely that she had a “protective order” against me, inciting her enraged followers to harass me. Shortly before the hearing, her own attorney tried to resign because she had threatened him with legal action when he wouldn’t engage in unethical conduct. Press release

Next, she filed a defamation suit against me in Oregon. In January, 2021, the court found Prause had not made her case, and awarded me costs and a penalty (which Prause has refused to pay). Press release.

Incidentally, Prause has not paid either of the judgments I won. Instead, she has chosen a public campaign of defaming and threatening me – as if I am the wrongdoer instead of herself. She has also publicly denied that she lost either of the above legal proceedings. Astonishing.

As an aside, in early 2019 Prause filed a false declaration with the US Trademark authorities when she applied to grab my common law trademarks, claiming that she knew of no one who had the right to use my URL and trademarks. By this scheme, she sought to gain exclusive legal rights to my well established URL. This was a transparent effort to censor my entire site. Details. Clearly, it’s absurd to portray Prause as a victim, given a malicious campaign like this one.

After many hours of attorney time, I received my formal trademark registrations as well as the associated infringing URL, RealYourBrainOnPorn.com. The associated Twitter account @BrainOnPorn meanwhile conducted a reign of terror for 18 months. @BrainOnPorn exercised its supposed “collective” voice to tweet more than 1,000 defamatory and malicious statements (up to 170 tweets a day!) about anyone with whom Prause disagreed. Prause has denied involvement, but simple observation, correspondence from RealYBOP’s personnel, WIPO’s report, and considerable evidence point to her management of RealYBOP’s social media accounts and URL (evidence here).

Three separate parties have filed defamation suits against Prause over her untruthful, life-wrecking campaigns: Donald L. Hilton, Jr. v. Nicole Prause, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Texas San Antonio Division, Case No. 5: 19-CV-00755-OLG; Alexander Rhodes v. Nicole Prause, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:19-cv-01366, and Aaron M. Minc, Esq v. Melissa A. Farmer and Nicole R. Prause, Case No: CV-20-937026 in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. (It appears that Farmer has agreed to a settlement, which will leave Prause as the sole defendant. No doubt the settlement involved a payout from Farmer’s insurance company. In an affidavit dated April 8, 2021, Farmer admitted her wrongdoing in retweeting Prause’s lies [PDF of retraction]. Prause has stated that her own insurance company has declined to cover her for Minc’s suit against her, so she may be left directly responsible for any financial repercussions in that suit too. She still owes Wilson with respect to his victory against her.)

The first 2 cases settled in early 2021. Although the terms were not disclosed, it’s reasonable to speculate that the settlements were made possible by substantial payments from Prause’s insurance carrier (court documents reveal that funds were transferred to plaintiffs). The third and most recent defamation lawsuit suit is ongoing in Ohio. In that case, a colleague of Prause who republished Prause’s defamatory tweets is a co-defendant and now sadly exposed to liability for blindly joining in the rampage.

It’s worth noting that Prause herself has a growing record as a vexatious litigant. In the last year or so, she has filed more than half a dozen small claims suits, and, before that, some 40 malicious reports against dozens of people and organizations (yet, Prause has never prevailed in any lawsuit and all her fraudulent reports were dismissed). Prause has a long, well established history of trying to silence and disparage anyone she disagrees with by fabricating claims of her victimhood.

Multiple social media suspensions

In October, 2015 Prause’s original Twitter account @NicolePrause was permanently suspended for misconduct.

In March, 2018, Prause’s Quora account was banned for posting and misrepresenting, personal information.

In October, 2020 the @BrainOnPorn Twitter account, which Prause appears to have managed, was permanently suspended for targeted harassment and abuse.

In March, 2021, her second personal Twitter account, @NicoleRPrause was temporarily suspended for making “violent threats.”

I suspect that Prause was behind two more extinct Twitter accounts: @CorrectingWils1 and her first porn industry shill account @PornHelps.

Media outlets and others have been harmed by Prause’s lies

UK media outlet Scram News went out of business after it had to pay substantial damages because it had printed Prause’s defamatory lies. I’ve heard that VICE was subjected to a similar libel claim and had to remove false information provided to it by Prause, incurring substantial legal costs. I know first-hand that MEL magazine proposed a series of stories about her purported victim-hood. Yet, after further investigation, MEL declined to print Prause’s lies – and the magazine soon suspended publication entirely. Faced with legal action, The Daily Beast retracted Prause’s unproven allegations against specific individuals. Lastly, the University of Wisconsin-Lacrosse student newspaper was forced to remove an “investigative” article featuring Dr. Prause’s lies about me (U of W general counsel was involved).

Prause’s cozy relationship with the porn industry

Let’s start with the definition of a “shill”:

A shill…is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization. … Shills may be employed by salespeople and professional marketing campaigns.

Keeping in mind the above definition, consider these many examples. Prause is unswervingly pro-porn, displaying a single mindedness that is remarkable in a scientist, given that scientists usually jealously guard their impartiality.

Three Twitter accounts – her own @NicoleRPrause account as well as the suspended @BrainOnPorn and @PornHelps (the latter 2 of which Prause appeared to manage) – consistently prop, or propped, up the porn industry and attacked its critics.

Prause also appears to have created 50+ Wikipedia sockpuppets (thus far) to bolster the industry’s interests and discredit critics with misleading edits, along with dozens of other aliases she uses to post on porn recovery forums.

Only a few years ago, Prause was promoting her connections with the porn industry, including serving on the board of a porn actors’ guild (APAG) and photos of her attendance at porn industry-insider events. Now, she’s trying to intimidate others not to mention any of those inconvenient facts because she has decided they harm her image.

In short, it’s not clear why any journalist (who is not shilling for the porn industry) would regard Prause as a credible source. Journalists have an obligation to readers to respect the conclusions of judges and other legal outcomes, and not to leave readers with the mistaken impression that the truth about Prause’s accusations is up for grabs or that her defamatory claims have validity. Having lost in the courts, she often attempts to rewrite history in the press and on Wikipedia with the help of biased editors.

It can be difficult for those she recruits to sift fact from fiction because her assertions are so “juicy” and her fabricated “evidence” so abundant. However, as my results in court demonstrate, I have gathered a lot of documentation and can refute her claims, if asked.

Not everyone who claims to be a victim is a victim. Some are simply engaged in attempts to manipulate their public image or to discredit and “no platform” (silence) anyone with whom they disagree. Think Trump. Journalists will want to reflect carefully before giving Prause a platform to amplify her fabrications and defamation.

Full Table of Contents (all 5 pages)

Prause Page #1

Prause Page #2

Prause Page #3

Prause Page #4

Prause Page #5

Prause Page #6

October 13, 2020: Obsessive cyberstalker @BrainOnPorn (Prause) escalates to 170 tweets per day targeting “anti-porn” groups, including 70 tweets in 20 minutes attacking NoFap.

Yes, you read that right: 170 tweets in one day, including an amazing 70 tweets targeting Nofap, in a 20-minute blitz. The rampage occurred while Prause was being sued by Alex Rhodes of Nofap. Can you imagine how many hours Prause spent on Nofap searching for random, out-of-context comments she could string together and target with her 70 tweets?

Continues

More.

More:

Continues:

Just can’t stop.

Keeps on going.

Keeps on tweeting:

She continues:

Next she tags all her buddies, like VICE‘s Samantha Cole and XBIZ’s Gustavo Turner.

This is really disturbing. Prause lies about events occurring when Alex Rhodes was a young teen.

Posts 4 more inane tweets under Staci Sprout:

Two more 2 nutty tweets by the nutter:

Finally.

That’s not all, as she posted another 50 tweets targeting nofap and Alex Rhodes on October 13, 2020! Eighteen are in the next section.

And Prause is always claiming to be a victim. Have you ever seen a victim act like this?

October 13, 2020: Following over 70 tweets in 20 minutes targeting NoFap, @BrainOnPorn (Prause) posts another 18 tweets urging others to report Alex Rhodes to the Pennsylvania Bureau of Corporations & Charitable Organizations for his fundraising effort

Following her 70-tweet blitz, @BrainOnPorn (Prause) trolled threads that mentioned Nofap or its fundraisers in connection with the defamation suit against Prause, urging all to report Alex Rhodes to the Pennsylvania charity board for fraud. Prause had already maliciously reported Rhodes to the board. However, NoFap is not a charity and Alex’s fundraiser was entirely legitimate.

Tweet #1:

Tweet #2: Alex’s page never said he was filing a suit against the porn industry. She just lies.

Tweet #3:

Tweet #4, also targeting Staci Sprout.

Tweet #5:

Tweet #6, again targeting Sprout.

Tweet #7. It wasn’t a money grab, as all the donations (and more) went to legal fees.

Tweet #8:

Tweet #9. No one was tricked, as Rhodes’s complaint for his defamation suit was available on the fundraising page for everyone to download.

Tweet #10:

Tweet #11. Trolls a 5-year old thread.

Tweet #12. Lies again. Alex did not say “the porn industry,” but rather “those cozy with the porn industry,” which is entirely accurate. See: Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry?

Tweet #13:

Tweet #14:

Tweet #15:

Tweet #16:

Tweet #17. The only person calling Rhodes a con man is Prause, via the porn-industry shill account “Anti-Your Brain On Porn.”

Tweet #18. Baselessly calls Rhodes a known “con man.”

Obsessive cyberstalker.

October 13, 2020: Following ~100 tweets targeting NoFap earlier in the day, @BrainOnPorn (Prause) posts another 30 lie-filled tweets targeting Rhodes and Nofap (resorting to misrepresenting events that occurred when Rhodes was a young teen).

Claims 100 death threats, but provides no evidence. Tags her porn-industry buddy Gustavo Turner and VICE‘s Samantha Cole:

—————–

Her usual handful of what she calls death threats (out of many millions of posts by random nitwits on NoFap). We’ve received countless similar threats – as have most public figures on the internet. Prause is not special in this regard.

——————–

Claims reddit has fake users. The amount of time and effort she puts into cyberstalking is remarkable.

——————–

Not the Tom Cruise fiasco? It was hilarious. Prause is lying that Rhodes was behind the reddit practical joke. See – Reddit Makes Alexander Rhodes More Famous Than Tom Cruise.

Her typical MO: Lie in the tweet and hope no one clicks on the link.

————————–

Trolls a @Nofap thread (she’s blocked by @Nofap) with bizarre tweets about bots.

——————

The rank of posters?

—————-

What? Fake followers?

We doubt the veracity of her claims, but at least Rhodes’s followers are not populated by porn-industry insiders like Prause’s account and her former Twitter smear account, @BrainOnPorn.

More unsupported claims of “fake followers”:

—————–

Trolling NCOSE with her lies. Note how Prause enters threads critical of the porn industry.

—————–

Goes after Rhodes and Staci Sprout. They never said lawsuit was with porn industry. The complaint was available to all, on the fundraiser page.

——————–

Under a priest.

———————-

More fairy tales, under a NCOSE representative.

——————–

Under Staci Sprout (who has blocked @BrainOnPorn):

——————-

Under Lisa Ling of CNN:

Stalker log – September, 2019: In response to a CNN special involving NoFap, RealYBOP Twitter (run by Prause & Burgess) defames and harasses Alex Rhodes of Nofap (about 30 tweets).

————————–

Under Liz Walker, defaming us all:

—————-

Again, under a priest who is going after Pornhub:

The priest lets her have it. She escalates the lies.

————————

Continues her rampage of fiction:

————————

Alex Rhodes was not sued. She just lies.

—————–

Two tweets to end Prause’s 120 tweet, 15-hour rampage against Alex Rhodes and Nofap.

Just the tip of the iceberg – Nicole Prause, David Ley & @BrainOnPorn’s long history of harassing & defaming Alexander Rhodes of NoFap

October 23, 2020: Prause’s porn-industry shill Twitter account (@BrainOnPorn) is permanently banned for targeted harassment and abuse

In April 2019 a new Twitter account appeared. It was called, “Real Your Brain on Porn” and its Twitter handle was “@BrainOnPorn.” Both names violated Gary Wilson’s “Your Brain On Porn” trademarks.

The account claimed to be science-based, but the preponderance of its storm of defamatory and misleading tweets targeted individuals and organizations. It always battered those who dared to document evidence of porn’s harm to users or those porn exploits. And it consistently tweeted support for talking points that favored the sex/porn industry.

While Daniel Burgess was the last known owner of the RealYBOP URL (www.RealYourBrainOnPorn.com), the most credible evidence points towards Nicole Prause creating and operating the RealYBOP website and Twitter account.

After a mind-boggling 18-month reign of terror, the @BrainOnPorn account was finally permanently suspended for violating Twitter’s rules on targeted harassment and publishing its targets’ personal information.

Mindgeek subsidiary PornHub was the very first account to retweet the initial tweet of @BrainOnPorn. That tweet promoted the account’s original press release. This indicates that the account’s launch was coordinated with Mindgeek employees. Here’s the screenshot of PornHub’s ARIA Twitter account tweeting out the new account:

The @BrainOnPorn Twitter account was a key part of a multi-pronged attack, major aspects of which are detailed here.

Meanwhile, the Twitter account continued its relentless smear campaign targeting all who raised awareness of porn’s adverse effects either on users or those exploited in its production (page 1, page 2, page 3).

During its existence the @BrainOnPorn Twitter account tweeted up to 165+ malicious tweets per day. Its output over its tenure was approximately 3,000 total tweets. It’s difficult to describe adequately the vileness of its lies, many of which were so disturbing to its targets that the targets were, in effect, silenced. Relentless, baseless slurs included ‘white supremacist’, ‘racist’, ‘antisemitic’, ‘homophobic,’ ‘physical stalker of women’, ‘sender of rape and death threats’, ‘pseudoscientist’, ‘fraud’, and so forth.

In short, for 18 months the @BrainOnPorn Twitter account was the crown jewel of the hateful censorship tactics of the porn industry and its sexology allies. Far from enhancing scientific and public debate, it curbed both with its dishonest and reprehensible attacks. This type of ad hominem campaign distracts the public from the well-documented risks of porn’s harm to both users and those it exploits.

Interestingly, there has long been a close relationship between the porn industry and sexology researchers. In fact, for decades Playboy funded the International Academy of Sex Research, which now publishes the most widely read sexology journal, Archives of Sexual Behavior.

Despite the long-term efforts of this well established partnership, in 2019, the World Health Organization adopted a new diagnosis: “Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder.” CSBD can be used to diagnose those with compulsive porn use. In short, the world experts adopted the position that porn use is risky for some users. In fact, 80% of those seeking treatment for CSBD report problematic porn use. The new diagnosis is a formal acknowledgement that the world’s health experts do not agree with the porn industry and its sexology allies, none of whom take porn addiction seriously.

Note: Prause’s original Twitter account (@NicolePrause), and now her @BrainOnPorn account, have both been permanently banned for violating Twitter’s rules. Indeed, her @NicoleRPrause account should be deleted for ban evasion under Twitter’s rules.

October 25, 2020: Yet another spurious Cease and Desist delivered to my door. In this one Prause demands payment of $240,000 or she will sue.

Yet another bogus C&D (hand delivered by a courier) meant to intimidate and silence me. Interesting that it was sent a few days after her porn industry shill Twitter account was permanently banned. I would need all my toes and fingers to count the number of lie-filled C&Ds Prause has sent to her victims. Unlike earlier C&Ds, she didn’t both with a lawyer this time.

This C&D also differs in that Prause demanded I cough up $240,000 or she would sue. On the other hand, she was kind enough to offer a payment plan.

Since most of the claimed defamatory statements appear to be true and accurate, and Prause knows I would never submit to such extortion, why does she continue to send lie-filled cease and desist letters? A few reasons:

Now she has an “official letter” to show show her allies as “proof positive” that I am harassing her (even though it is proof of nothing and merely made up).
Now she has an “official letter” to show journalists so as to discourage them from contacting me.
It purportedly counters the massive evidence exposing her as the perpetrator.

Did Prause sue me? Yes. But it was a small claims court suit alleging defamation for a tiny fraction of her outlandish C&D claim ($10,000 which is the max in small claims). At a hearing on January 22, 2021 an Oregon court ruled in my favor and charged Prause with costs and an additional penalty (both of which she has yet to pay). This was the 2^nd lawsuit Prause lost to me. In 2020 Prause sought a frivolous restraining order against me in California. The Court dismissed it and I was granted anti-SLAPP motion, leaving Prause obligated to pay my attorney fees. Instead of paying my attorney fees as the statute required, Prause filed bankruptcy to escape liability for 3 yet-to-be tried defamation suits (Hilton, Rhodes, Minc) and avoid paying me the attorney-fee debt she had incurred (in my Anti-SLAPP victory).

On to her lie-filled C&D.

The opening paragraph contains numerous falsehoods she regularly tweets or tells journalists. Many of her false claims are covered elsewhere on the Prause pages. Interestingly, she claims to be monitoring my internet searches. Is she admitting to hacking my computer? Prause ends the paragraph with the astonishing and unbelievable assertion that in the last 12 months I have posted over 100,000 times across 100 outlets.

Second page. Again, most appear to true and accurate. A few I did not say.

Third Page, ending with more fairy tales and her usual string of blatant lies:

A few comments on her claims:

PRAUSE: I had to hire numerous attorneys to try to get you to stop these defamatory statements and threats to my physical safety.

There were no threats to her safety, as my anti-SLAPP victory proved.

PRAUSE: You received Cease and Desist letters from Jed White, JD, and Wayne Giampetro, JD on 6 different occasions, two of which you were personally served, such that you were aware all of your statements about me were false.

I asked Mr. White in 2015 for evidence supporting her false claims. Still waiting. As for Wayne Giampetro he was one of the primary lawyers defending backpage.com. Backpage was shut down by the federal government “for its willful facilitation of human trafficking and prostitution.” The indictment charged backpage owners, along with others, of conspiring to knowingly facilitate prostitution offenses through the website. Authorities contend some of the trafficked people included teenage girls. For details on Giampietro’s involvement see – https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2017cv05081/341956. In an odd turn of events, backpage.com assets were seized by Arizona, with Wayne B. Giampietro LLC listed as forfeiting $100,000.

PRAUSE: You had a link directly to my physical address, which you had posted all over your website yourbrainonporn.com.

Prause’s big lie exposed: February, 2021: Prause posts 70 tweets in 5 days falsely stating that I placed her address on YBOP – and she was grabbed on the street in 2019 as a consequence. Yet in 2020 Prause tweeted that no one, including me, has her real address. Her lies don’t match (documents the tweets beyond the 5 days).

PRAUSE: I also have testified under oath that you posted my physical address on your website and the California Attorney General agreed.

Prause has consistently lied under oath. The California Attorney General did NOT agree – November, 2019: Prause misuses “Safe At Home Program”: She threatens YBOP’s web-host (Linode) with a fraudulent Cease & Desist letter, falsely claiming her address is on YBOP (it wasn’t).

PRAUSE: I expect about 30 doctorates and journalists you threatened will offer testimony on my behalf, describing your criminal behaviors. It is in your best interest to settle this matter before a lawsuit is filed.

Prause listed only one witness for her small claims suit (Greg Siegle), and he didn’t show up. By the way, Greg Siegle and Prause were hired to bolster the commercial interests of the heavily tainted and very controversial OneTaste (now called the Institute of OM Foundation) whose founder the Feds indicted for extensive abuse in 2023. See – The Free Speech Coalition allegedly provided porn stars as subjects for a Nicole Prause study she claims will debunk porn addiction.

ADDENDUM: I suspect Prause no longer used Wayne Giampietro because she stiffed him in her recent bankruptcy, which was filed to escape liability for 3 yet-to-be tried defamation suits (Hilton, Rhodes, Minc) and avoid paying me the attorney-fee debt she had incurred.

Before you feel sorry for her, know that Prause was not remotely insolvent. She had simply squirreled away most of her assets into her retirement accounts (more than quarter of a million dollars), and listed a tiny bit of consumer debt (under $3,000). Her claim of insolvency was almost entirely based on potential liabilities from the 3 defamation suits (which may have never gone to trial), plus some $40K she was going to owe me once the judge blessed the amount. Important to note that Prause’s insurance company was covering all her legal expense in the defamation suits she wanted the bankruptcy court to dismiss. In essence, Prause filed bankruptcy so she could continue to defame and harass with impunity.

Prause also stiffed the law firm hired to represented her in her fraudulent attempt at a restraining order. The Berman law Group specializes in restraining orders in domestic violence cases. It didn’t take them long to figure out they were dealing with a perpetrator, not a victim. See – August, 2020: Right before my Anti-SLAPP hearing Nicole Prause’s lawyer tried to quit because she attempted to force him to behave unethically. He said Prause was hostile and threatening to sue him.

Again, she had plenty of money to pay her lawyers, but chose not to.

October 25, 2020: Marnia (my wife) receives another spurious Cease and Desist delivered to our home by courier. In this one Prause demands payment of $220,000 or she will sue.

On the same day Prause demanded $240,000 from me she demanded my wife pony up $220,000, or be promptly sued. Prause kindly offered Marnia a payment plan too. As you can see below, the claimed defamatory statements by my wife are nearly identical to the “offending” remarks listed in Prause’s C&D to me (preceding section). In fact, most statements appear to be true and accurate. However, Prause didn’t file a suit against Marnia. It seems as if my suit was Prause’s trial balloon and it promptly burst leaving her with nothing but another loss. Since her loss to me, Prause has chosen not to file any new small claims suits. That said, Prause confidently claims that she has never lost a lawsuit to anyone, including me! No lie is too big.

On to her second lie-filled C&D of the day. The opening is similar to the C&D I received except for the imaginary and absurd claim that Marnia sent emails to “over 1,000 of my colleagues across the world” and “repeated these violations over 10,000 times across many outlets.” Didn’t happen. It’s curious how Prause always adds to her C&Ds that the person “knew these statements were lies.” Does Prause believe this adds authenticity to her fictional C&Ds?

Second Page: Most statements appear to be true and accurate.

Third page: 28 through 43 appear to true and accurate. She then ends with fairy tales about her victimhood. All lies.

Sections with examples of other lie-filled cease and desist letters that were summarily ignored as fictions.

November, 2020: Prause threatens Bill Tavis with a defamation lawsuit for stating in a YouTube comment that Prause attended the X-Rated Critics Organization (XRCO) awards ceremony (which she did)

Bill Tavis pointed out that Prause was pictured attending an XRCO (porn industry) award show, and Prause accused him of defamation and threatened him with a lawsuit to try to stop him from posting the link to irrefutable photographic evidence. When challenged with the truth Prause doubled down on her falsehood.

The back and forth continues with Tavis linking to this image of her (far right) on the red carpet of the X-Rated Critics Organization (XRCO) awards ceremony (June 22, 2016). According to Wikipedia:

“The XRCO Awards are given by the American X-Rated Critics Organization annually to people working in adult entertainment and it is the only adult industry awards show reserved exclusively for industry members.^“[1]

Prause is so obsessed with maintaining her public persona as an unbiased researcher (LOL) that she has resorted to legal threats and lying in court documents to cover up the fact that she attends porn industry awards shows. For example, in court filings Prause perjured herself on numerous occasions by claiming she has never attended a porn awards show.

Prause’s lies in court documents began earlier with reporter Chad Sokol and his biased article about a February 23, 2019 conference on the harms of porn held at Gonzaga University. In his interviews with some of the presenters (such as Don Hilton) it became apparent that Sokol had already spoken with David Ley and Nicole Prause (and Prause co-author Cameron Staley). Sokol was clearly on the side of these 3 and had been prepared with Prause-generated materials and talking points.

In conversations with Hilton, Sokol parroted Prause, suggesting that Hilton’s religious faith skewed his views, making him biased. If bias (not the research) was Sokol’s primary concern, Hilton wondered if Sokol might be willing to examine evidence of Prause and Ley’s biases. This resulted in Sokol receiving evidence of Prause’s pro-porn biases: this page – Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry? – and this email from me to Don Hilton (which was forwarded to Sokol, who forwarded it to Prause). The screenshots in my email reveal that Prause:

attended 2016 X-Rated Critics Organization (XRCO) awards ceremony (PDF: XRCO 2016)
stated she had attended AVN in 2015 (PDF: AVN 2015)
planned to attend AVN in 2019 (PDF: AVN 2019)

Throughout her court filings, Prause asserts that:

she never attended the AVN (even though she tweeted she had and tweeted “should” and “would“)
the tweet of her on the 2016 XRCO red carpet (June 22, 2016) was really taken at the premier of the documentary film “After Porn Ends 2” (Untrue, as the latter premiered on March 28, 2017 – oops!)

Prause’s false account from her Motion to Dismiss:

In February 2019, I received calls and emails from Chad Sokol, a reporter with the Spokesman-Review in Spokane, WA, asking me to comment on statements that Dr. Hilton had made to Sokol for a potential news article in this publication. According to Sokol, Dr. Hilton had stated that I had attended the Adult Video News Awards. Sokol also forwarded a photograph, which he stated Dr. Hilton proved I was at the Adult Industry News awards. I informed Sokol that I have never attended the Adult Video Awards. I informed Mr. Sokol that the photograph was actually taken at the premier of the documentary film “After Porn Ends 2”

Actually, the photo included in this email forwarded to Chad Sokol was not an AVN award ceremony, but rather an X-Rated Critics Organization (XRCO) award ceremony. Prause lied when she stated that the following photograph was “actually taken at the premier of the documentary film After Porn Ends 2.” It is a screenshot of the June 22, 2016 tweet: X-Rated Critics Organization (XRCO) awards ceremony (notice XRCO on the backdrop):

You can see photos and read more about the 2016 XRCO awards in this AVN article. From the article:

If there’s one thing the 32nd annual XRCO Awards Show proved, it’s that porn has not forgotten how to party. A major contingent of the industry’s biggest luminaries packed OHM nightclub at the Hollywood & Highland complex to sardine-like capacity for what was easily the organization’s most jubilant gala in years. Harking back to the free-wheeling porn megabashes of the pre-recession era, it was a genuine celebration for the ages and a rousing reminder that the commonwealth of adult is very much alive and vibrantly kicking

Another pic of Prause with porn industry buddies:

Prause at a reserved table with porn industry friends (wearing the same dress and sitting next to AVN inductee Melissa Hill):

If there’s any doubt, this page on XBIZ announced the 2016 XRCO Awards Winners. There was no category for documentaries, nor for any non-porn film. Put simply, “After Porn Ends 2” would not have been up for any award even it had been released. It had not. “After Porn Ends 2” wasn’t released until nearly a year later on March 28, 2017. Check out AVN’s coverage of the “After Porn Ends 2” screening on March 23, 2017, with Prause posing (in an entirely different dress) between two well-known porn stars:

Prause perjured herself.

What about Prause’s claim that she never attended AVN? In a June, 2015 tweet Prause describes hearing Jeanne Silver’s (a porn star) story “at AVN” (we assume the Adult Video News Awards):

Is Prause lying in the above tweet or lying in her court documents?

A second tweet indicating possible AVN attendance in 2019: near the end of the following back and forth Prause appears to be saying that she plans to attend AVN. Trolling a PornHarms thread, Prause offers free t-shirts to others willing to troll with her. The t-shirts are a tasteless parody of the FTND ‘porn kills love’ t-shirts. The 3 winners are porn stars!

One of the porn stars (Avalon) is from Australia. She tells Prause that it’s too expensive to ship a t-shirt to her. Prause asks Avalon if she would like to pick up her t-shirt at “the AVN.” The only logical conclusion is that Prause will be attending AVN awards, the AVN EXPO, or both.

Avalon tells Prause to have an amazing time at the AVN.

Prause is caught in yet another falsehood. Cross-examination on this one should be illuminating.

Even though Hilton’s contention is that Prause attended porn-industry awards (XRCO), or tweeted she had attended (2015 AVN), or might attend (2019 AVN), Prause has now enlisted porn-industry allies to debunk her straw man/false claim that Hilton said she is financially supported by the porn industry (he never said that). On November, 24, 2019 she tweeted the following:

It’s fascinating that major players in the porn industry are at her beck and call. Yet, what does this have to do with Hilton’s lawsuit or his statements that Prause attended the 2016 XRCO awards? Nothing. Nevertheless, Prause obtained a rather humorous email from Bob and XRCO. Prause’s tweet (from a string of unhinged tweets threatening The Post Millennial):

The screenshot from that tweet:

Oops. Bob, the XRCO chairman, said Prause attended the 2016 XRCO awards (the photo sent to Chad Sokol). Prause caught herself committing perjury.

In the same thread where she lobbed threats, Prause tweeted an email from the folks at AVN:

How does the AVN email “prove” Prause never attended AVN? It says “I have no record of who may have purchased tickets to either show.”

So AVN has “no record of who purchased tickets,” and we have Prause tweeting that she heard Jeanne’s story at AVN. Does this remind you of a dog chasing its tail?

Others – December, 2020: Prause threatens Gabe Deem with a lie-filled Cease & Desist letter, demanding he pay her $100,000 in damages and remove tweets he did not post.

As documented in this section, Gabe’s “Porn Playbook” video struck a nerve: August, 2020: In response to Gabe Deem’s video “The Porn Playbook,” @BrainOnPorn (Prause) posts over 20 defamatory and disparaging tweets (falsely claiming Gabe sent death and rape threats). Prause’s attempted intimidation continues with a lie-filled cease and desist letter and what appears to be extortion. She not only delivered it via email and mail, she also posted it twice under Gabe on Twitter (even though Gabe has blocked her). She posted it on her Amazon website as well.

Prause’s C&D was meant to intimidate Deem, to discourage him from challenging Prause’s falsehoods. No doubt she has also used the C&D to send to journalists (or Patreon) as “proof” that she is being victimized.

Nothing in Prause’s C&D is factually accurate. Gabe did not make any of the 23 alleged defamatory statements, and Prause provides no evidence that he did. All that her C&D included were screenshots of 2 of Deem’s (non-defamatory) tweets and a screenshot of his YouTube video. (Both below.) Nothing pointed to the 23 defamatory items she alleged, as you can see in the letter immediately below.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Entertaining how Prause demands that Gabe not contact her via Twitter, yet she constantly tweets in his threads (even though he has blocked her), and Gabe never tweets in her threads.

Most of Prause’s 23 items look like things that I (not Gabe) may have tweeted or that appear on YBOP (which means they are true and accurate). Some of the 23 items are Prause’s usual fabrications, which no known person has uttered (“Dr. Prause is conducting illegal research”; “Dr. Prause did not receive death threats”; “Dr. Prause has no oversight in her research or therapy practice”).

Then there’s #23, which Gabe didn’t say, but which exemplifies the type of so-called “evidence” Prause regularly fabricates:

23. “Follow the money” after your video of Dr. Prause.

Gabe’s video doesn’t contain that phrase. He informed us that Prause might have been referring to “Follow Gabe on Twitter & Insta @gabedeem and Reboot Nation on Twitter @Reboot_Nation“, which is “after” his video in the description section. Typical Prause lie.

Let’s examine the rest of Prause’s supporting “evidence”: Screenshots of 2 Gabe Deem tweets (neither remotely resembling the 23 offending items).

Tweet #1: Not defamation and not described in Prause’s list of 23.

——————–

Tweet #2: Not defamation and not described in Prause’s list of 23 items.

Prause did tell those lies about Gabe to Time and Rolling Stone.

The first version of the Rolling Stone article misstated “Deem & Wilson say that Prause is funded by the porn industry” (as if it were a fact). Gabe and I contacted the author saying we said no such thing. It was changed it to:

Nicole Prause, a neuroscientist who runs the research institute Liberos LLC, has studied the effects of porn on the brain for years, and she is highly skeptical of the porn addiction model. Her skepticism carries over to the concept of porn-induced erectile dysfunction, which she claims is not supported by legitimate medical evidence. (Her stance as a vocal critic of the porn addiction model has prompted Deem and Wilson to release blog posts deconstructing her findings. According to Prause, they have also accused her of being funded by the porn industry, though Deem and Wilson deny this claim.

As for the March 2016 TIME cover story (“Porn and the Threat to Virility”), Prause told TIME that Gabe Deem had impersonated a medical doctor to write the letter to the editor of an academic journal (described above) critiquing a paper the journal had published coauthored by Prause and Pfaus. This was nonsense. See – March, 2016: Prause (falsely) tells TIME Magazine that Gabe Deem impersonated a doctor to write a formal critique of her study (letter to the editor) in an academic journal (and the letter was traced to Gabe’s computer).

The remaining 15 pages of Prause’s 20-page C&D were filled with screenshots of unsavory comments by anonymous internet trolls. Gabe had nothing to with these comments.

Others – January, 2021: Prause falsely accuses New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof of inciting violence against her and supporting death threats just because he wrote an expose’ on Pornhub.

Prause falsely accuses NY Times Pulitzer prize winning journalist Nicholas Kristof of inciting violence against her and supporting so-called “death threats.” She did so in a retweet of her tweet containing the lie that her address was circulated by me.

She posts her usual set of lies again under Kristof.

No one circulated Prause’s address. Prause herself admits her address was never posted by me or the imaginary “group” Prause keeps mentioning in her tweets. All her lies are exposed in this extensive section: February, 2021: Prause posts 70 tweets in 5 days falsely stating that I placed her address on YBOP – and she was grabbed on the street in 2019 as a consequence. Yet in 2020 Prause tweeted that no one, including me, has her real address. Her lies don’t match.

Why is Prause going after Kristof? Because he published a NY Times investigative article fully affirming the claims put forth by TraffickingHub & Laila Mickelwaiit: The Children of Pornhub – Why does Canada allow this company to profit off videos of exploitation and assault? Laila Mickelwait is/was a regular target of Prause and Prause’s now banned pro-porn alias @BrainOnPorn. Laila’s TraffickingHub campaign caused Prause to escalate into full on cyberstalking, lies and defamation – all in support of Pornhub’s agenda.

Remember, Pornhub was the first account to retweet @BrainOnPorn’s initial tweet announcing the creation of the now-defunct RealYourBrainOnPorn.com. Since @BrainOnPorn had no followers this suggests a coordinated effort between Pornhub and the RealYBOP Twitter account (operated by Prause).

January, 2021: Gary Wilson acquires www.RealYourBrainOnPorn.com (RealYBOP) in trademark infringement settlement

The www.RealYourBrainOnPorn.com URL has been granted to YBOP after its former owner(s), in apparent collaboration with Nicole R. Prause, registered and maintained the URL as part of a campaign to de-platform YBOP.

Specifically, Gary Wilson obtained the RealYourBrainOnPorn.com (RealYBOP) domain name as settlement of allegations of infringement upon his trademarks. The rest of this page documents the hostile campaign of Prause and her cronies, which began with an attempt to de-platform YBOP, followed by efforts to confuse its visitors, and finally used YBOP’s own trademarks to disparage it.

Malicious trademark squatting

In January 2019, Nicole Prause applied for YBOP’s well established trademarks, including Wilson’s actual URL (“YourBrainOnPorn.com”), with a view to displacing YBOP with her own version of his site. This was an outright censorship effort by Prause, who has been obsessively harassing and defaming Wilson for over 8 years. Wilson challenged her application, which eventually failed, and the trademarks were registered in Wilson’s name in 2020.

Meanwhile, on March 13, 2019 (just a couple of months after the attempted trademark grab) Daniel A. Burgess registered the trademark-infringing domain name RealYourBrainOnPorn.com. The RealYBOP site announced its birth in a press release, which deceptively claimed to have been issued in Ashland, Oregon where Gary Wilson, host of YBOP, lives, and misinformed the public about the state of the research on problematic porn use.

Take a moment to imagine the chutzpah and malice it took to register a domain name that encompassed an existing, long established domain name (YourBrainOnPorn) and then to add “Real” to it as if the new creation were the genuine website…and then to begin tweeting and engaging in other social media under this deceptive name!

The architects (Prause & Burgess) who masterminded this trademark-infringing strategy then resided in California, not Oregon. Were they deliberately trying to deceive people that the new site was somehow affiliated with Wilson?

To promote the new site, the creators of the imposter site set up lots of new social media, including a very active Twitter account (@BrainOnPorn), YouTube channel, Facebook page, and aliases for reddit and Wikipedia. A screenshot of the original RealYBOP YouTube channel is to the left:

RealYBOP’s reddit account (user/sciencearousal) spammed porn recovery forums reddit/pornfree and reddit/NoFap, promoting Prause’s frequently critiqued studies, attacking the concept of porn addiction, disparaging Wilson and YBOP, belittling men in recovery, and defaming porn skeptics. (Prause has a long, documented history of employing numerous aliases to post on porn recovery forums and elsewhere). For example, below Sciencearousal informs a r/pornfree member that porn use is positive for 99% of the population (simultaneously misrepresenting the state of the research and promoting the porn industry’s agenda):

Is it any coincidence that Nicole Prause, and her alias @BrainOnPorn, parrot “Sciencearousal,” falsely claiming that porn is overwhelmingly positive for nearly every user?

Aside: Porn is not positive for the majority of adults. For example, every quantitative study on males reports more porn use related to less sexual and relationship satisfaction: Over 80 studies link porn use to less sexual and relationship satisfaction. Hundreds mores studies reporting negative outcomes related to porn use can be found on YBOP’s main research page.

Before being banned, RealYBOP’s two Wikipedia sockpuppet accounts (Sciencearousal and SecondaryEd2020) inserted dubious links and deleted legitimate material about pornography’s effects. Here’s an April 14th, 2019 edit by a Prause sockpuppet:

This campaign of misinformation is business-as-usual, as we have documented over 40 apparent, illicit Wikipedia sockpuppets of Prause. (Wikipedia’s rules prohibit sockpuppets.) Confirming what we already knew, Wikipedia exposed Sciencearousal and SecondaryEd2020 as two of eight confirmed illicit sockpuppets of “NeuroSex” – which hard evidence reveals is Prause.

More blatant deception: The trademark-infringing RealYBOP site itself attempted to trick visitors. The center of each page declared “Welcome to the REAL Your Brain On Porn,” while the browser tab falsely proclaimed “Your Brain On Porn.”

In an attempt to fool search engines (and snag visitors seeking for Wilson’s website), the photos on the RealYBOP expert’s page were embedded with code featuring Wilson’s trademarks, such as: “YBOP” or “Your Brain On Porn,” and “Ted Talk Porn” (referring to his well known TEDx talk). For example, go to this archived copy of RealYBOP’s “experts” page, hover over the image (right click), and inspect “View image” or “View image info” for the code/name of the image. Example below of Joshua Grubbs’s photo (Your+Brain+On+Porn):

Also, whenever a link for the impostor site was emailed it appeared as “Your Brain on Porn/YBOP”:

When a RealYourBrainOnPorn (@BrainOnPorn) tweet was retweeted its headline appeared as “Your Brain on Porn” and “YBOP (our most frequently used nickname)”:

The new website promoted a list of pro-porn “experts,” as well as a page featuring cherry-picked outlier papers (many are not actual studies), that favored the interests of the porn industry.

The RealYBOP site was used to prop up its associated Twitter account named “Real Your Brain On Porn” (@BrainOnPorn). In fact, its manager (presumably Prause) publicly insisted that the Twitter account reflected the views of all of the “experts” in the line-up on the now shuttered RealYBOP website.

Exercising its supposed “collective” voice, the @BrainOnPorn Twitter account tweeted more than 1,000 defamatory and malicious statements about anyone with whom Nicole Prause disagreed (i.e., anyone who dared to counter the preferred narrative of the sex/porn industry). In October, 2020 the account was permanently suspended for violating Twitter rules (Prause’s original Twitter account was also permanently suspended for harassment).

See the rest of the story here: ATTENTION: YBOP acquires www.RealYourBrainOnPorn.com in trademark infringement settlement.

January, 2021: Gary Wilson wins second lawsuit against serial harasser/defamer Nicole Prause: Demonstrating once again that Prause is the perpetrator, not the victim.

PRESS RELEASE:

Gary Wilson (Your Brain on Porn) Wins Second Legal Victory Against Sexologist Nicole Prause
Activist porn researcher owes penalty plus court costs after her defamation suit fails
ASHLAND, OREGON: January 28, 2021: Best-selling author and public health advocate Gary Wilson has won another legal victory against sexologist and vocal porn-industry proponent Nicole Prause.
Last year, Prause sought a frivolous restraining order against Wilson in California. The Court dismissed it and granted Wilson’s anti-SLAPP motion, leaving Prause obligated to pay his attorney fees.
Prause filed a second frivolous proceeding against Wilson in December, 2020 for alleged defamation. At a hearing on January 22, 2021 an Oregon court ruled in Wilson’s favor and charged Prause with costs and an additional penalty.
In the past 18 months Prause has publicly threatened (or filed) a dozen lawsuits intended to bully others into silence. She targets those who publicly reveal her close ties to the porn industry and her malicious conduct, or who have made sworn statements in the 3 defamation suits currently active against her.*
Wilson’s latest legal victory comes on the heels of Prause’s failed multi-pronged attempt to censor Wilson’s website with the help of fellow mental health professionals. Her hostile campaign began almost 2 years ago when Prause a
pplied for his site’s well established trademarks, including the exclusive legal right to control Wilson’s actual URL (“YourBrainOnPorn.com”). The trademark grab failed, and the marks were registered in Wilson’s name in 2020.
Meanwhile, in March 2019, Prause’s confederate Daniel A. Burgess registered a trademark-infringing domain name “RealYourBrainOnPorn.com,” which engaged in various transparent ploys to divert YourBrainOnPorn.com traffic to the impostor website. After many attorney hours, in January, 2021 Wilson obtained the RealYourBrainOnPorn.com domain name as settlement of allegations of trademark infringement. Earlier, in October, 2020, the impostor site’s associated Twitter account @BrainOnPorn was permanently suspended for harassment.
After his latest court victory Wilson said, “I am astounded by the calculated abuse directed at people who dare to speak publicly about porn’s harms.” He added, “The malicious censorship tactics of the porn industry and its sexology allies curb scientific and public debate. Just as Big Tobacco once did, they distract the public from the well-documented risks of porn’s harm to both users and those it exploits.”
Wilson hosts www.YourBrainOnPorn.com, a clearinghouse for the latest research, media, and self-reports on pornography’s effects and harms. Some years ago, he presented the immensely popular TEDx talk “The Great Porn Experiment” (~14 million views). Wilson has long critiqued questionable published research and public statements about pornography use. He is also the author of Amazon best seller Your Brain On Porn: Internet Pornography and the Emerging Science of Addiction. It is available in multiple languages, and one edition has already been praised as one of the top non-fiction books of the last decade.
* Donald L. Hilton, Jr. v. Nicole Prause, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Texas San Antonio Division, Case No. 5: 19-CV-00755-OLG; Alexander Rhodes v. Nicole Prause, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:19-cv-01366, and Aaron M. Minc, Esq v. Melissa A. Farmer and Nicole R. Prause, Case No: CV-20-937026 in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. In each case, numerous men and women have come forward with sworn statements that Prause has also targeted them: affidavit #1, affidavit #2, affidavit #3, affidavit #4, affidavit #5, affidavit #6, affidavit #7, affidavit #8, affidavit #9, affidavit #10, affidavit #11, affidavit #12, affidavit #13, affidavit #14, affidavit #15, affidavit #16.

THE COURT ORDER

Declaration of Gary Wilson

Below is the declaration I supplied to the court (I also supplied over 100 pages of supporting materials).

I, Gary Wilson, declare and state as follows:
This case is the second SLAPP suit Plaintiff has brought against me. The first was decided in my favor following a hearing on August 6, 2020 by the California Superior Court (Prause v. Wilson Case No. 20TRO01022). The judge granted my anti-SLAPP motion and dismissed Plaintiff’s legal action against me. He ruled that she had wrongfully attempted to silence my right speak out on a matter of public interest and stated that her legal proceeding lacked minimal merit.
A week before that hearing, Plaintiff’s own attorney attempted to resign from her case because Plaintiff had threatened him with litigation unless he did something her attorney regarded as “not warranted under existing law and [which] cannot be supported by good faith argument.” (From the Declaration of Brett A. Berman, Esq., dated July 31, 2020.) From earlier pleadings it appeared that she was demanding that he file a large quantity of inadmissible evidence. The judge refused to accept her attorney’s resignation. In addition, at the hearing a few days later, the judge ruled most of Plaintiff’s sworn statement to be inadmissible as hearsay, irrelevant, conclusory, etc.
Plaintiff is also the defendant in 3 defamation suits pending in United States Federal District Courts: Donald L. Hilton Jr v. Nicole Prause and Liberos LLC, Case No: SA: 19-CV-00755-OLG; Alexander Rhodes v. Nicole Prause and Liberos LLC, Case No. 2:19-CV-01366-MPK; and Aaron M. Minc, Esq v. Melissa A. Farmer and Nicole R. Prause, Case No: CV-20-937026. In the first two cases, numerous men and women, including myself, have come forward with sworn statements that Plaintiff has also targeted them.
Plaintiff has an extensive history of engaging in both malicious use of process and filing baseless administrative complaints against multiple targets. In the past few years, Plaintiff has filed more than 40 malicious complaints/reports with professional boards, law enforcement, employers, and oversight agencies/tribunals (against at least 28 different people and organizations). There are undoubtedly more such complaints/reports, as some boards and agencies do not disclose whistleblowers’ identities. For example, I believe she was also behind a complaint against me filed with the Oregon Psychology Board (for practicing psychology without a license). I only learned of it after it had been summarily dismissed. I have never held myself out as a psychologist, or as anything but an author, a former anatomy, physiology and pathology instructor at vocational schools, and a former adjunct instructor at Southern Oregon University.
In the past year or so Plaintiff has filed at least 4 small claims suits (in addition to a baseless restraining order request), and has publicly threatened several more. Plaintiff often directs her malicious reporting and malicious use of process toward those of us who have supplied sworn statements in the above defamation cases. Is she attempting to intimidate and discredit us as witnesses?
Last year, Plaintiff filed a USPTO trademark application for my well established common law trademarks, including an application for my decade-old website’s actual URL. This required months and hundreds of hours of attorney time to register and protect my trademarks, and to stop the illicit trademark squatting and infringement that she and her colleagues pursued in the interim. She has also threatened and misled my webhost endeavoring (unsuccessfully) to have my website shuttered, among other hostile actions too numerous to list here.
Background
Plaintiff, a former academic, is a researcher and public commentator on matters relating to sexuality, including purported benefits of pornography use. I am an author, advocate, and public commentator whose work focuses on the negative physical and mental health effects of digital pornography use. I host a popular website called YourBrainOnPorn.com. Amazon’s top selling book in the pornography studies category is my book Your Brain On Porn: Internet Pornography and the Emerging Science of Addiction. It is already being translated into some seven languages. My evidence-based TEDx talk “The Great Porn Experiment” has been viewed more than 13 million times.
Plaintiff’s views and my views about pornography use and its effects frequently differ. I do not “hate” her research, but I have publicly critiqued a couple of Plaintiff’s papers and some of her public statements concerning her conclusions. Plaintiff appears to be cozy with the pornography industry. I say this based on her public online acceptance of an offer of help from the primary lobbying arm of the industry, photos of her attending industry events, her consistent backing of the industry’s interests on social media, and her attacking and defaming on social media, and via malicious reports, any who raise awareness of the potential risks of online pornography use.
From 2013 through present day, Plaintiff has made repeated false, public, defamatory statements about me in the press and via social media. Plaintiff has falsely and publicly stated, among other defamatory assertions, that I am a “stalker” of women; that I have made “death threats” against her and encouraged others do so the same; that I have engaged in illegal computer intrusion; that I have misrepresented my credentials; that I have engaged in fraud; that I am a white supremacist and a member of hate groups; and that I have threatened scientists.
Plaintiff has made similar defamatory statements about dozens of others who share my views about the potential risks of digital pornography use. As noted, several of them have already sued her, in part because she continues to make public, defamatory statements notwithstanding the pending defamation cases.
Anti-SLAPP
The goal of the special motion to strike procedure in ORS § 31.150 is to weed out meritless claims meant to harass or intimidate so as to prevent the exercise of constitutional free speech rights. Courts broadly apply it to all statements made “in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with any issue of public interest,” that arises out of: (1) any conduct; (2) in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of free speech; and (3) in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest. “Public issue” and “issue of public interest” have themselves been broadly construed. An online search reveals that small claims courts around the country have granted anti-SLAPP motions when appropriate.
This lawsuit arises from my protected speech in connection with an issue of public interest: the potential effects of digital pornography use and the claims and activities of pornography researchers/spokespersons, including Plaintiff. Expert researchers in the field, other than those aligned with Plaintiff, often express views similar to mine.
My website YourBrainOnPorn.com receives an average of 15,000 unique visitors each day. It is a clearinghouse for research on the effects of pornography and other items of interest to visitors. A small percentage of my site’s 12,000+ pages are devoted to commentary on various scientists’ research and press statements. Some of my commentary is critical of methodology and claims made; some of it addresses the apparent bias and questionable behavior of researchers/spokespersons; and some of it documents Plaintiff’s hostile activities and defamatory material produced by Plaintiff and others.
It is evident from the widespread interest in my website, book and TEDx talk, that the public is interested in the subject of pornography’s effects and the work/behavior of researchers in this field. Thus, I believe the “public interest” test of ORS § 31.150 has been met.
According to Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute, once the “public interest” test has been met the court will grant the motion to strike unless the plaintiff can introduce substantial evidence of a probability of prevailing on the claim. ORS § 31.150(3). Plaintiff cannot show a probability of prevailing on her claims.
In her earlier SLAPP suit Plaintiff sought a meritless restraining order based on numerous fabrications. In this suit she has listed multiple causes of action, but the only evidence she offers are statements, allegedly written by me, which she apparently considers to be defamatory. I indeed made all of the statements except for the last one. The last one was made by journalist Megan Fox in an article entitled, “’No Fap’ Porn Addiction Support Group Founder Sues Obsessed Pro-Porn Sexologist for Defamation.” (Plaintiff is the sexologist mentioned in the title.)
Plaintiff is a public figure who is very vocal on social media and in the press, which means that others can be expected to speak about her and her activities. The statements Plaintiff alleges I made do not rise to the threshold of defamation of anyone, let alone a public figure. Although not all of them were made by me, those I did make expressed publicly my good faith opinions and observations about Plaintiff’s potential biases, publicly exposed her malicious behavior, or publicly defended myself and others against Plaintiff’s unfounded claims. My statements constitute protected speech related to issues of public interest.
All my comments were based upon publicly available information or behavior I have personally observed in Plaintiff’s thousands of social media posts or in her sworn statements in legal proceedings. In the course of commenting on Plaintiff’s actions and her work I have never invaded her privacy, interfered with her business, or knowingly contributed to her losing any research contract. I have never threatened her or encouraged others to threaten her, and never posted her confidential information or anything that would place her safety at risk.
Plaintiff implies that my alleged comments were all made recently, but all of the statements I made, like similar observations I had previously expressed, were initially stated prior to the last 12 months. Defamation claims must be made within one year. (ORS § 12.120)
For all of the above reasons, there is no probability of Plaintiff prevailing in this action.
In conclusion, Plaintiff’s complaint is yet another transparent attempt to silence me through an unconstitutional and intolerable prior restraint on my right to free speech. I respectfully request that the court take notice of the recent anti-SLAPP motion granted by the California Superior Court based on Plaintiff’s similarly empty claims, and grant my motion to strike pursuant to ORS § 31.150 plus my court costs.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Oregon that the foregoing is true and correct of my own personal knowledge. Executed this 15^th day of December 2020 at Ashland, Oregon.
Gary Wilson

January, 2021: In another lie-filled C&D letter, Prause falsely states she won the above lawsuit, and will continue to file new actions until I am bankrupt (yet it was Prause who filed for bankruptcy to avoid paying me the attorney-fee debt she had incurred).

One week before our court hearing (where the judge ruled in my favor), Prause had delivered to my door the following 4-page cease & desist letter. The ever impulsive Prause was reacting to my announcement that I acquired RealYourBrainOnPorn.com in a trademark infringement settlement. RealYBOP Twitter (@BrainOnPorn) and www.realyourbrainonporn.com (registered by Daniel Burgess) were tools Nicole Prause developed to attack Your Brain on Porn, Gary Wilson, and anyone else who critiques the porn industry or points out the negative effects of porn use.

As with all of her previous C&D’s sent to me and others, it contained fabricated “offenses,” bizarre rantings, and zero evidence to support her claims. Her C&D contained screenshots of 2 tweets, but her descriptions don’t match what I said (typical Prause tactic). I will address her allegations. The highlighted sentences are particularly entertaining, especially her claim that I had already lost a future defamation suit (which I won shortly thereafter).

Prause claim #1: “On January 15, 2021, you posted that I was a terrorist and posted a photograph of me“.

Reality: As you can see in tweet #1, I said “pages documenting the 18-month reign of terror by the operatives of RealYBOP and their allies.” She turned “reign of terror” into calling a terrorist. Also note that the tweet did not name her, but she takes it personally – which suggests that she views herself as an “RYBOP operative.” So typical of Prause to provided “evidence” that doesn’t match what she says.

Prause claim #1: “Further, you claimed that I owned the website www.realyourbrainonporn.com, which you are aware from numerous cease and desist letters that I have never owned“

Reality: As you can see in tweet #2: I didn’t say Prause “owned” realyourbrainonporn. In fact, I did not name her in the tweet at all. That said, I have openly stated that Prause operated @BrainOnPorn and likely provided all the content for the now-defunct realyourbrainonporn. I stand by this, and have plenty of published and non-published evidence to back it up.

Prause claim #1: “Further, you posted links to claims that I was convicted of the crimes of perjury, stalking, harassment, sex trafficking, and filing false police reports“

Reality: I never said Prause was convicted of anything. She chronically inserts “convicted of” because it’s defamation per se to falsely accuse someone of being a convicted criminal. She hasn’t yet been convicted that I know of. That said, my Prause pages convincingly document her perjury, stalking, harassment, and filing of false police reports.

Prause claim #1: “As you are aware from the defamation per se lawsuit you already have lost, none of these is true.“

Reality: At a hearing on January 22, 2021 an Oregon court ruled in my favor and charged Prause with costs and an additional penalty. Clairvoyance is not her strong suit.

Prause claim #1: “The California Safe at Home program provides financial and injunctive relief for posting my personal photograph. In fact, you have linked to over 500 photographs of me on your www.yourbrainonporn.com website alone. You already have received DMCA notices for these photographs from the photographers who own them, causing further damages

Reality: YBOP posts screenshots of her publicly available tweets, not “personal photographs.” As explained in this section – March, April, October, 2018: Prause files 3 bogus DMCA takedown requests in an attempt to hide her harassment and defamation (all 3 were dismissed). Here’s an excerpt from my letter to my webhost about the DMCA takedown requests:

This is Dr. Prause’s third unfounded attempt to have evidence of her tweets removed from my website. After she wrote you the first time and failed to achieve her objective, she hired a company to make a request. Now, she has second company attempting a spurious DMCA takedown.
As explained in two previous Linode tickets, Nicole Prause has been harassing and defaming many people, including me, for the past 6 years. In response to Dr. Prause’s widespread harassment I have created the following page to catalog (and refute) her libelous statements and false assertions: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website
The current ticket submitted by Dr. Prause, or her agent, is once again claiming that screenshots of her defamatory tweets are covered by the DMCA. As stated 6 months ago, it is my understanding, based on legal advice, that tweets are not copyrightable; nor are images of them protected by the DMCA. Dr. Prause’s behavior and biases, as documented by her tweets, are essential reading for anyone attempting to understand the politics currently skewing the study and reporting of internet porn’s effects. Thus, without solid reason for their removal, they need to remain on YBOP.
Sincerely,
Gary Wilson

As for Prause’s California Safe at Home claim, see –

February, 2021 (Ongoing): No lie too big. Prause confidently claims that she has never lost a lawsuit to anyone, including me!

Never letting the truth get in her way, Nicole Prause has resorted to falsely claiming she has never lost a lawsuit to Gary Wilson, or anyone else. As documented on this page she has so far lost two lawsuits to me and been “involved” in three other legal actions that didn’t go her way. In addition, she’s been sued for defamation by three parties: Donald L. Hilton, Alexander Rhodes, and Aaron M. Minc. By the way, Prause still owes me court-awarded costs and penalties, but refuses to pay up.

Here, Prause enters an old thread to inform a critic of RealYourBrainOnPorn.com that two defamation suits were thrown out (false), and that she is suing me (true – and she lost):

Not “thrown out.” Prause filed bankruptcy to escape liability for 3 yet-to-be tried defamation suits (Hilton, Rhodes, Minc) and avoid paying me the attorney-fee debt she had incurred (in my Anti-SLAPP victory). Mind you, Prause was not remotely insolvent. She had simply squirreled away most of her assets into her retirement accounts (more than quarter of a million dollars), and listed a tiny bit of consumer debt (under $3,000). Her claim of insolvency was almost entirely based on potential liabilities from the above defamation suits (which may have never gone to trial), plus some $40K she was going to owe me once the judge blessed the final amount. Important to note that Prause’s insurance company covered all of her legal expenses! The bankruptcy judge then ordered all 3 defamation-suit plaintiffs to try mediation.

In February, 2021 (3 months after the above tweet), Prause and her insurance company settled with Don Hilton and Alex Rhodes. The terms are undisclosed, but it’s reasonable to speculate that the insurance company offered big bucks to settle, as it had already done so leading up to the mediation, without success. I also suspect Prause had to sign a non-disparagement clause, which she has not observed.

Here, Prause doubles down, falsely stating that she’s never lost a lawsuit and does not owe me money. Truth? She lost twice and still owes me money.

I love her mantra “to stop the science,” when, in fact, she initiated both lawsuits and they had nothing to do with her research. In a third legal action initiated by Prause, she tried to steal my website (which she obviously lost).

In this next tweet, she’s referring to her bankruptcy leading to settlements with Hilton and Rhodes, and lying. Shortly after she lost her 2nd lawsuit to me (which was for supposed defamation), she informed a critic that “she lost zero”:

Details surrounding her alleged assault keep evolving. In late 2020, she suddenly began claiming that she had been sexually assaulted back in 2019, and that I was mysteriously responsible. She falsely claims that I posted her address on YBOP and that it led to her being grabbed on the street by a young man. If she was accosted, she’s lying about being accosted at an address YBOP posted, as her physical address has never been on YBOP: February, 2021: Prause posts 70 tweets in 5 days falsely stating that I placed her address on YBOP – and she was grabbed on the street in 2019 as a consequence. Yet in 2020 Prause tweeted that no one, including me, has her real address. Her lies don’t match.

——————–

Prause piled this tweet high with her usual lies, including that I lost a lawsuit.

As for stalking, my first legal win fully exposed Nicole Prause as the perpetrator, not the victim of harassment. On August 6, 2020 the Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that Prause’s bogus attempt to obtain a restraining order against me constituted a frivolous and illegal “strategic lawsuit against public participation” (commonly called a “SLAPP suit”). Prause lied throughout her fraudulent TRO, providing zero verifiable evidence to support her outlandish claims that I stalked or harassed her. In essence, the Court found that Prause abused the restraining order process to bully me into silence and undercut his rights to free speech. By law, the SLAPP ruling obligated Prause to pay my attorney fees.

As for the FBI reports:

——————————–

Prause lies again, claiming she has never lost a lawsuit. But she has.

————————-

Gets crazier in her lies. She has never won a lawsuit.

————————

Again, never lost a lawsuit

————————-

Prause is cyberstalking Rebecca Watson for producing this scathing video exposing Nikky as a pathological liar and harasser

Prause has not prevailed in any lawsuit.

————————-

OMG. She’s now claiming that she won the SLAPP suit, and that her attorney helped her with her tweets (I don’t think so as she has been pro se ever since she used the bankruptcy to stiff her attorneys

Debunking of Prause’s calims.

—————–

February, 2021: A milestone for Nicole Prause? 50+ apparent sockpuppets to edit Wikipedia with her biases, lies and defamation.

Wikipedia prohibits sockpuppet accounts, but it polices them poorly. Not only that, even when it discovers evidence of sockpuppet accounts and bans them, it doesn’t always reverse the edits of the cheater. So, there’s a strong incentive for biased Wikipedia contributors to create new accounts to lay their poisoned eggs in the Wikipedia nest. “Crime” pays in this instance.

Not only that, Wikipedia’s editors zealously promote the sex/porn industry, quite often reversing any edits that would bring a more balanced and accurate perspective to related pages. Wikipedia’s founder Jimmy Wales co-founded a company that focused on X-rated media. Yes, you read that correctly.

Research unfavorable to the industry is swiftly edited out. At the same time, cherry-picked research that gives a false impression of the expert consensus in the field is promoted, even if weak or flawed. The result is highly unreliable pages on harms related to porn and sex work, among others.

Similar distortions have been reported by others, including journalist Sharyl Atkisson. Don’t miss her piece “The Dark Side of Wikipedia.” Also, consider Ann Bartow’s Michigan Law Review article “Portrait of the Internet as a Young Man” (link goes to PDF). Bartow reports that rabid pornography proponent Peter G. Werner (who sometimes uses the pseudonym Iamcuriousblue) heavily edited Wikipedia entries to disparage Melissa Farley, Catharine MacKinnon and Sheila Jeffries, and marginalize their defenders.

Prause has taken full advantage of this corrupt environment. A list of 50+ Wikipedia accounts that appear to be hers can be found at the bottom of this page. They are identifiable by her extreme bias, and by the fact that she often tweeted the same content she edited into Wikipedia at around the same time she made the edits. They attack the same people and organizations she attacks on Twitter, namely, anyone who dares to point to harms associated with the sex/porn industry.

Agenda-driven Wikipedia editor Tgeorgescu then protects her edits from deletion while reverting edits from anyone who tries to insert more accurate information. A few examples from Prause’s and Tgeorgescu’s current obsession, the Nofap Wikipedia page, whose error-filled content was largely created by apparent Prause sockpuppets. In this example, Tgeorgescu protects malicious edits by Prause’s sockpuppets (highlighted):

In this example, Tgeorgescu reverts edits containing more accurate information about NoFap or the research (highlighted):

Quite a tag team!

After this current article was published, Tgeorgescu and a new apparent Prause sockpuppet (Jammoth) collaborated to protect the ‘Nicole Prause’ Wikipedia page (March 2, 2021). Notice how within an hour of sockpuppet Jammoth editing the Prause talk page Tgeorgescu responds to her, stating he has taken care of her…um, Jammoth’s…request even before the regular monitor (ScottishFinnishRadish) could tend to it!

In the only other section on the Nicole Prause “talk page” Tgeorgescu replies to a second apparent Prause sockpuppet (MERABDen) with false claims that there are police and FBI investigations, and the assertion that libel victories are meaningless. We must assume that Tgeorgescu is referring to Prause’s 8-year old fairy tale that both the LAPD and the FBI are investigating Gary Wilson, Alex Rhodes and others for her fabrications of wrongdoing. Spoiler alert: No investigations are proceeding. Anyone can file a fraudulent police report. Prause certainly has and she was exposed in a court of law for doing so. In addition, Tgeorgescu seems to be referring to my 2nd legal victory, when he states “So stalking her could put someone in jail even if he wins the libel trial.” Problem is, my first legal victory proved Prause was the perpetrator not I, and that Prause misused the legal system with a frivolous legal proceeding to try to silence me. My 2nd legal victory confirmed once again that Prause was lying about her fabricated victimhood.

Question: Why is Tgeorgescu, who claims his expertise is religion, policing the Nicole Prause Wikipedia page so assiduously?

Wikipedia briefly curtails the escapades of “NeuroSex” and its aliases

At one point, Wikipedia itself banned 9 of Prause’s accounts that it was able to tie to her “Neurosex” account. That was some time ago. Yet she hasn’t curbed her creation of new sockpuppet accounts since then. Indeed, Wikipedia has since listed another 8 suspected NeuroSex aliases in addition to the original 9!

Here are the 8 confirmed sockpuppets of NeuroSex that Wikipedia originally banned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_NeuroSex

Here are the 8 additional suspected NeuroSex sockpuppets that Wikipedia lists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_NeuroSex:

Yet, it appears from the list below that all of the illicit accounts Wikipedia found are just the tip of the Prause Sockpuppet Iceberg.

Evidence suggesting that “NeuroSex” is Nicole Prause

There is no doubt that “NeuroSex” is Prause. First, NeuroSex’s only edit before May 24, 2018 was an unsuccessful attempt to insert a YouTube video about her unpublished “Orgasmic Meditation” study onto the ‘Nicole Prause’ Wikipedia page.

Even more definitive proof arrived when NeuroSex offered to Wikipedia private emails between Prause and officials at MDPI – on the very day the emails were sent. I know this because I (Gary Wilson) was copied on all these same emails between Prause and MDPI officials. She also clearly knew about the upcoming Retraction Watch article, which she successfully orchestrated. By the way, in it, she lied to Retraction Watch about nearly everything.

As with many of Prause’s Wikipedia sockpuppets, NeuroSex’s edits revolved around one of Prause’s long-term, ultimately unsuccessful, obsessions: discrediting and seeking retraction of the paper co-authored by Gary Wilson and US Navy doctors: Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports (Park et al., 2016). The batch of emails between MDPI and Nicole Prause started on May 22, 2018 with MDPI notifying all involved that one minor technical correction and an editorial addressing her unprofessional conduct would be forthcoming. This enraged Prause who responded with a string of demands and threats, followed first by false accusations and personal attacks, and then by editing the MDPI Wikipedia page to misrepresent the situation.

If you want more on the extraordinary story of how Prause used every conceivable tactic in her failed effort to suppress the publication of a peer-reviewed paper, Park et al, see Prause’s unethical efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review (Park et al., 2016) retracted. As of early 2021, Park et al. has been cited by over 85 other peer-reviewed papers, and is the most viewed paper in the history of the journal Behavioral Sciences.

In June of 2019, the parent company of the Behavioral Sciences journal, MDPI, published an editorial about Prause’s unethical behavior surrounding her unsuccessful attempts to have Park et al., 2016 retracted: June, 2019: MDPI publishes an editorial about Nicole Prause’s unethical behavior.

MDPI also published an official response to the MDPI Wikipedia page, which had been hijacked by entities trying to tarnish MDPI with false claims. These unethical entities have attempted to prevent MDPI studies about porn from being cited on Wikipedia: June, 2019: MDPI’s official response to the MDPI Wikipedia page fiasco (it had been edited by several Nicole Prause sockpuppets).

Multiple aliases and the number is still growing

The 50+ suspected Prause sockpuppet aliases are listed below (but there’s no reason to think this list is complete).

Documenting all the falsehoods and propaganda edited into Wikipedia by Prause’s numerous sockpuppets would be a full-time job, and rival the length of War & Peace. That said, YBOP has created a few sections detailing some of Prause’s suspected Wikipedia subterfuge:

If you like irony you’ll enjoy this: Years ago, when my wife and I both tried to use Wikipedia to correct the chronic misinformation Tgeorgescu and his team were spewing about us (that we were “religious” and so forth), Tgeorgescu banned us both and reversed our edits, informing us wrongly that we were “sockpuppets” of each other! So we cannot engage in dialogue on Wikipedia to correct nefarious activity. Yet Tgeorgescu backs all of the comments by Prause’s 50+ sockpuppets! Wikipedia is corrupt, and it shows.

February, 2021: Prause posts 70 tweets in 5 days falsely stating that I placed her address on YBOP – and she was grabbed on the street in 2019 as a consequence. Yet in 2020 Prause tweeted that no one, including me, has her real address. Her lies don’t match (documents tweets beyond her 5-day twitter rampage).

Prause has been falsely claiming for a few years that I posted her physical address on YBOP. She used this lie to threaten both my webhost and a young man who criticized her in a YouTube video with baseless C&D letters. She then sicced the CA “Safe At Home” program (which she entered on suspect grounds) on my webhost. As before, my webhost confirmed that YBOP had not published Prause’s address or telephone number. See:

The address fairy tale is a major part of Prause’s fabricated victimhood. In 2021 she added a new twist to this lie: She claims she was accosted on October 9, 2019 at an address posted on YBOP. And that I was thus responsible for her being accosted.

Not only has Prause provided no verifiable evidence of her being accosted, she has never produced a screenshot or URL documenting that her address was ever on YBOP. If she had any evidence, she would have provided it in the 2 lawsuits she lost to me, as she claimed in both suits that I’d placed her address on YBOP.

In fact, Prause’s claimed reason for attempting to obtain at temporary restraining order (TRO) was that I posted her address on YBOP, yet she provided no evidence. I stated in my reply to her TRO that she lied, and she was given a chance to provide evidence. Yet she didn’t.

Instead, she substituted another easily disproved lie that she was a scheduled presenter for an International Conference on Behavioral Addictions , and that when I attended this conference I traveled to Germany solely to “confront her.” (Nonsense.) See: The organizers of 5th International Conference on Behavioral Addictions expose Prause as committing perjury in her failed attempt at a restraining order (i.e. my Anti-SLAPP victory). My court documents summarize Prause conceding that she provided no evidence for her lies:

I filed an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Prause for misusing the legal system (TRO) to silence and harass me. On August 6, the Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that Prause’s attempt to obtain a restraining order against me constituted a frivolous and illegal “strategic lawsuit against public participation” (commonly called a “SLAPP suit”). Prause lied throughout her frivolous TRO, providing zero verifiable evidence to support her outlandish claims that I stalked or harassed her. In essence, the Court found that Prause abused the restraining order process to bully me into silence and undercut my rights to free speech. By law, the SLAPP ruling obligated Prause to pay my attorney fees. They were not paid.

Prause exposes herself as a serial liar. In this February, 2020 tweet Prause flat out admits that no one, including Gary Wilson could have posted her address, because all of her posted addresses are fake (including the address she used in her malicious US trademark application to try to obtain my trademarks YOURBRAINONPORN and YOURBRAINONPORN.COM).

The above admission to lying about her address being on YBOP hasn’t stopped her from continuing to lie that her address is on YBOP. Typical.

Her tweet also falsely states that I am “circulating her address from another account.” She can’t name the (imaginary) account I’m supposedly using to circulate her self-admitted fraudulent address. (Why hasn’t she provided actual evidence?) Stalking? Prause is the stalker, not I (the courts ruled that she had zero evidence of stalking, awarding me serious money to compensate me for her lies). She is right about one thing: stalkers always escalate: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5.

This screenshot from a January, 2020 Linode communication confirmed that (1) YBOP was not publishing Prause’s home address or telephone number, and (2) Prause failed to provide any actionable requests (i.e. URLs of pages allegedly containing her address):

Important to note that (1) Linode confirmed, after checking, that YBOP was not publishing Prause’s home address or telephone number, and (2) Prause failed to provide any actionable requests (i.e. URLs of pages allegedly containing her address).

To sum up:

Prause has never provided a screenshot of her address posted on YBOP.
Prause admits that no one, including Gary Wilson could have posted her address, because all of her posted addresses are fake.
In response to a fraudulent C&D letter from Prause’s lawyer (who also represented the ill-famed Backpage.com), my webhost investigated and reported that Prause’s address could not be found on YBOP.
My webhost also stated that “Ms. Prause has provided us with no actionable requests, so Linode will not be taking any action.” In other words, Prause provided no URLs of pages containing her address.
In the 2 lawsuits I won, Prause boldly asserted that I posted her address on YBOP, yet failed to provide any evidence of this to the courts.
Almost 2 years AFTER Prause first started lying that her address was on YBOP, she concocted a story that her alleged assaulted occured at an address posted on YBOP. Since her physical address was never on YBOP, we know she is lying about this aspect of her alleged assault.

Now on to her obsessive cyberstalking, posting this same lie in about 70 tweets in a 5-day period:

Feb 7, 2021 tweets:

Cyberstalker enters an old thread where my name is mentioned, retweeting her lie-filled “address on YBOP” thread.

Trolls a supporter of the TraffickingHub campaign, retweeting her lie-filled “address on YBOP” thread.

Lying that “she watched while you encouraged them”. Never provides any evidence.

Cyberstalker enters an old thread where my name is mentioned, retweeting her lie-filled “address on YBOP” thread.

Slince dissent? The courts rule that Prause was trying to suppress my free speech: Gary Wilson (Your Brain on Porn) Wins Legal Victory Against Sexologist Nicole Prause’s Efforts to Silence Him

Cyberstalker enters a 9-year old thread where my name is mentioned, retweeting her lie-filled “address on YBOP” thread.

Cyberstalker enters old threads where my name is mentioned, retweeting her “address on YBOP” thread.

Cyberstalker enters old threads where my name is mentioned, retweeting her “address on YBOP” thread.

Enters old threads where my name is mentioned, retweeting her “address on YBOP” thread.

Enters old threads where my name is mentioned, retweeting her “address on YBOP thread.

Cyberstalking Gabe and TIME editor Belida Luscombe, claiming that Belinda is promoting fraud, and lying that Gabe recirculated her address.

Prause has employed aliases to harass/defame Luscombe:

———————————

Feb 8, 2021 tweets:

Just vile.

Reality:

Retweeting her tweet containing the lie that her address was on YBOP. Lying about threats. Cyberstalking Laila.

Retweeting her tweet containing the lie that her address was on YBOP. Lying about threats. Cyberstalking Laila.

Cyberstalking Belinda luscombe. Retweeting her tweet containing the lie that her address was on YBOP.

Prause has employed aliases to harass/defame Luscombe:

Prause falsely accuses NY Times writer Nicholas Kristof of inciting violence and supporting death threats with a retweet of her tweet containing the lie that her address was on YBOP. Just nuts.

Why is Prause going after Kristoff? Because he published NY Times to publish an investigative article fully affirming the claims put forth by TraffickingHub & Laila Mickelwaiit: The Children of Pornhub – Why does Canada allow this company to profit off videos of exploitation and assault?. Laila Mickelwait is a regular target of Prause and her now banned pro-porn alias @BrainOnPorn. Laila’s TraffickingHub campaign caused Prause to escalate into full on cyberstalking, lies and defamation – all in support of PornHub’s agenda.

Complete fabrications related to the lie that her address was on YBOP, then widely circulated:

Goes after journalist Jon Van Maren, who published this article about my first legal victory over Nikky.

LOL. No, I don’t admit to anything. Desperate to “prove” her lie, Prause started claiming that exhibit 5, in the small claims suit she lost to me, was a screenshot of her address on YBOP. It wasn’t. (As for the restraining order, On August 6, the Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that Prause’s attempt to obtain a restraining order against me constituted a frivolous and illegal “strategic lawsuit against public participation” (commonly called a “SLAPP suit”).

Below is Prause’s exhibit 5, which I scribbled on during the hearing. It’s a screenshot of Prause’s workshop with the OneTaste CEO, which is here:

Caught in a lie that exhibit 5 wasn’t what she claimed, she doubles down with more lies.

Prause still owes me money for the above loss. At a hearing on January 22, 2021 an Oregon court ruled in my favor and charged Prause with costs and an additional penalty.

She then “triple downs” on her lies in the following tweet. I never asked the court for her address. Prause is referring to – August, 2020: Prause files bankruptcy to escape liability for 3 yet-to-be tried defamation suits (Hilton, Rhodes, Minc) and avoid paying me the attorney-fee debt she had incurred (in my Anti-SLAPP victory)

Her bankruptcy docs contained her address! In fact, bankruptcy docs revealed that she has had the same address for 3 years! As a result, Prause’s bankruptcy documents falsify her often-repeated fiction that she has relocated her home “multiple times” due to being stalked (primarily by Gary Wilson, of course). This detroys her fairy tale of having to constantly relocate due stalking.

———————————-

Feb 9, 2021 tweets:

Entering Gobry’s thread.

Lies and cyberstalking of Staci psrout. Sprout’s own article – BULLYING, HARASSMENT AND DEFAMATION FROM UNEXPECTED SOURCES AS A SEX ADDICTION RECOVERY ACTIVIST

All lies.

Related – November, 2019: Prause enters the California “Safe At Home Program” under false pretenses, misusing it to harass her victims and critics.

Stalking Staci Sprout with her same lies:

Prause has maliciously reported Sprout to boards, defamed her, and sent her threatening letters. For a sampling, see Sprout’s affidavit in Alex Rhodes’s defamation suit – Exhibit #10: Staci Sprout, LCSW affidavit (15 pages).

Retweeting her tweet containing the lie that her address was on YBOP (entering my threads). What is she talking about – The “talk” never happened? She’s upset cause I exposed her doing studies to prop up what’s been called a sex cult: The Free Speech Coalition allegedly provided subjects for a Prause study that she claims will “debunk” porn addiction.

Retweeting her tweet containing the lie that her address was on YBOP (entering threads where I am mentioned). Also lying about threats.

Retweeting her tweet containing the lie that her address was on YBOP (entering threads where I am mentioned). Lying about threats.

Retweeting her tweet containing the lie that her address was on YBOP (entering threads where I am mentioned). Lying about threats.

Retweeting her tweet containing the lie that her address was on YBOP – entering threads where I am mentioned.

Retweeting her tweet containing the lie that her address was on YBOP – Entering threads where I am mentioned.

Retweeting her tweet containing the lie that her address was on YBOP.

She’s lying. Twitter deleted one of my tweets for posting private information – my own email! Prause reported me to twitter for having my own email in a tweet.

What?

———————————

Feb 11, 2021 tweets:

She’s lying. Twitter deleted one of my tweets for posting private information – my own email! Prause reported me to twitter for having my own email in a tweet. LAPD has my deleted tweet. Sure thing Nikky.

What Prause reported:

The screenshot with my email that Prause reported:

She tries to fool others with this lie. PEG is not fooled, as he has been harassed by Prause and her sycophants:

Entering my thread, even though she is blocked.

She’s been cyberstalking, defaming & harassing Burr for some time now:

Posting wherever my name is mentioned. The 2,000 pages? She’s referring to the 5 Prause pages.

In this tweet, she’s referring to her bankruptcy and lying. First, her insurance company paid all her legal fees in the 3 defamation suits. Second, she only declared about $3,000 in consumer debt, while have $270,000 in savings! She filed bankruptcy to escape liability for 3 yet-to-be tried defamation suits (Hilton, Rhodes, Minc) and avoid paying me the attorney-fee debt she had incurred (in my Anti-SLAPP victory). Also see – August, 2020: Prause’s bankruptcy documents falsify her often-repeated fiction that she has relocated her home “multiple times” due to being stalked (primarily by Gary Wilson, of course).

Again.

LOL. Tweeting her doc list from the 2nd lawsuit she lost to me: Gary Wilson (Your Brain on Porn) Wins Second Legal Victory Against Sexologist Nicole Prause! She’s lying about the doc list.

Entering my thread, even though I blocked her.

She’s lying. I don’t have 6 websites.

Entering my thread, even though I blocked her.

Entering my thread, even though I blocked her.

Entering other accounts threads.

Cyberstalking Laila Mickelwait, who is a regular target of Prause and her pro-porn alias @BrainOnPorn. All in support of PornHub’s agenda.

——————————-

Feb 12, 2021:

2,000 pages? She’s referring to the 5 Prause pages.

Another.

Same day.

————————-

Cyberstalking Laila Mickelwait, who is a regular target of Prause and her pro-porn alias @BrainOnPorn. In fact, RealYBOP Twitter (Prause) attacked Laila Mickelwait in its defense of Pornhub’s under-age looking porn and absence of age-verification. Mickelwait’s petition to hold PornHub accountable for unconscionable and illegal content caused @BrainOnPorn and @NicolerPrause to escalate into full on cyberstalking, lies and defamation – all in support of PornHub’s agenda.

Another, alluding to her address, defaming Laila.

—————–

Tweets from April 1, 2021.

Tweet #1. LOL. Says I lost lawsuits. What a liar – Legal victories over serial harasser/defamer Nicole Prause: She’s the perpetrator, not the victim! And the FBI

She is right, I do need help… documenting all her defamation & harassment

Tweet #2: I’ve blocked her, so she must tweet under other accounts.

Never said she wasn’t accosted. I don’t know. I said she hasn’t provided any objective documentation. She posted a screenshot of the following from the intro of the Prause pages:

Since then, she has routinely weaponized this accusation against multiple people, embellished with false accusations of “death threats,” apparently to suppress exposure of her bias and malicious activity. In other words, her narrative of victimhood has escalated over the years as has her harassment.
In late 2020, she suddenly began claiming that she had been sexually assaulted in 2019, and that I was mysteriously responsible. She falsely claims that I posted her address on YBOP and that it led to her being grabbed on the street by a young man with a skateboard. She has not provided any objective evidence of either my having posted her physical address or her having been grabbed.

Since she’s filed false police reports on me, and dozens of false reports on others, posting a case number of a police report that only she can access, we want objective evidence. Tweet #3:

Tweet #4: Entering my thread, even though I have blocked her:

———————-

April 4, 2021

Cyberstalking me and an account posting my vid. More about my imaginary group that she cannot name.

More lies. No evidence. Courts have ruled Prause is lying.

We know that Prause harassed TED for 5 straight years… until their very biased “science curator” gave in (the curator only has a bachelor’s degree in writing, not science) and placed a bogus note on the talk.

In reality everything in the TEDX talk is fully supported, with hundreds of additional studies supporting its assertion having been published since the talk was given (March, 2012). See these 2 extensive pages:

Chatting with all the other porn industry shills, falsely claiming I was responsible for Prause’s account being temporarily banned.

Second tweet in same thread.

As for the claims in this tweet, the courts ruled that she is lying: On August 6, the Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that Prause’s attempt to obtain a restraining order against me constituted a frivolous and illegal “strategic lawsuit against public participation” (commonly called a “SLAPP suit”). Prause lied throughout her fraudulent TRO, providing zero verifiable evidence to support her outlandish claims that I stalked or harassed her. In essence, the Court found that Prause abused the restraining order process to bully me into silence and undercut his rights to free speech. By law, the SLAPP ruling obligates Prause to pay my attorney fees.

———————–

Lies about the research while attacking a study about Pornhub. Links to a new site that is exact replica of RealYBOP, and posts her medium article claiming her alleged assault was somehow caused by so-called “anti-porn activists

Again, she claims that “anti-porn activists” are behind her alleged assault.

—————–

Notice how Prause cyberstalks those disparaging Pornhub. Surprise.

RE: Following tweets – I never said Prause was lying about her assault (even though she’s a pathological liar, serial defamer, cyberstalker). I said she was lying about the assault occurring at an address placed on YBOP: February, 2021: Prause posts 70 tweets in 5 days falsely stating that I placed her address on YBOP – and she was grabbed on the street in 2019 as a consequence. Yet in 2020 Prause tweeted that no one, including me, has her real address. Her lies don’t match (documents tweets beyond the 5 days).

Cyberstalking for Pornhub, again. This time collaborating with Communications Director of the FSC (@FSCArmy), Mike Stabile.

Not the 1st time she has collaborated with the FSC:

Cyberstalking a tweet disparaging Pornhub. Falsely accusing Laila of making a “criminal threat complaint”.

Prause appears to be referring to her twitter ban, in which someone reported her for making violent threats – March, 2021: Nicole Prause’s Twitter account (@NicoleRPrause) temporarily suspended for “posting violent threats”. She is lying, because twitter never reveals who did the reporting. She just can’t help lying, even when all of twitter knows.

————————

Supporting pornhub via cyberstalking, and tweeting a screenhot of the Prause page intro.

I said – February, 2021: Prause posts 70 tweets in 5 days falsely stating that I placed her address on YBOP – and she was grabbed on the street in 2019 as a consequence. Yet in 2020 Prause tweeted that no one, including me, has her real address. Her lies don’t match (documents tweets beyond the 5 days).

Same day. Same lies.

Incites cyberstalking and defamation from sex workers.

——————–

On April 13th Prause posts about 15 defamatory tweets targeting me (some are below, some are in other sections).

“Cover up an assault” is code for exposing Prause as lying that her address was on YBOP.

Same day, same lies. Calling me a criminal is defamation per se. The screenshot is of Prause reporting a tweet removed by Twitter for posting private information – my own email! Prause reported me to twitter for having my own email in a tweet! Very clever of her.

She’s lying about 6,000 pages as YBOP only has 12,000 pages. In reality, about 20 pages exist.

Same day, more lies. derspeigel said nothing about me. She’s lying about 5 women contacting law enforcement. I’ve never been contacted by any law enforcement organization.

Same day, more lies. WIPO wasn’t a lawsuit. In reality, I ultimately won as I eventually obtained the trademark infringing URL in question: ATTENTION: YBOP acquires www.RealYourBrainOnPorn.com in trademark infringement settlement

LOL. “won nothing”. I’ve won 2 lawsuits and Prause still owes me money: Legal victories over serial harasser/defamer Nicole Prause: She’s the perpetrator, not the victim!

Same day, more libel. She posts her lie-filled Medium article (which does not mention me).

Same day, more libel: There is no group; my wife is not rich; there are no backers as no one has ever giving me a dime (I refuse donations/ads); I have not bragged. She’s tweeting my wife’s private information: April, 2021: Prause extends her blatant cyberstalking to posting my wife’s Venmo “friends” list, lying that they were paid to produce anti-porn presentations

Same day, more defamation per se. All lies.

She’s providing a screenshot of Wayne Giampietro’s C&D letter to my webhost. The 4 urls pictured did NOT contain Prause’s address. See:

Note. Prause’s lawyer, Wayne Giampietro, represented a party associated with Backpage (an online marketplace that was shut down for trafficking minors). Backpage.com was shuttered by the Federal government “for its willful facilitation of human trafficking and prostitution.” (See this USA Today article: 93-count indictment on sex trafficking charges revealed against Backpage founders). The indictment charged Backpage owners, along with others, of conspiring to knowingly facilitate prostitution offenses through the website, and contended that the trafficked people included teenage girls. For details on Giampietro’s involvement see – https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2017cv05081/341956. In an odd turn of events, Backpage.com assets were seized by Arizona, with Prause’s counsel Wayne B. Giampietro LLC listed as forfeiting $100,000.

Same day, more defamation per se. Now she states that I know who allegedly assaulted her. She will lie about anything & everything.

—————–

February, 2021: Prause tweets that “Exhibit #5” from her failed lawsuit proves I posted her address on YBOP. I tweet a screenshot of Exhibit #5 proving Prause is lying.

As documented in the preceding section and elsewhere, Prause’s favorite lie is that I posted her address on YBOP. She recently added to her fairy tale, falsely asserting that a young man grabbed her “at the address on YBOP.” Knowing this is a lie, I have consistently demanded that she produce a screenshot proving her address was on YBOP. Since she cannot, Prause resorted to posting a screenshot of her exhibit list from the 2^nd lawsuit she lost to me. Unfortunately for her, court rules required Prause to provide all her exhibits to me before the hearing (just as I had to provide her with all my documents).

Her 5-tweet thread featuring the exhibit #5 fairy tale begins with an attack upon journalist Jon Van Maren, and the “cover sheet” for exhibit #5. Notice she says Exhibit 5 is in the “public record.” She later contradicts herself in response to my tweet showing she lied about exhibit #5, falsely stating that exhibit #5 was in a sealed court filing. (There were no sealed court documents.) Typical. When caught in a lie, she simply tells a bigger, even more absurd lie.

This is followed by a tweet of her “exhibit list cover sheet,” which falsely describes exhibit #5 as a “public post of Dr. Prause’s address on his website.” She mislabeled it, as Exhibit 5 was not a public post of Prause’s address on YBOP. (I’ve never posted her physical address on YBOP.) Devious of her to enter an untrue description of a court document. She was clearly planning ahead for future Twitter deception!

Note: At the hearing on January 22, 2021 an Oregon court ruled in my favor and charged Prause with costs and an additional penalty. (Prause still owes me the money for her court loss.)

I responded with this tweet exposing her as lying about exhibit #5:

A close up of my slide. During the hearing I scribbled a few notes on all of her exhibits (in anticipation of her lying to the judge, which she did).

In reality, exhibit #5 is a screenshot of a 2017 advertisement on RetreatGuru of Prause proudly co-presenting with founder and CEO of OneTaste, Nicole Daedone. It’s located in this long section of an extensive page documenting Prause lying in court filings. The section responds to Prause’s accusation that I lied when I stated correctly that she received funding from “OneTaste” to study “Orgasmic Meditation.”

“Gary Wilson falsely claims on his website www.yourbrainonporn.com that I…. am funded by the sexual servitude of women through a company called OneTaste. ….. and none of my research is, or has ever been, funded by the OneTaste company”

The section reveals that Prause’s own documents, the University of Pittsburgh’s tax filings, and OneTaste’s website and documents all state that OneTaste funded Prause’s OM study. The context of the 2017 workshop screenshot is reproduced in the section below.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In addition, numerous articles describe Prause as the principal investigator for the OneTaste (Orgasmic Meditation) study:
How do women really know if they are having an orgasm?
When Yoga Isn’t Enough, Do You Need Orgasmic Meditation?
Not just a cult: orgasmic meditation (OM) and upcoming research on mental health benefits
Articles paint OneTaste not only as a sexual cult, but as employing less than savory business practices:
The Dark Side of the Orgasmic Meditation Company (Bloomberg.com)
Inside the Implosion of OneTaste, San Francisco’Orgasmic Meditation Cult (Playboy.com)
Report alleges ‘sexual servitude’ at San Francisco-based ‘orgasmic meditation’ company (SF Chronicle)
FBI Investigates ‘Orgasmic Meditation’ Company OneTaste: Report (Daily Beast)
The ‘fingering’ cult: A reader’s experience of OneTaste – is not very tasteful at all
A look inside a bizarre and controversial ‘orgasmic meditation’ program for women (2020)
Members of orgasmic meditation group where men stimulated women for 45 mins every day claim they were left deeply in debt and told to have sex to attract potential clients in a ‘kind of prostitution ring’ (Daily Mail, 2020)
2020 – 10-part series by the BBC – The Orgasm Cult: In the search for wellness, how far would you go? Investigating wellness company One Taste and asking big questions about women’s health.
In the Bloomberg.com article CEO Joanna Van Vleck pretty much said that OneTaste’s success was now dependent on Prause’s upcoming EEG studies about OM:
The newish CEO is betting that the study OneTaste has funded on the health benefits of OM, which has taken brain-activity readings from 130 pairs of strokers and strokees, will draw fresh crowds. Led by researchers from the University of Pittsburgh, the study is expected to yield the first of multiple papers later this year. “The science that’s coming out to back what this is and what the benefits are is going to be huge in terms of scaling,” Van Vleck says.
A 2017 advertisement on RetreatGuru of Prause proudly co-presenting with founder and CEO of OneTaste, Nicole Daedone (and making good money):
From OneTaste founder Nicole Daedone’s Wikpedia page:
She founded OneTaste in 2004, a sexuality-focused wellness education company based in the San Francisco Bay Area. OneTaste trademarked the “orgasmic meditation” (OM) procedure delivered through the company’s classes. OneTaste also organizes two-week, $36,000-a-person retreats called the “Nicole Daedone Intensive.” Former members of the organization testifying about their experience at OneTaste said it “resembled a kind of prostitution ring,” where managers frequently ordered staffers to engage in sexual relations with customers. In 2015, a former employee received a 6-figure settlement for sexual assault and harassment. The company made $12 million in revenue in 2017.^[6]
Like attracts like.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Undeterred by reality, she “triples down” in the following tweet, lying that exhibit #5 was “a sealed court filing” and that I “violated a confidentially agreement.” As she has for 8 years running, Prause adds that the “LAPD was alerted.” It’s 8 years and I’m still waiting for the LAPD to contact me.

As for her “stalking” claim, we settled that myth in my first lawsuit win over Prause: On August 6, the Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that Prause’s attempt to obtain a restraining order against me constituted a frivolous and illegal “strategic lawsuit against public participation” (commonly called a “SLAPP suit”). Prause lied throughout her fraudulent TRO request, providing zero verifiable evidence to support her outlandish claims that I stalked or harassed her. In essence, the Court found that Prause abused the restraining order process to bully me into silence and undercut my rights to free speech. By law, the SLAPP ruling obligated Prause to pay my attorney fees.

Others – February, 2021, ongoing: Is Prause already violating her settlement agreements?

On February 27, 2021 Alex Rhodes publicly announced that his defamation suit against Prause had settled on mutually agreeable terms (just after Hilton’s lawyer filed a notice that he had also reached a tentative settlement with Prause). As is usual, settlement terms were not disclosed, but we would speculate that Prause’s insurance company agreed to pay out a lot of money to Rhodes and Hilton in order to terminate the suits and end its defense of an extremely costly insurance client (Prause).

Even prior to the settlement, Prause had dragged out the cases far beyond their natural lives. For example, in Rhodes v. Prause she demanded different lawyers, which delayed matters. Then she obstructed discovery every possible way. In fact, the Rhodes trial court finally reprimanded Prause and ordered her to stop her obfuscation and dilatory behavior.

At last, the depositions of Prause and her Pitt colleague (Greg Siegle) were scheduled. However, the night before the first deposition was to occur, Prause filed a suspect bankruptcy – once again halting the proceedings indefinitely. This left her insurance company on the hook for mounting legal fees with no end in sight. Prause’s bankruptcy court wanted no part of this messy suit either. It mandated mediation discussions before it would rule.

We also speculate that Prause agreed to stop her defamation and disparagement of Alex Rhodes as part of the settlement. It is inconceivable that either Rhodes or Hilton would have settled without her promise to stop. However, she has continued to disparage both. See below for examples of attacks on Rhodes since the settlement was signed. Will Rhodes have to sue her again after her bankruptcy is discharged?

Meanwhile, on Twitter, Prause seems to be denying the reality of the settlement for the benefit of her fan club — by claiming that “nothing ever happened” in the defamation cases against her. However, the fact is that Prause was forced to settle this defamation case, as well as the Hilton case. (The Minc defamation case has not settled and is scheduled for a jury trial in Ohio.)

Settlements are not dismissals, or indications that “nothing happened.” More than 95% of civil cases settle. Settlements are generally seen as victories for defamation victims like Rhodes and Hilton. These cases would have been dismissed had they not exposed Prause and her insurance carrier to liability for Prause’s wrongdoing.

Here are examples of her post-settlement disparagement of Rhodes & his fundraiser, and mischaracterizing the settlement terms (these many tweets are probably in violation of the settlement agreements).

NOTE: Prause tweets often contain the same rhetoric. The truth:

The settlement is under a non-disclosure agreement, which Prause appears to be violating.
No one said “big fees,” but Prause’s insurance company clearly paid out settlements to Rhodes and Hilton.
“Withdrawn with prejudice” To settle a lawsuit means the plaintiff (Rhodes, Hilton) has accepted the defendant’s “deal,” and is therefore willing to dismiss the original suit. “With prejudice” only means that the plaintiff will not sue the defendant again for the original claims. The plaintiff is free to sue again for new claims, such as breach of the settlement agreement terms.
“I paid nothing.” Perhaps, but Prause’s insurance company apparently did!
“No defamation finding was ever made.” Prause settled each suit to avoid having to comply with discovery and a jury trial. Prause was not exonerated. Nor were there any “findings.”
A third defamation lawsuit continues, and I won 2 lawsuits against Prause, exposing her as the perpetrator, not the victim (suit #1, suit #2).

These 3 tweets, falsely alluding to Alex Rhodes’s fundraiser were posted on the day of the lawsuit settlement

There was no fraud.

——————————–

Posts screenshot with Alex’s name.

Ah yes, LAPD is investigating…

—————————

Instead of directly targeting Alex or Nofap, Prause trolls Matt Fradd with numerous tweets falsely claiming Alex’s fundraiser was a fraud and the money is “now gone”, and

Prause post screenshots from Alex’s fundraiser, falsely claiming that Fradd told “them to kick my ass.”

In fact, Matt told Alex to “Kick ass.” Typical Prause maneuver. Lie about what someone said, hoping your sycophants fail to look at the screenshots. Here’s the screenshot:

She’s likely smearing Fradd because he donated $1,000 and asked his followers to donate what they could.

——————–

Wow, she trolls Fradd’s post about his young son!

Stalking? I do know she has lied for years about me stalking her (and the court agreed). She also lied about having to constantly relocate due to stalking. She also falsely accused many people I know of stalking her and/or female scientists.

Two days later the cyberstalking of Fradd continues. This time falsely accusing Fradd of directly threatening physical violence.

—————–

More cyberstalking and deception targeting Alex’s fundraiser

The funds are not “gone”. Every dollar raised went to pay legal costs in Alex Rhodes’s defamation suit. Nothing to do with the porn industry? Explain away the evidence on this page: Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry?

She continues:

———————

Accuses Fradd of committing Fraud for asking listeners to support Alex.

Prause is lying that “nothing ever happened”. She filed bankruptcy to escape liability for 3 yet-to-be tried defamation suits (Hilton, Rhodes, Minc) and avoid paying me the attorney-fee debt she had incurred (in my Anti-SLAPP victory). Mind you, Prause was not remotely insolvent. She had simply squirreled away most of her assets into her retirement accounts (more than quarter of a million dollars), and listed a tiny bit of consumer debt (under $3,000). Her claim of insolvency was almost entirely based on potential liabilities from the above defamation suits (which may have never gone to trial), plus some $40K she was going to owe me once the judge blessed the amount. The Bankruptcy judge then ordered all 3 defamation suits to try mediation. Prause & her insurance company settled with Don Hilton and Alex Rhodes. The terms are undisclosed, but the insurance company offered big bucks to settle leading up to the mediation. I suspect Prause had to sign a non-disparagement clause, which she has not observed.

——————–

She starts in the next day. Now she claims that Matt incited violence. Yet she never provides any evidence of violence, yet alone it being incited by Matt.

Saying “the money is gone” is accurate – all of the donated money went into the lawsuit. The donations failed to cover all of Alex’s legal expenses.

——————

More of the same.

“Gone”? The donations failed to cover all of Alex’s legal expenses.

———————-

More defamation, falsely accusing Fradd of inciting violence.

—————–

False – Nofap did not “re-post links”.

—————–

In response to being cyberstalked and defamed, Burr posted this thread, ending it with a link to Prause page #1 (he did not link to the lawsuits). As you can, see no one said that Prause had been convicted of defamation (which really isn’t a thing, as the 3 defamation suits against her were civil, not criminal).

As for the lawsuits, Staci Sprout published this (3-17-21): Prause Forced to Settle Two of Three Lawsuits Against Her for Defamation.

—————-

More cyberstalking of Burr, with screenshots mentioning Rhodes, Nofap, and the fundraiser.

——————

Ley and Prause are obsessed with opinion papers by NZ grad student Kris Taylor, especially his “analysis” of 15 carefully chosen comments from Nofap: I want that power back: Discourses of masculinity within an online pornography abstinence forum . A sociologist, Taylor is beyond biased – and knows nothing about neuroscience. YBOP critiqued a 2017 article by him where he disparaged Gary Wilson and the review with US navy doctors (Taylor often resorts to simply lying in his article): Debunking Kris Taylor’s “A Few Hard Truths about Porn and Erectile Dysfunction” (2017).

This paper is a fav, with Prause’s Wikipedia aliases inserting it into Wikipedia pages, misrepresenting Taylor’s methodology and content, falsely sating it was “systematic review of nofap content“. In reality, Kris Taylor’s dissertation assessed only 15 comments from reddit/nofap, while ignoring millions of other comments. Taylor chose the 15 comments because they contained the word “masculinity”. Contrary to lies by Prause, Taylor’s was not an analysis of Nofap or its users. From Taylor’s paper:

Given this approach to data collection, we wish to highlight that the data presented is not intended to be read as representative of NoFap as a whole, but to present how some users express a particular investment in masculinity and its constitution (Edley, 2001; Edley and Wetherell, 1997). That is, as opposed to an analysis in which users’ posts are understood as oblique references to masculinity (through their talk about video games, pornography, exercise and diet, etc.), our study presents the ways in which users actively constitute masculine positions. Our search term ‘masculinity’ rendered numerous pages of ‘original posts’ which pertained specifically to defining masculinity.

See the following back and forth between Prause and “bart” concerning Taylor’s paper. As bart points out, Taylor carefully selected 15 out-of-context comments from among millions of reddit/nofap comments in order to support his preordained agenda. Interspersed among the 15 reddit comments we find Taylor’s sociological gibberish masquerading as “deep thought.” This are the type of biased, lightweight reflections that sexology journals love to publish.

Two shills working it:

Stalking? My lawsuit victory over her proved Prause was lying about stalking: Gary Wilson (Your Brain on Porn) Wins Legal Victory Against Sexologist Nicole Prause’s Efforts to Silence Him

FBI? Our FOIA request proved she was lying about FBI reports:

——————–

2 lies by her – @nofap did not say that it won a lawsuit, and it did not mention Prause’s name. She’s retweeting a DM by NoFap warning an account that it is engaging in defamation.

The DM to the defamer, which never name Prause. Who knows what legal claims Nofap has pursued in the last year?

——————

Same day – Now it’s life coaches that are trying to kill her.

Same day. Not one of the opinion papers provides data or examples of anyone from nofap being involved with ‘violence”. Always check original sources.

Same as above….. opinion papers, without data, that fail to provide a single example of nofap users being connected to violence.

See the following back and forth between Prause and “bart” concerning Kris Taylor’s opinion paper. As bart points out, Taylor carefully selected 15 out-of-context comments from among millions of reddit/nofap comments in order to support his preordained agenda. Interspersed among the 15 reddit comments we find Taylor’s sociological gibberish masquerading as “deep thought.” This are the type of biased, lightweight reflections that sexology journals love to publish.

————————

Prause appears to be saying that the author of the comment about leggings was the person who assaulted her.

I don’t know if Prause was accosted, but I know she is lying about the circumstances: she has falsely claimed in countless posts that she was ‘assaulted’ at the address I placed on YBOP. This is a lie as her address has never been on YBOP. In fact, Prause sated that her real address has never appeared on the net. Thread exposing her lie:

——————-

The leggings comment… again.

I see no mention of Prause in the comment:

————–

Vile, defamatory tweet by Miller, followed by usual propaganda by Nikky:

——————–

Staci Sprout tweet this page – Prause Forced to Settle Two of Three Lawsuits Against Her for Defamation– which upset Prause, leading to her discussing the lawsuits (which probably violates the settlement):

Again –

TRUTH:

The settlement is under a non-disclosure agreement, which Prause appears to be violating.
No one said “big fees,” but Prause’s insurance company clearly paid out settlements to Rhodes and Hilton.
“Withdrawn with prejudice” To settle a lawsuit means the plaintiff (Rhodes, Hilton) has accepted the defendant’s “deal,” and is therefore willing to dismiss the original suit. “With prejudice” only means that the plaintiff will not sue the defendant again for the original The plaintiff is free to sue again for new claims, such as breach of the settlement agreement terms.
“I paid nothing.” Perhaps, but Prause’s insurance company apparently did!
“No defamation finding was ever made.” Prause settled each suit to avoid having to comply with discovery and a jury trial. Prause was not exonerated. Nor were there any “findings.”
A third defamation lawsuit continues, and I won 2 lawsuits against Prause, exposing her as the perpetrator, not the victim (suit #1, suit #2

———————

Prause posts her own tweet, mischaracterizing the settlements:

Another:

Staci linked to this – Prause Forced to Settle Two of Three Lawsuits Against Her for Defamation

—————

Falsely claims Fradd incited violence.

The money paid Alex’s legal fees. Prause’s insurance company paid her legal fees and the payout to Alex.

———-

5 tweets the same day defaming Matt, and lying about the Alex Rhode lawsuits and the settlements.

Tweet #2

Tweet #3. Matt is now inciting Mass murder!

Tweet #4: Is she blaming Matt for the Atlanta massage parlor shooting? What a nutter.

Tweet #5: Accountability? Prause has been held accountable in numerous legal venues and defamation lawsuits: Legal victories over serial harasser/defamer Nicole Prause: She’s the perpetrator, not the victim!

——————-

Screenshot of same donations. Defames Fradd by accusing him of threatening women.

Two tweets targeting Staci Sprout, DJ Burr and Gary Wilson:

She doesn’t appreciate being outed as owing me money. See – Gary Wilson (Your Brain on Porn) Wins Second Legal Victory Against Sexologist Nicole Prause

———————-

More of the same false claims. What a cyberstalker.

—————–

She lies that I am another twitter account.

——————-

The account tweeted at me pointing out that she lied in her retweet, falsely stating he said she was a party in the SCRAM suit.

——————-

———————

None of this occurred. No screenshot = lying.

She’s also lying about the new site, which is a replica of the RealYBOP site she managed: https://web.archive.org/web/20210519092618/https://porn-science.com/

———————-

None of this occurred. No screenshot = lying. Her screenshot are of her quotes from an article. Completely irrelevant.

“My attorney”. Yeah right.

————————–

None of this occurred. No screenshot = lying.

She’s made numerous false statements:

———————-

Post her BS Article about Nofap.

—————————

Prause lies again, claiming she has never lost a lawsuit. But she has.

————————-

Gets crazier in her lies. She has never won a lawsuit.

————————

Again, never lost a lawsuit.

————————-

Prause is cyberstalking Rebecca Watson for producing this scathing video exposing Nikky as a pathological liar and harasser

Prause has not prevailed in any lawsuit.

————————-

OMG. She’s now claiming that she won the SLAPP suit, and that her attorney helped her with her tweets (I don’t think so as she has been pro se ever since she used the bankruptcy to stiff her attorneys

Debunking of Prause’s claims.

————————

Doubt this is allowed:

She tweets, “No defamation finding was ever made” or “no retractions.” Prause settled each suit to avoid having to comply with discovery and a jury trial. Prause was not exonerated. Nor were there any findings or retractions. These do not occur when a lawsuit settles. A third defamation lawsuit continues, and I won 2 lawsuits against Prause, exposing her as the perpetrator, not the victim (suit #1, suit #2).

————————

He never said “diagnosed”. She lies about everything.

Another lie. She did not win any lawsuit. Prause keeps referring to the administrative WIPO complaint as a lawsuit. It was not a lawsuit. It’s purpose was to try to make a lawsuit unnecessary. Ultimately, WIPO made no difference as I now own the URL in dispute: ATTENTION: YBOP acquires www.RealYourBrainOnPorn.com in trademark infringement settlement.

————————————

AND ALL THE TWEETS IN THIS SECTION – Others – May 7, 2021: Frustrated by online criticism Prause creates a lie-filled slide to “debunk” Rebecca Watson’s video, tweeting it 12 times in a 20-minute period (appears Prause blocked the accounts she tweeted under).

——————-

On March 25th Prause’s account was banned for Nicole Prause’s Twitter account (@NicoleRPrause) temporarily suspended for “posting violent threats”.

Others – March, 2021: Prause lies to Patreon in an attempt to get Gabe Deem banned

Prause tweets her usual lies under a 9-month old tweet about Gabe’s new Patreon account. She tags Patreon hoping she can hoodwink Patreon into banning Gabe based on her fabrications. As documented in this section, Gabe’s video apparently struck a nerve: August, 2020: In response to Gabe Deem’s video “The Porn Playbook,” @BrainOnPorn (Prause) posts over 20 defamatory and disparaging tweets (falsely claiming Gabe sent death & rape threats).

Prause is lying (of course). Gabe never said Prause was “in the porn industry.” Watch the video, and see for yourself:

As she is lying about the content of Gabe’s video and has no evidence to support her claims, she resorts to posting her lie-filled 2015 cease and desist letter as “evidence” of wrongdoing:

Nothing is Prause’s C&D is true. Many of us received similar bogus C&D letters, which we summarily ignored: Prause silencing people with fake “no contact” demands and spurious Cease & Desist letters (Linda Hatch, Rob Weiss, Gabe Deem, Gary Wilson, Marnia Robinson, Alex Rhodes, etc.). I was probably the only person to reply to her 2015 C&D, which contained the same 4 allegations as Gabe’s C&D. I asked both Prause and the lawyer to provide evidence to support their allegations. Still waiting in 2021.

A week later Prause trolls Gabe’s thread, claiming he is being “investigated for harassment”. This is Prause’s well-worn strategy to submit malicious, lie-filled reports to agencies, then crow on twitter that the person or organization is now”being investigated” . Prause has executed this tactic with about 40 individuals and organizations: Numerous Victims of Nicole Prause’s Malicious Reporting and Malicious Use of Process. The baseless administrative complaints Prause actually lodged were generally dismissed as nuisance filings. However, a few led to time-consuming investigations that were ultimately dismissed or produced little in the way of substantive results.

She escalates into insane defamation.

—————————–

Few weeks later, she tags Patreon, tweeting her nonsensical lies. Notice that Prause’s screenshots have nothing to with what she is claiming (alos notice that it’s in support of pornhub):

As you can see the screenshots do not say what she is claiming (they never do with Nikky):

———————–

These earlier sections expose Prause’s ongoing obsession with Gabe Deem. We suspect she targets Gabe because he is one of the major spokespersons discussing how porn causes ED in healthy young men (the porn industry’s dirty little secret).

Others – March, 2021: Prause accuses Gabe Deem of inciting the Atlanta massage parlor killings

Prause continued to cyberstalk Gabe, tweeting the outrageous accusation that he might have incited the Atlanta massage parlor shootings!

Another insane tweet:

Her bizarre tweets are supposedly bolstered by her lie-filled 2015 cease and desist letter and an excerpt from a more recent CNET article.

About Prause’s bogus C&D – Many of us received similar unsupported C&D letters, which we summarily ignored: Prause silencing people with fake “no contact” demands and spurious Cease & Desist letters (Linda Hatch, Rob Weiss, Gabe Deem, Gary Wilson, Marnia Robinson, Alex Rhodes, etc.). I was probably the only person to reply to her 2015 C&D, which contained the same 4 allegations as Gabe’s C&D. I asked both Prause and the lawyer to provide evidence to support their allegations. Still waiting in 2021.

The CNET excerpt is factually correct and backed by mounds of evidence

Extensive supporting evidence

———————-

Another lie-filled tweet, accusing Gabe of inciting mass shootings. It contains the same meaningless screenshots.

“Address protection program” = the Safe At Home Program. Court documents reveal that Prause entered the “Safe At Home Program”under false pretenses. I know for certain that Prause fraudulently entered California’s Safe At Home (“address protection”), because she named me as the reason for doing it in her lie-filled Motion To Dismiss filed in the Hilton lawsuit (her Motion to Dismiss was denied). I have not stalked her. From her motion:

Wilson has a documented history of stalking me. As a result, I qualified for California’s Safe at Home Program, and solicited a no-contact order against Wilson.

This is a garbage pile of fake victim-hood fabricated by the actual perpetrator. This truth was ultimately confirmed by my legal victory over Prause when she falsely claimed I was stalking her: court rulings fully exposed Nicole Prause as the perpetrator, not the victim.

The real reason that Prause entered the Safe at Home Program was to weaponize it:

March, 2021: Prause falsely accuses a recovering porn addict (@lino55591777) of being a Gary Wilson sockpuppet (she then lies about what he tweeted)

Twitter user @lino55591777 contacted me to apologize for stirring up Prause:

Typical of Prause as she often falsely accuses accounts of being “Gary Wilson.” She does this to prop up her fabricated tall tales of victim-hood.

In this next tweet Prause falsely states that @lino55591777 tweeted that Prause was “a party in the SCRAM lawsuit.” He had tweeted the SCRAM apology, with no comment.

@lino55591777 responds to her lies and being blocked:

Note – Prause herself has a long, documented history of employing numerous aliases (sockpuppets) to post on porn recovery forums, Wikipedia, and elsewhere, including these now banned Twitter aliases:

Others – March, 2021: Prause escalates into targeting Laila Mickelwait’s toddler

Laila Mickelwait is a regular target of Prause because Laila (1) supplied affidavits for 2 of the defamation suits against Prause and (2) started the Traffickinghub campaign to hold PornHub accountable for unconscionable and illegal content. Laila’s petition garnered over 2 million signatures eventually leading the NY Times publishing an investigative article fully affirming the claims put forth by TraffickingHub & Laila: The Children of Pornhub – Why does Canada allow this company to profit off videos of exploitation and assault? Laila’s TraffickingHub campaign incited @BrainOnPorn (Prause) to escalate into full on cyberstalking, lies and defamation – all in support of Pornhub’s agenda.

Once @BrainOnPorn was banned for targeted harassment, Prause was forced to use her own account to defame and harass. Not content with cyberstalking and defaming Laila, Prause resorted to targeting Laila’s toddler. Laila’s toddler had confiscated Laila’s phone and posted a nonsensical tweet. That was all Prause required to spin a malicious smear.

Tweet #1. Prause entered Laila’s thread (even though she is blocked). By the way, Laila doesn’t share “pornographic images” on Twitter.

Tweet #2. “Maybe I misread”? There’s nothing in Laila’s tweet that hints that her toddler was exposed to porn. The other 3 screenshots are of Laila’s tweets (none of which have porn).

Tweet #3: Replying to a porn producer, who is also cyberstalking Laila.

Tweet #4: Joins XBIZ’s Gustavo Turner in going after Laila. States that Laila’s toddler is perusing “her porn stash”.

Tweet #5: Is Prause suggesting that child protective services should be involved? It would not suprise me if she filed a false report on Laila.

How vile of Prause to target someone’s child in her campaign to support Pornhub by smearing Laila. Extraordinarily vile and very upsetting for the toddler’s parents. I know, as Prause doxed and defamed my son in several tweets, and in her fraudulent court filing. See – August, 2020: In Prause’s attempted restraining order (which was dismissed as meritless) she fabricated so-called “evidence,” which included doxxing and defaming my son.

March, 2021: Nicole Prause’s Twitter account (@NicoleRPrause) temporarily suspended for “posting violent threats”

Because Prause’s original account (@NicolePrause) was permanently banned for targeted harassment, Twitter should never have allowed her to have a second account (@NicoleRPrause). Nor should Prause have been allowed operate her porn industry shill accounts, some of which were subsequently banned for violating Twitter rules: 1) @pornhelps, 2) @CorrectingWils1, and 3) @BrainOnPorn.

Once @BrainOnPorn was banned for targeted harassment (October, 23, 2020), Prause was forced to use her personal account to defame and harass anyone she labeled an “anti-porn activist.” At first Prause posted a few defamatory tweets a day. Within a short time, however, she escalated to near @BrainOnPorn levels of cyberstalking and astonishing defamation.

For months, Twitter allowed Prause to post tweet after tweet containing the vilest lies imaginable. Not sure what woke Twitter from its slumber, but on March 25, 2021 it finally temporarily banned @NicoleRPrause.

The next day, those who had been reporting Prause’s egregious tweets were notified that Twitter had banned Prause for posting “violent threats.”

Ahh, the irony: Prause has posted hundreds of lie-filled tweets, falsely accusing “anti-porn activists” of stalking her and sending death threats. Yet, she was the one finally banned for violent threats against her targets.

April 1, 2021; Prause falsely accuses me of “tracking her computer,” and “threatening her website.” Falsely claims I said she was responsible for a DDOS attack on NoFap.com.

Is this an April Fool’s joke? LOL. Prause post multiple lies in a single tweet. And as usual her ‘evidence’ is no evidence at all. First, she falsely claims that my tweet said she was behind the DDOS attack on Nofap.com. Next she claims that I was tracking her computer and threatened her website. None of her screenshots support her 3 lies.

Prause’s lie-filled tweet:

My tweet in support of Nofap. As you can see I did not state that Prause was behind the DDOS attack.

As for her 2 screenshots of evidence that I am “tracking her computer” (what does that mean?), and attempted to do bad things to her site, she posted these next two items.

Not sure what this first one is, but it may be a record of a YBOP visitor clicking on a link that took them to Prause’s Liberos site. We have a few links to Liberos in the intro of this page: Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry?

This next item appears to be an email to the Liberos “Contact” plugin. I guess Prause is now claiming that I am “Hacker Guy.” (I’m not.) Suspicious that Prause has blocked out all identifying information about “Hacker Guy,” leaving her a free hand to invent any tall tale she likes.

What a nutter.

April, 2021: CNET badgered into removing Prause’s name from one sentence in their article. Prause falsely claims the original sentence had Gabe Deem and me saying Prause is “funded by the porn industry.”

One of Prause’s favorite tactics is to falsely accuse others of saying that the porn industry has funded some of her research (all of which reaches pro-porn conclusions). This unfounded accusation plays well to her Twitter followers (many of whom are in the industry or are pro-porn researchers themselves). It also feeds her fabricated mythology of victimhood. However, Prause has never provided any actual documentation of any of us stating that she is funded by the porn industry.

While there’s no evidence of any of Prause’s victims stating that Prause receives funding from the porn industry, anyone might be forgiven for wondering if she is indeed influenced by the porn industry. The Prause pages on this website are just the tip of a very large Prause Iceberg. She has posted thousands of times, attacking everyone and anyone who suggests porn might cause problems. She has defended the industry at every turn, much as a paid industry thought-leader could be expected to do. Clearly Prause, who lives in LA, enjoys a cozy relationship with the pornography industry as extensively documented here: Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry?

Now to the CNET article. In September, 2020 CNET journalist Daniel Van Boom contacted me. He said he was “writing a big report on internet porn addiction.” I declined to be interviewed but provided a few contacts for his story. Van Boom contacted me again 2 months later asking me to give comments for his article. He clearly now planned to shift his focus (or had misled me initially), as he informed me that his proposed piece “delves into the hostilities between yourself and Nicole Prause.”

From the tone and nature of his questions, it was clear that Van Boom had drunk the Prause Kool-Aid, and was planning to paint her as a victim. In response, I provided Van Boom with mounds of evidence demonstrating irrefutably that she’s the perpetrator rather than a victim. As in my earlier September reply to him, I declined to be interviewed.

Against my request, Van Boom then included me in his article as a foil for Prause and David Ley. Even more disturbing, Van Boom ignored hundreds of studies supporting the existence of porn addiction, as well as information about the World Health Organization’s new “Compulsive sexual behavior disorder” diagnosis, which we provided him.

On to the offending sentence CNET eventually modified under apparent pressure from Prause. Here’s the original version (December 1, 2020):

Deem and Wilson counter by accusing Ley and Prause of being cozy with the porn industry. Deem criticizes Ley in particular for appearing on Stripchat, an adult webcam platform, to tell viewers how claims about porn’s dangers are overblown. “That’s exactly what the tobacco industry did. They denied all the scientific research that showed harm, and they just said, ‘Well look at this doctor, his favorite cigarette is Camel.'”

Notice that “Deem and Wilson counter” this is not in quotations. This is because we would first counter with hundreds of studies debunking Prause & Ley’s unsupported talking points. Purely as an aside we might mention their cozy relationship with many in the porn industry, along with evidence of their extreme bias.

The new version, posted on April 1, 2021 (bolded words above are now deleted):

Deem counters by accusing Ley of being cozy with the porn industry. Deem criticized Ley for appearing on Stripchat, an adult webcam platform, to tell viewers how claims about porn’s dangers are overblown. “That’s exactly what the tobacco industry did. They denied all the scientific research that showed harm, and they just said, ‘Well look at this doctor, his favorite cigarette is Camel.'”

CNET removed both Prause and me from the sentence. The key is that I merely accused Prause of “being cozy with the porn industry,” which is true. Nowhere in the article do we say that Prause is “in pornography” or “funded by the porn industry.” Yet she falsely claims we said both in the following lie-filled tweets.

Several lies in a single tweet:

Truth:

Gabe’s video never said that Prause was funded by the porn industry.
The 2015 cease and desist contained nothing but lies accusing Gabe of things he hadn’t done.
The CNET article said Prause was “cozy with the porn industry,” which is quite true and very different from saying she is “funded by the porn industry.”
For 9 years Prause has continued her unrelenting harassment towards Gabe and many others.

What about her screenshots? As you can see, Prause’s screenshot from the old version of the CNET articles proves she is lying. It says “cozy with the porn industry:”

Typical of her to tweet screenshots that don’t match her claims.

Her second screenshot is of her lie-filled 2015 C&D to Gabe Deem. It’s an exact replica of the baseless 2015 C&D she sent me, my wife, and others (see – Prause silencing people with fake “no contact” demands and spurious Cease & Desist letters: Linda Hatch, Rob Weiss, Gabe Deem, Gary Wilson, Marnia Robinson, Alex Rhodes, etc.)

All four claims in the above cease & desist letter are pure fabrications.

I may have been the only C&D recipient to repond to a Prause C&D letter. In october, 2015 I sent the following letter asking both Prause and her lawyer to provide evidence to support her allegations:

In the intervening 6 years neither Prause nor the lawyer have responded. Neither has provided any evidence to support Prause’s allegations – because the allegations are false. Prause’s motivation for lie-filled C&D’s are multifold:

to intimidate critics,
to bolster her mythology of victim-hood,
to create a letter she could show her allies as “proof positive” that we are harassing her (even though it is proof of nothing and merely made up),
to produce an “official letter” to show journalists so as to discourage them from contacting her critics.

Please note: There is unequivocal evidence that the porn industry funded the sexology profession for decades. Sexology’s agenda still appears to serve the porn industry. Thus, the evidence on this page should be viewed in a larger context. See Hugh Hefner, the International Academy of Sex Research, and Its Founding President to understand how porn-industry friendly sexologists influenced the Kinsey Institute. Prause is a Kinsey grad.

April, 2021: Prause extends her blatant cyberstalking to posting my wife’s Venmo “friends” list, lying that they were paid to produce anti-porn presentations

Prause attacked my wife’s privacy by posting her private Venmo “Friends” list and then making up fictions about how my wife “paid” various people whose work Prause doesn’t like. (My wife never, in fact, paid these people).

Prause’s 3 lie-filled tweets. We have redacted the names.

Redacted versions of screenshots Prause tweeted. First, my wife’s 7 Venmo “friends” were apparently gathered from Facebook or her email address list when my wife initially signed up for its services.

Prause falsely claimed in tweet #1 that my wife paid one of the “friends” to create little-viewed videos about porn’s effects. She did not.

In Prause’s second tweet, she absurdly claims my wife paid another Venmo “friend” for his presentation at NCOSE. Prause also claims that she was mentioned in the presentation. She was not. Lies piled on lies.

In her 3rd tweet, Prause piles on another lie, saying Gabe Deem stated that Prause was paid by the porn industry:

She’s been pushing this lie for 6 years, but has yet to produce a screenshot (see – April, 2021: CNET badgered into removing Prause’s name from one sentence in their article. Prause falsely claims the original sentence had Gabe Deem and me saying Prause is “funded by the porn industry.”)

Tip for Venmo users: Venmo automatically adds “Friends” from your email list and Facebook page if they are also on Venmo – even if you have never paid those people. Appallingly, it does not automatically cloak those names that it added before the user chooses a strict privacy option. You have to dig to change the privacy settings to make the earlier “Friends” private.

**April, 2021: Prause manipulates screenshots to deceive viewers that someone wants her in hell. Yet the original tweet was about Pornhub, not about her!**

Prause uses her own account (just as she did her now-banned alias @BrainOnPorn) to defame and cyberstalk Laila. Why? Probably because Mickelwait’s petition to hold PornHub accountable for unconscionable and illegal content posted to its site has garnered over 2 million signatures, and eventually led the NY Times to publish an investigative article fully affirming the claims put forth by TraffickingHub and Laila: The Children of Pornhub – Why does Canada allow this company to profit off videos of exploitation and assault? So far Prause and her aliases have posted about 200 tweets targeting Laila, even escalating into targeting Mickelwait’s toddler!

In support of Mindgeek, Prause manipulates her screenshot. Below she lies about the tweet (which was referring to Pornhub not to Prause). It said “There’s a special place in hell for these kind of people who preys (sic) on the weak and poor“:

Next Prause posts a screenshot that implies I was responding to the “hell tweet,” when I was actually responding to her smearing me with her usual lies. (Courts agree that she is not a victim. Gary Wilson (Your Brain on Porn) Wins Legal Victory Against Sexologist Nicole Prause’s Efforts to Silence Him):

Here’s Prause’s manipulated screenshot, with the top tweet purposely omitted, and my tweet inappropriately placed below the “hell tweet”:

Check out the pre-manipulation order of the tweets. In reality, Prause posted under Aamir’s 9-month-old tweet. Then I replied exposing her as lying and cyberstalking:

Manufacturing this type of fake “evidence” is what Prause does…all the time.

Sections documenting Prause’s obsessive cyberstalking of Mickelwait:

**Others – April, 2021: Two apparent Prause aliases edit the Exodus Cry and NCOSE Wikipedia pages, trying to insert the VICE hit-piece Prause concurrently tweeted over 20 times (among other edits)**

As documented elsewhere, Laila Mickelwait is a regular target of Prause because Laila (1) supplied affidavits for 2 of the defamation suits against Prause and (2) started the Traffickinghub campaign to hold Pornhub accountable for unconscionable and illegal content.

Prause appears to have created ~55 Wikipedia sockpuppets (thus far) to bolster the porn industry’s interests and discredit critics with misleading edits (along with dozens of other aliases she uses to post on porn recovery forums). Back in February, 2019 Prause Asked Twitter followers to report Exodus Cry to the Missouri attorney general (for spurious reasons), while concurrently editing the CEO’s Wikipedia page (at the time Mickelwait worked for Exodus Cry).

Seems Prause is at it again, editing the Exodus Cry Wikipedia page and the Exodus Cry “talk page” with two new apparent sockpuppets:

First, here’s one of many examples from April 13th & 14th of Prause tweeting the VICE hit-piece under Laila (adding her familiar fabricated victimhood):

Concurrently, EffortMoose attempts to insert the VICE hit-piece (which Prause had tweeted over a dozen times under Laila on the 13th and 14th) into the Exodus Cry Wikipedia page. Notice how EffortMoose mirrors Prause’s numerous tweets (e.g. “inspiring criminal death threats,” “denied involvement”):

The above edits were reversed by a seasoned editor who recognized he was dealing with a troll. The discussion moved to the Exodus Cry talk page, with editor GBRV pointing out the obvious – the VICE article contained zero evidence connecting Mickelwait to neo-Nazis or violence:

“The new wording of the Vice article information still doesn’t provide much balance, and ignores the fact that the article’s allegations violate Wikipedia’s rule against including unsubstantiated claims since the article doesn’t establish any link between these Neo-Nazis and Exodus Cry or Laila Michelwait. We would need an article that provides proof of such a link, otherwise it’s unacceptable.”

Screenshot below of entire back and forth. Even though the VICE article contained no evidence, EffortMoose posted another irrelevant article with no mention of Mickelwait or Exodus cry and no actual evidence connecting “anti-porn activists” to violence or white supremacy.

Where did the “anti-porn activists are white supremacists” meme originate? It was a Prause and David Ley concoction! See – Ongoing – David Ley & Prause’s ongoing attempts to smear YBOP/Gary Wilson & Nofap/Alexander Rhodes by claiming links with neo-Nazi sympathizers

Foiled by scrupulous editors, EffortMoose tries to insert an unsupported assertion that Exodus Cry isn’t a non-profit. EffortMoose is again rebuffed:

We suspect Imp65 is another Prause sockpuppet. Within minutes of the Imp65 edits being reverted, “EffortMoose” was created and tried to reinsert Imp65’s edits:

The EffortMoose edits were reversed.

————————————

EffortMoose also edited the NCOSE Wikipedia page inserting false and defamatory claims (falsley saying that NCOSE incited violence, citing the VICE hit-piece)

For a glimpse of Prause’s extensive misuse of Wikipedia sockpuppets to spread her lies and defamation, see: A milestone for Nicole Prause? 50+ apparent sockpuppets edit Wikipedia with her biases, lies and defamation.

Others – April, 2021: Prause falsely accuses The Post Millennial editors of publishing false and defamatory claims that led to death and rape threats directed at herself and other female scientists.

BACKGROUND: On November 21, 2019, Canadian investigative journalist Diana Davison authored this Post Millennial expose’ on Prause – “Porn wars get personal in No Nut November.” Davison simultaneously released this 6-minute video discussing the defamation suits against Prause: “Is Porn Addictive?”

In public comments under her video Davison stated,

Prause said many things to me but none of her “evidence” actually supported her claims. In every instance the evidence reversed who the aggressor was. She basically accuses others of the exact things she herself did. I emailed with her, on the record, for almost a week.

In a second comment Davison said,

When I said I spent two weeks researching this that means I read every court document and every related document and spent a week emailing with Prause herself who cut me off after I started asking for actual evidence of harassment.

Prause responded to Davison’s work by threatening to sue both Davison and The Post Millennial. For example, one of many tweets containing falsehoods and empty threats. All of Prause’s alleged wrongs are fabricated nonsense, as usual:

It’s been 18 months and Prause has yet to follow up on her legal threats. See – November, 2019: In response to Diana Davison’s Post Millennial expose’, Prause harasses & defames Davison, followed by a bogus Cease & Desist letter, demanding $10,000 from Davison.

On April 13, 2021, Prause accused The Post Millennial editors of publishing “false and defamatory claims that led to death and rape threats directed at myself and other female scientists.” She provides no examples or evidence. In an attempt to give credibility to her lies she tags @openDemocracy.

She immediately tweets the TPM fact-checking policy to senior editor Barrett Wilson, saying he knew it was false (no one knows what “it” might be):

Then she tweets the TPM fact-checking policy to the other senior editor, Roberto Wakerell-Cruz, accusing him “posting false criminal information” and knowing the story was false. Not one example is provided by Dr. Defamation:

If the above is true, why didn’t Prause sue, as she had promised 18 months earlier? I’ll let Diana Davison explain why:

A reminder: Media outlets and others have been harmed by Prause’s lies. UK media outlet Scram News went out of business after it had to pay substantial damages because it had printed Prause’s defamatory lies. I’ve heard that VICE was subjected to a similar libel claim and had to remove false information provided to it by Prause, incurring substantial legal costs. I know first-hand that MEL magazine proposed a series of stories about her purported victim-hood. Yet, after further investigation, MEL declined to print Prause’s lies – and the magazine soon suspended publication entirely. Lastly, the University of Wisconsin-Lacrosse student newspaper was forced to remove an “investigative” article featuring Dr. Prause’s lies about me (U of W general counsel was involved).

April, 2021: Prause falsely claims she was accused over 1,000 times of having attended the XBIZ awards (it was the XRCO awards). Her tweets falsely accuse feminist Julie Bindel of attending XRCO awards

Context: Julie Bindel is a prominent anti-porn, anti-prostitution, radical feminist. As documented in Prause’s failed motion to dismiss Hilton’s defamation suit against her, and previous sections on this site, Prause has steadfastly asserted that she never attended ANY porn industry awards show.

Of course she is lying, as documented here: Evidence that Nicole Prause attends porn industry awards and events. There is no doubt that Prause attended the 2016 X-Rated Critics Organization (XRCO) awards ceremony as a friend of the industry. According to Wikipedia, The XRCO Awards are given by the American X-Rated Critics Organization annually to people working in adult entertainment and it is the only adult industry awards show reserved exclusively for industry members.^[1]

Despite the above tweet and a dozen more pictures, Prause insists she never attended the XRCO (when faced with irrefutable evidence, she simply doubles down on the lies).

In the following thread supporting PornHub and attacking NoFap, @BrainOnPorn (Prause) tweeted an XBIZ article targeting Julie Bindel. RealYBOP falsely claimed that Julie Bindel attended XRCO. This is a bold-faced lie. Bindel attended the XBIZ awards, which are open to the public (unlike the exclusive XRCO). Funny that RealYBOP’s tweet exposes her lie as the screenshot says that Bindel attended the XBIZ awards. Also notice how RealYBOP (Prause), Ley, and JamesF often work as a defamation tag team:

The purpose of RealYBOP’s tweet is to give the false impression that anyone (including anti-porn feminists) can attend the XRCO awards, including Julie Bindel. Lying comes easily for these porn-industry shills.

Months later and Prause is now forced to use her regular account – because the porn-industry shill Twitter account she managed (@BrainOnPorn) was permanently banned for targeted harassment and abuse. This time Prause adjusts the narrative, yet still mentions the red herring of Bindel’s attendance at the open-to-the-public XBIZ event.

The new version now has Prause being falsely accused over 1,000 times(!) of attending the XBIZ awards. Those “accusations” didn’t happen. All “accusations” were about her documented attendance at the exclusive porn-industry XRCO awards:

Notice the odd language she employs: “I was ticketed to go.” As for “only people in porn are invited,” this appears to be true for the “X-Rated Critics Organization awards. In fact, Prause occupied a reserved table with members of the porn industry:

Deny that.

April, 2021: Prause trolls @PornHelp.org falsely accusing it of inciting violence against women

First tweet by the cyberstalker.

Second ridiculous tweet, suggesting that quitting porn leads to misogyny. Prause’s mantra – quitting porn is bad for you.

There is no science supporting her claims. The truth is that nearly every study assessing porn use and egalitarianism (sexual attitudes) has reported that porn use is associated with attitudes toward women that both liberals and conservatives regard as extremely problematic. See this 2016 meta-analysis of 135 studies: Media and Sexualization: State of Empirical Research, 1995–2015. Excerpt:

The goal of this review was to synthesize empirical investigations testing effects of media sexualization. The focus was on research published in peer-reviewed, English-language journals between 1995 and 2015. A total of 109 publications that contained 135 studies were reviewed. The findings provided consistent evidence that both laboratory exposure and regular, everyday exposure to this content are directly associated with a range of consequences, including higher levels of body dissatisfaction, greater self-objectification, greater support of sexist beliefs and of adversarial sexual beliefs, and greater tolerance of sexual violence toward women. Moreover, experimental exposure to this content leads both women and men to have a diminished view of women’s competence, morality, and humanity.

Ongoing – The Numerous Victims of Nicole Prause’s Malicious Reporting and Malicious Use of Process

Nicole Prause has shown a consistent and troubling pattern of (1) filing groundless, malicious complaints and lawsuits, and (2) threatening such actions, or publicly claiming that she has filed them when she has not done so. (Five main pages documenting Prause’s behaviors: page 1, page 2, page 3, page 4, page 5.)

Below is a partial list of such complaints and false claims. (Out of other targets’ fear of reprisal we have been asked to omit additional individuals and organizations.) Also, Prause regularly claims “whistleblower status” to keep her activities under the radar. So, there are likely other, non-public complaints in addition to those listed here.

The baseless administrative complaints Prause actually lodged were generally dismissed as nuisance filings. However, a few led to time-consuming investigations that were ultimately dismissed or produced little in the way of substantive results. (Can also download PDF Documenting Nicole Prause’s Malicious Reporting and Malicious Use of Process.)

Malicious Reporting

Staci Sprout LICSW – (see this page by Staci Sprout: Bullying, harassment and defamation from unexpected sources as a sex addiction recovery activist)

Reported to Washington State’s Department of Health, twice. (no action)
Reported to National Association of Social Workers. (no action)
In 2020, Prause also filed a groundless small claims suit in California against Staci Sprout. Dismissed by judge due to wrong venue.
PDF of Staci Sprout’s affidavit filed in Rhodes v Prause recounting events.

Fight the New Drug – Reported to Utah’s Division of Child and Family Services on the absurd theory that sharing volunteers’ first-hand stories of porn recovery constituted the abuse of minors. DCFS took no action.

Rory Reid PhD – Prause’s former colleague at UCLA. Appears to have been reported to UCLA (and perhaps to the California Psychology Board). Prause’s attacks on him began concurrently with UCLA’s decision not to renew her contract, bringing her academic career to an end circa 2014. Five documents were on Prause’s AmazonAWS website urging readers to report Rory Reid to the state of California. (Update – Prause deleted the 5 Rory Reid pages after this page was published.) The screenshots are preserved in these 2 sections:

Linda Hatch PhD – (July, 2019: Linda Hatch, PhD affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.)

Reported to CA Psych Board (no action)
Reported to the APA (no action)
Prause also sent Hatch a groundless cease & desist letter: Prause silencing people with fake “no contact” demands and spurious cease & desist letters (Linda Hatch, Rob Weiss, Gabe Deem, Gary Wilson, Marnia Robinson, Alex Rhodes, etc.)

Bradley Green PhD – (July, 2019: Bradley Green, PhD affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.)

Reported to University of Southern Mississippi (No action)
Reported to journal where one of his papers appeared (Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity). Journal publisher investigated and minor tweaks ensued.

Jason Carroll PhD – Reported to Brigham Young University because Prause didn’t like research results (No action)

Geoff Goodman PhD – Reported to Long Island University for “harassment” (No action)

The Reward Foundation 

Reported to Scottish Charity Regulator for alleged misdeeds (No action) – 2015 & 2016: Prause violates COPE’s code of conduct to harass Gary Wilson and a Scottish charity
Reported to collective where the charity is domiciled (The Melting Pot) – The exploits of “Janey Wilson” (a Prause alias) (No action)
July, 2018: In emails, in the ICD-11 comments section, and on Wikipedia, Prause and her sockpuppets falsely claim that Wilson received 9,000 pounds from The Reward Foundation (Disproved, publicly)

Alexander Rhodes of Nofap

Prause claimed publicly to have reported Rhodes to the FBI. An FOIA request shows the FBI had no such report.
Prause falsely claimed to a mainstream TV producer to have a restraining order against Alex Rhodes: Rhodes files a defamation lawsuit against Nicole Prause / Liberos LLC.
Prause reported Rhodes to the Pennsylvania Board of Psychology for practicing psychology without a license because CNN filmed him in a group with other young men, all talking about porn’s effects. No therapy was offered or provided. (Investigation in progress). RealYBOP tweet asking followers to report Rhodes to psych Board. See: February/March 2020: Prause reports Alex Rhodes to the Pennsylvania Board of Psychology for practicing psychology without a license because CNN filmed him in a group with other young men, all talking about porn’s effect.
Appears that Prause reported Donor Box for hosting Alex Rhodes’s fundraiser: January-March, 2020: Prause incites defamatory UK article in an effort to have Alex Rhodes’s “Donor Box” fundraising campaign removed.

Gabe Deem, founder of RebootNation – Multiple incidents of Prause & her alias (@BrainOnPorn) defaming and harassing Gabe Deem:

Exodus Cry – (July, 2019: Laila Haddad affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.)

Prause reported Exodus Cry to the Missouri Attorney General for having a fraudulent mission statement for their 501c3 – February, 2019: Prause falsely accuses Exodus Cry of fraud. Asks Twitter followers to report the non-profit to the Missouri attorney general (for spurious reasons), Appears to have edited the CEO’s Wikipedia page (No action)
Laila Mickelwait/Exodus Cry affidavit for Rhodes v Prause

John Adler MD – Prause reported Professor Adler to Stanford University for “harassment” (No action)

CUREUS journal – Prause reported the journal to PubMed Central, trying to have it de-listed and thus discredited (No action)

Don Hilton, MD – Reported to the university where he mentors neurosurgery students, the Texas Medical Board, and academic journals with unfounded claims that he faked his credentials (No action)

July, 2019: Donald Hilton amends defamation lawsuit to include affidavits from 9 other victims of Prause, Texas Board of Medical Examiners complaint, incorrectly accusing Dr. Hilton of falsifying his credentials.

Keren Landman, MD – Prause asked VICE magazine to terminate expert Dr. Landman for writing an article recommending use of condoms in porn in support of Proposition 60. Unbelievable.

Most of the 7 physicians who co-authored Park et al., 2016 – Prause reported them to their state medical boards for simply being on the paper (more about Prause’s unrelenting malice related to the paper, which disagreed with her views: Prause’s (failed) efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted) (No action)

Gary Wilson, who co-authored Park et al., 2016

Background – Prause’s failed efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted
Prause claimed publicly and repeatedly to have reported Wilson to the FBI twice (FOIA request showed FBI had no such report)
Reported to the Oregon Psychology Board by an “anonymous” party, for practicing psychology without a license. (Dismissed without further action.)
Claimed publicly Wilson was reported to the police (LAPD and UCLA PD) since 2013 (No evidence of such reports for years. Eventually Prause filed an LAPD report in 2018, which Wilson wasn’t even informed of…until Prause persuaded a gullible school newspaper editor to publish it in 2019 [swiftly removed by university officials]. See March 17, 2019: Article by University of Wisconsin-Lacrosse student newspaper (The Racquet) posts false police report by Nicole Prause.) (No action by LAPD)
(Apparently) reported Wilson to the ISSM (International Society for Sexual Medicine) for heaven knows what, which canceled his keynote address scheduled for March, 2018 in Lisbon without giving a reason. Then Prause began a social media campaign saying someone had been “removed for an actual good reason from a conference,” and claimed (again) that Gary had misrepresented his credentials (he hadn’t). Gary soon received his Oregon Psychology Board exoneration (see above), so she may also have told the ISSM earlier that he had been “reported for practicing psychology without a license” among other misleading information – in order to persuade the ISSM to cancel him.
Reported Gary’s site yourbrainonporn.com 3 times for copyright violations using groundless DMCA take-down requests in attempt to remove documentation of her defamation and harassment from his site. (No action)
November 19, 2019: When the groundless DMCA takedowns failed to remove evidence of Prause’s defamation and harassment she sent a spurious Cease and Desist letter to Gary Wilson’s webhost, Linode. (No action)
In November 2019, Prause apparently successfully applied for protection under California’s “Safe At Home” program, falsely claiming that Wilson had threatened her and posted her home address on his website. November, 2019: Prause enters the California “Safe At Home Program” under false pretenses, misusing it to harass her victims and critics. Prause repeatedly used her status to intimidate others, groundlessly accusing her critics and Gary’s web host Linode of violating the Safe At Home act.
January, 2020: When Prause’s spurious Cease & Desist letter failed (it falsely stated that Prause’s home address was on YBOP), she attempted again to remove YBOP by threatening its web host Linode with a second Cease & Desist letter. This too failed as Wilson’s site does not have her home address. (No action)
February, 2020: When the above C&D failed, Prause called Wilson’s local Ashland Police, attempting to file a false police report, lying that her home address was on YBOP. Officer Jason St. John determined Prause’s claims did not allege a crime and that this was a civil matter.
On February 12 or thereabouts, Prause sought a temporary restraining order against Wilson, based in part on pictures of people (quite obviously not Wilson) holding guns. The judge denied the TRO, but set a hearing for a permanent restraining order on March 6, 2020. Prause did not serve Wilson, but Wilson’s counsel appeared as if she had, thus waiving service. The judge continued the matter until March 25, 2020, stating that he intends to force the parties to attend mediation before ruling. I filed an lawsuit against Prause for misusing the legal system (TRO) to silence and harass me. On August 6, the Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that Prause’s attempt to obtain a restraining order against me constituted a frivolous and illegal “strategic lawsuit against public participation” (commonly called a “SLAPP suit”). In essence, the Court found that Prause abused the restraining order process to bully Wilson into silence and undercut his rights to free speech. By law, the SLAPP ruling obligates Prause to pay Wilson’s attorney fees.
Prause filed a second frivolous legal proceeding against me in December, 2020 for alleged defamation. At a hearing on January 22, 2021 an Oregon court ruled in my favor and charged Prause with costs and an additional penalty.

MDPI – The parent company of the journal that published the review Wilson co-authored with Navy physicians (documentation: Prause’s efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted).

Prause reported the journal to COPE (journal ethics review board) (Superficial response, but paper has not been retracted.)
And to PubMed Central (No action)
And to the FTC (No action)

Note: In 2019 MDPI posted two official statements related to the unethical behavior of Nicole Prause (such actions appear to be without precedent):

D.J. Burr – Prause reported Burr to Washington State’s Department of Health. (No action)

April, 2019: Prause harasses and threatens therapist D.J. Burr, then maliciously reports him to the State of Washington Department of Health

Prause has also repeatedly, publicly urged members of the public, via social media, to report professionals and professional organizations to psychology boards, to the FTC, and to the Attorney General. Sections of Prause page with documentation:

Diana Davison – Prause threatened journalist Diana Davison and The Post Millennial by means of a spurious cease & desist letter threatening legal action because they published a factual expose’ that was not flattering to Prause. (No action)

November, 2019: In response to Diana Davison’s Post Millennial expose’ Prause harasses/defames Davison, followed by a bogus Cease & Desist letter and demanding $10,000.

Jonathon Van Maren – In response to my legal victories over Nicole Prause, LifeSite News published the following interview: Anti-porn crusader details legal victory against ‘porn prof’ who tried to use the court to shut him down: Gary Wilson was sued by Nicole Prause, who viciously smeared him in an attempt to discredit his ongoing research into how pornography is harmful. He won. As occurred with Diana Davison’s Post Millennial expose’, Prause and her alias account (@BrainOnPorn) harassed the author, lied about what the article said, and threatened a lawsuit. See:

August, 2020: LifeSite News publishes a Gary Wilson interview; Prause harasses & defames the author, threatens legal action (of course she did)

Aaron Minc JD – In July 2020, Prause urged her Twitter followers to republished her defamatory tweets falsely accusing Minc of sending her private information to ‘people that have been threatening to kill her for years’. Despite Minc’s public denial on Twitter, one of Prause’s duped followers directly messaged and/or shared the defamatory tweets with the Ohio State Bar Association, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, and the Ohio Supreme Court’s twitter accounts, falsely claiming that Minc had engaged in an ethics violation. For added effect, the duped follower attached a screenshot image of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct 4.4 taken from the Ohio Supreme Court website. Prause is to be added as a co-defendant down the road.

Aaron Minc vs Melissa Farmer

Malicious Use of Process

After years of malicious administrative reporting, spurious cease & desist letters, and misuse of law enforcement personnel, Prause, in 2019, began abusing the court system (and the targets of her wrath) with malicious legal proceedings (and continued threats of legal proceedings) in order to silence anyone who calls attention to her bias or activity.

As recounted above, she filed an invalid small claims court suit against therapist Sprout, and a baseless restraining order against Wilson.

In addition, to suppress criticism of herself, Prause has threatened some 6 social media accounts with groundless small claims court lawsuits – and filed a suit against one of them, which she did not pursue. In this way, she continues to silence people’s right to free speech about her activities and apparent bias.

1) Tom Jackson (@LivingThoreau) – November, 2019

Prause publicly demanded $10,000 not to file suit, and then filed it. Jackson deleted his Twitter account. Prause did not appear at the trial and the case was dropped. The suit served its purpose of silencing Jackson, who had backed up his opinions with indisputable photographic evidence of Prause attending porn industry events. Details – https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others-3/#Jackson

2) Mark Schuenemann (@Kurall_Creator) – November, 2019

Again, Prause demanded $10,000 or she would sue. But didn’t. Details: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others-3/#Mark

3) Fearless Dan (YouTube channel) – November, 2019

Around the time the Rhodes v. Prause defamation lawsuit was filed, YouTuber Fearless Dan posted a short video discussing the Rhodes suit and Prause’s long, documented history of defamation and harassment. His video contained images of him scrolling through the first YBOP Prause page, showing the table of contents, and briefly highlighting a few sections. Fearless Dan’s video was factually accurate and defamed no one. Nevertheless, Prause reported it to YouTube and threatened Fearless Dan with legal action. Details: November, 2019: Prause misuses “Safe At Home Program”: She threatens YouTube channel with legal action, falsely claiming a video was defamatory & linked to her home address on YBOP.

4) December, 2019: @samosirmatthew Matthew

Prause threatened to sue him for saying she sounded like a “Foundation funded propagandist.” Details: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others-3/#Matthew

5) January, 2020: TranshumanAI

Prause informed this guy he was being sued after he publicized some facts about her. He deleted his tweet and changed his Twitter account name. Details: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others-3/#AI

6) March, 2020: “anonymous”

This person (who has asked to remain anonymous) called out Prause on her well documented ties to the porn industry. Prause went after their job and threatened a suit. The person made their account private. Details: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others-3/#anon

7) May, 2020: Charles Zhang of DonorBox

After DonorBox Founder Charles Zhang dared to tweet (and comment on) the ScramNews apology and payment to Alexander Rhodes and NoFap, Prause demanded $10K and threatened Zhang with a lawsuit based on misrepresentations of Zhang’s tweets. See this section for the details: May, 2020: Nicole Prause threatens DonorBox CEO (Charles Zhang) with a small claims lawsuit for revealing her lies, behind the scenes harassment and malicious reporting (all in a failed attempt take down Rhodes’s crowdfunding).

8) November, 2020: Bill Tavis (YouTube commenter)

Tavis pointed out that Prause was pictured attending an XRCO (porn industry) award show, and Prause accused him of defamation and threatened him with a lawsuit to try to stop him from posting the link to irrefutable photographic evidence. When challenged with the truth Prause doubles down on her falsehood.