Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson and Others (Page 6)

Introduction

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 (i.e., this page, created by Wilson and published, unfinished, after his death)

Others – April 2021: In support of Mindgeek, Prause attacks two Canadian MPs who are on House of Commons Ethics Committee investigating Pornhub’s egregious practices and possible crimes

Prause joined other Pornhub supporters in attacking two key Canadian Members of Parliament who are on the committee investigating Pornhub: Charlie Angus and Arnold Viersen (for more see – More than 70 MPs, senators call for criminal investigation into Pornhub’s Canadian owners and The Children of Pornhub – Why does Canada allow this company to profit off videos of exploitation and assault?)

It begins with Arnold Viersen quote-tweeting an extensive post by fellow committee member Charlies Angus. In it Angus reveals VICE (likely biased journalist Samantha Cole) is wanting to add misinformation to yet another piece of yellow journalism covertly supporting Pornhub:

Charlie Angus tweets under Vierson, saying he won’t be intimidated by Pornhub supporters or VICE Media:

Prause enters the fray, spreading her fairy tales of victimhood.

Incidentally, I submitted a brief to the Canadian Ethics Committee myself pointing to a possible connection between Mindgeek and Prause and the ongoing defamatory campaign against all who point to harms associated with porn use and its production.

Back to Prause’s empty claims. No she doesn’t have evidence that 6 other female scholars were targeted by anti-porn groups. Nor can she point to declarations in court supporting that false claim. I am certain of that, as I have all the court documents she has filed.

She tweets the VICE hit-piece, and her fairy tales:

The Samantha Cole hit-piece rested entirely on an imaginary connections between a few posts on Gab and anti-porn organizations TraffickingHub and NCOSE. As for the “groups” Samantha Cole is “reporting” on, one had 2 followers on Gab and the other had 10 – and those followers’ authenticity was more than questionable.

The person who “discovered” the accounts produces artwork similar to the artwork Cole and Prause are railing about, and is a person obsessed with defending Pornhub. He also admitted to creating fake information on social media in the past. Could this be a counter-operation by Pornhub or its rabid supporters?

Prause turns her attention to Charlie Angus with her claims “5 statements in court.” Given that the only Prause cases to actually go to court were my two victories, I can confirm there were no “statements in court” by five female scientists who had been victimized.

Prause’s 2nd tweet is a screenshot of a job posting for Exodus Cry. She says Exodus Cry plans to make more money from MP Angus. Huh? Makes no sense.

All this raises the question: Why is a supposedly unbiased researcher (LOL) obsessed with protecting Pornhub? For much more on Prause’s support of Pornhub, see:

April 2021: Prause falsely accuses Twitter account @Countscary of being Gary Wilson

Prause seems to accuse any anonymous account that criticizes her of being me. She’s even claimed that I have 24 Twitter accounts and 8 websites dedicated to her exploits. For example, this defamatory tweet:

All a pack of lies.

In her latest lie, Prause unequivocally states that I am @Countscary1.

In reality, Prause is the troll, with over 200 likely aliases: PDF documenting probable Nicole Prause aliases. And here’s more information on her and her corrupt defender on Wikipedia profiting from her host of sockpuppets: A milestone for Nicole Prause? 50+ apparent sockpuppets edit Wikipedia with her biases, lies and defamation.

Others – April, 2021: Melissa Farmer spreads Prause’s lies and has to settle costly lawsuit

n July 2020, Prause apparently persuaded colleague Melissa Farmer PhD to help spread her defamation about attorney Aaron Minc. Minc’s firm was representing Alexander Rhodes in his defamation lawsuit against Prause, although another attorney actually represented Rhodes (not Minc). However, only Minc had a Twitter account. This seems to be the reason Prause publicly targeted Minc with wild, unsupported tweets claiming that Minc had sent Prause’s private information to “people that have been threatening to kill [her] for years.”

Despite Minc’s public denial on Twitter, Farmer, one of Prause’s duped followers, directly shared Prause’s defamatory tweets about Minc with the Ohio State Bar Association, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, and the Ohio Supreme Court’s Twitter accounts! As part of her the smear campaign, Farmer falsely claimed that Minc had engaged in an ethics violation. For added effect, Farmer attached a screenshot image of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct 4.4 taken from the Ohio Supreme Court website. (Prause regularly cites irrelevant statutes and regulations to bolster her smear campaigns, so we suspect she supplied Farmer with the image.)

On September 9, 2020 Aaron Minc, JD filed a defamation suit against Melissa Farmer, promising to add Prause as a co-defendant to the Farmer defamation suit if and when the Prause’s bankruptcy judge allowed it (“Relief from Stay”). See – September, 2020: Aaron Minc, JD announces his defamation lawsuit against Nicole Prause (Minc owns the law firm representing Alex Rhodes). Prause was duly added. The three filings by Aaron Minc:

Meanwhile, the judge denied Farmer’s Motion To Dismiss, and the case was set for trial. It appears that Farmer’s insurance company recognized that its client was unlikely to prevail, and we speculate that she came to a financial arrangement with Minc. In April, 2021 Farmer filed a settlement with Minc, which the judge signed off on. As part of this settlement Farmer filed a sworn affidavit stating, among other things, that,

5. At the time I published the tweet, I had no evidence that Aaron Minc had engaged in conduct that violates Ohio’s Rules of Professional Conduct, nor did I have any personal knowledge that Aaron Mine directly sent Nicole R. Prause’s home and work address to a group of people that have been threatening to kill her for years. I fully regret publishing the tweet and I realize it was a mistake to publish the tweet. I have no evidence that the allegations against Mr. Mine are true. I have no evidence that the claims made by Nicole R. Prause are true. I apologize to Mr. Minc for any distress caused by my actions. (emphasis supplied)

In short, it appears that Melissa Farmer and her lawyers could offer no justification to defend her libelous statements about Minc. Farmer admitted this, accepted her defeat, and got out. This leaves Prause to face the repercussions of her misconduct alone. But Farmer suffered the stress, embarrassment and professional repercussions of a lawsuit thanks to being drawn into Prause’s malicious smear campaign.

Once again, it is evident that spreading Prause’s lies can have grave repercussions for those duped. Another example: Media outlet ScramNews forced to apologize & pay substantial damages for publishing Nicole Prause’s lies about Alex Rhodes & NoFap.

From the April 14, 2021 STIPULATED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT:

PAGE #3, naming Prause:

—————————————————————————————————-

PAGE #6 – Farmer’s retraction, naming Prause

—————————————————————————————————

Others – April, 2021: Nicole Prause suggests that Exodus Cry and Laila Mickelwait were involved in the apparent arson of Pornhub CEO Feras Antoon’s unfinished Montreal mansion

Pornhub CEO Feras Antoon’s unfinished chateau in Montreal burned down in suspicious arson just weeks after putting the still unfinished property on the market for $15.9M. The Daily Mail noted that:

The property backs on to Montreal’s ‘Mafia Row’ where many crime figures live. On the very spot that Antoon’s home is being built, a gunman stood and fired a single bullet through a double-paned window, killing Nicolo Rizzuto — ‘The Canadian Godfather’ — in his kitchen in 2010.
‘It’s an area well-known as home to people who, let’s say, didn’t necessarily make their fortunes legally,’ said one long-time Montreal when DailyMail.com visited the site last year. ‘You ask anyone in the city about this area and they would say ‘Oh, Mafiaville.’

It didn’t take Prause long to add alleged arson to the long list of crimes or illicit activities she’s falsely accused Laila Mickelwait of committing.

While Prause cyberstalks Mickelwait falsely accusing her things she has not done. Prause gives Mindgeek a complete pass on making big bucks monetizing child porn and rape videos. What’s up with that? Oh yeah.

In an amazing coincidence agenda-driven Wikipedia editor and Prause sockpuppet protector Tgeorgescu posted on the Nofap Wikipedia talk page and the Nicole Prause talk page that Alex Rhodes and I might be behind the fire. He posted this on both pages:

Montreal Police is investigating arson which might have to do with NoFap and YBOP, so these sites will come under scrutiny of the Canadian Police. The neighbors were endangered, so it will be easily upgraded to attempted manslaughter charges. The lives of innocent third parties were put at risk. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC).

Wikipedia is corrupt, allowing high-level editors to use its platform to defame and harass anyone they see fit, while supporting the agenda of law breaking corporations.

Others -April 26, 2021: Prause harasses and reports Rebecca Watson (“SkepChick”) to YouTube and Patreon for posting an update on Prause’s legal affairs. YouTube wrongly censors Watson.

In November, 2019 Rebecca Watson posted a video briefly covering Alex Rhodes’s defamation suit against Prause. Watson’s video was hardly complimentary to Rhodes or me (Gary Wilson), but it was even less favorable to Prause, who took offense to Watson’s truth-telling. See: November, 2019: Prause attacks journalist Rebecca Watson (“skepchicks”), saying she lied about everything in her video covering the Alex Rhodes defamation suit against Prause.

On April 22, 2021 Watson tacked a 2-minute update onto one of her videos (which was marveling at another one of Sam Perry’s dubious “religion is the cause of porn problems” studies).

The transcript of the “update section” of Watson’s 2021 video (currently labeled as private):

One more update while I’m on the subject: in that previous video I discovered that Alexander Rhodes, the founder of NoFap, was suing neuroscientist Nicole Prause, one of the many researchers who has found there’s no real societal danger to pornography. Despite my initial kneejerk reaction that this was anti-science censorship, after waaaay too much research I came to the conclusion that Prause was BONKERS and probably really had libeled Rhodes by falsely accusing him of being antisemitic and misogynistic. Seriously, it was a huge mess, go watch the video.
Since that video, there have been several other lawsuits, lodged by people claiming Prause defamed them, and by Prause trying to get restraining orders against the anti-porn people she claimed were harassing her. Well, it turns out the courts seem to agree with me about Prause, because so far there’s been at least one judgement against her for defamation and several anti-SLAPP actions against her for filing frivolous lawsuits. She has declared bankruptcy and she was suspended from Twitter. Scram News, a blog that published Prause’s allegations of harassment, was forced to apologize, pay legal fees, and also went out of business. Yikes.

On cue, Prause went on a lie-infested Twitter rampage and reported Watson to both Patreon and YouTube.

Prause starts with the big lies, falsely claiming she has never been suspended from Twitter and never lost a lawsuit.

She’s lost 2 lawsuits to me, and been involved in other legal actions that did not go her way: Legal victories over serial harasser/defamer Nicole Prause: She’s the perpetrator, not the victim! As for Twitter, two of her accounts were permanently banned for harassment and her current account has been temporarily banned for misconduct on at least 2 occasions:

The next tweet in Prause’s thread laughably asserts that pro-porn Watson has anti-porn heroes. Prause also incorrectly states that “false criminal reports” were sent to Twitter.

In her 3rd tweet Prause misrepresents what Watson said, claiming that ‘the courts “agreed” with her about me, and that I was in in litigation with ScramNews)’:

Watson never said that Prause was in litigation with SCRAM news:

Scram News, a blog that published Prause’s allegations of harassment, was forced to apologize, pay legal fees, and also went out of business. Yikes.

Watson is correct: Scram News went out of business after it had to pay substantial damages because it had printed Prause’s defamatory lies.

Concurrently, Prause posts 4 more lie-filled tweets and under Watson:

Reality:

I won a straight-up Anti-SLAPP motion against Prause in 2020 and in 2021 I won a small claims suit against her with costs and a penalty. She brought both actions.
There’s no such thing as a “defamation finding,” which is why Prause chose this phrasing. Three separate parties have filed defamation suits against Prause in response to her untruthful, life-wrecking smear campaigns: Donald L. Hilton, Alexander Rhodes, Aaron M. Minc. The first 2 cases $ettled in early 2021. The third and most recent defamation lawsuit suit is ongoing in Ohio, although Prause’s co-defendant (Melissa Farmer PhD) has apparently settled and publicly admitted she had no reason to think Prause’s defamatory lies were true.
“Never paid anything,” says Prause, but her insurance company did! 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).

Every word in her next tweet is a lie:

As I have all of Prause’s court filings I can confirm that there are no public documents describing 8 victimized female scientists. The only “academic” who has claimed that I harassed her is Prause – and my Anti-SLAPP victory proved she was lying. As for needing to relocate due to harassment, court documents reveal that Prause has been lying about this, too. As for her alleged assault, I said Prause lied that her alleged assault occurred at an address placed on YBOP (as none of her physical addresses have ever been on YBOP):

In her 3rd and 4th tweets Prause posts her slide of alleged comments by unnamed internet trolls, says Watson is lying about Prause’s research (Watson never mention Prause’s research) and is inciting violent threats. (Absurd!) In Prause’s world any criticism incites death threats (as always law enforcement is working on the matter….Right.). Prause also tags Patreon, falsely claiming Watson defamed her.

Prause enlists fellow porn shill “@PornPanic” in her defamation, but gets owned:

Within a short time Rebecca Watson’s 2019 video is removed, with a note that Prause filed a DMCA claim against it:

Prause brags that Watson used “stolen photographs” of her, yet a photo should fall under the fair use doctrine in this situation.

Prause lies again, claiming she has never lost a lawsuit. But she has, and more than one!

Others – May 7, 2021: Rebecca Watson posts video chronicling Prause’s DMCA attempts, cyberstalking, and defamation. Prause responds with 30 libelous tweets; files complaints with Patreon; accuses Watson of inciting violence.

Watson’s 18-minutes chronicling Prause egregious actions (the transcript is below and available on the Skepchick site).

Transcript of the video:

This post contains a video, which you can also view here. To support more videos like this, head to patreon.com/rebecca!
Hello, YouTube. What a few weeks I’ve had! I’ve learned something very important recently: no one reads the description. You know, the doobly doo. So with that in mind, I’m going to put everything important right here, in the video itself. BUCKLE UP.
First of all, did you know that all my videos come with a handy transcript where I link to all relevant studies and articles and Tweets and whatnot? It’s true! You can find the transcripts over on my Patreon or on Skepchick. So many ways to learn and also to support me if that’s what you would like to do! Although, liking, commenting, subscribing, and sharing my videos is another great way to support me so thank you to everyone who is doing that!
Second of all, you may have noticed some videos appearing, disappearing, and reappearing on my channel lately, sometimes reappearing with really crappy audio and video! And although I have explained some of these things, I made the mistake of explaining them in the description of the videos. And then you all comment: “The audio sucks!” “Didn’t I see this video before?” “Hey, it’s May, not November!” And at first I was annoyed but then I was like, well, do I always read the description? No. No I do not. So, I rescind my annoyance. Y’all are fine. Allow me to explain what’s been going on.
Waaay back in November of 2019, I learned that Andrew Rhodes, the founder of the anti-porn, anti-masturbation group called NoFap, was suing pro-porn neuroscientist Nicole Prause for defamation. I have often called out people using libel laws to scare their critics into silence, so I was ready to jump in to defend Prause, whose research seemed to me to be legit and in keeping with the current scientific consensus that pornography is not addictive and not inherently dangerous to individuals who watch it.
But when I looked into the evidence presented in that court case I came to the conclusion that this was not a clear-cut case of a pseudoscientist crying defamation to sue a scientist into silence. I’m no lawyer but it seemed to me that Rhodes might actually have a valid case. It’s all pretty interesting and if you want to know more details, go watch that video.
Then in April of this year I read a new study about how most people who are in favor of banning porn might use “science” to argue against it but in fact they are almost exclusively religious fundamentalists who are cherrypicking data to support their moral objections. Of course this reminded me of the mostly secular NoFap group, so I looked to see whether or not the court case had resolved since 2019. I found that not only was the case still ongoing, but there had been several more lawsuits, threats of lawsuits, and various weirdnesses since then. So I made another video where I mostly talked about the new study but also briefly mentioned the NoFap/Prause updates.
That’s when things got really interesting. A short time after that video went live, YouTube notified me that there had been some DMCA takedowns filed against those two videos. The person who filed them was Nicole Prause, who claimed I had “stolen” the thumbnail of her Twitter profile picture that I showed in the corner of the screen for about ten seconds when I first mentioned her in each of those videos.
When it comes to DMCA complaints, it’s my understanding that YouTube usually immediately sides with the complainant, so I wasn’t shocked that they said they had removed my video from 2019.
All of this happened while I had actually taken the week off because, and I’m not even joking here, I decided to elope. And god dammit I was committed not just to my new marriage but also to my vacation on the beach where I did not have my laptop OR good internet, so I just made everything private on YouTube and Skepchick and then ignored it to go surfing for a week.
Prause had also contacted Patreon to inform them that I was violating her copyright. They got in touch with me and I was like, well, the supposed violation is on my YouTube video and that’s no longer available so…we good? They agreed: we good.
After my vacation I settled in to figure this all out. My options were to either let the DMCA takedown persist and edit Prause’s picture out of my videos and re-upload them, or file a countersuit that would basically escalate this legal process. The basis of the countersuit would be “Hey, it’s fair use to use someone’s low-res profile picture for 10 seconds to illustrate who I’m talking about” but fair use is a tricky territory that isn’t well defined. Like, very expensive legal battles have been won and lost trying to work out what is and isn’t fair use. I figured “Hey, I don’t have the time, the money, or the energy for that fight. I will edit the videos and re-upload.” It’s extra work, it’s a bit stressful, but whatever. Considering how many lawsuits Prause is either filing, defending, or threatening, I kind of should have seen that coming.
But YouTube wouldn’t let me download my original video from 2019 because it had the DMCA strike, and apparently I backed up everything except November of 2019 to my external hard drives because, well, I’m me, that’s the sort of stupid thing I do. So I found a low quality version of the video with crappy audio and I uploaded that, removing Prause’s profile pic and also preemptively censoring screenshots of her Tweets, too, because I just didn’t want to have to deal with this again. Remember that, it’s important.
So THAT is the video that went up earlier this week, where you all complained about the bad quality and the weirdness of me saying it’s November when it’s clearly May.
Once that was done I went to start editing the most recent update video, which was way easier because I had the raw file. But before I finished, I got this email from YouTube. Even though I didn’t challenge Prause’s DMCA, YouTube actually noticed that it was fishy and that my use of her profile pic was actually most likely covered under fair use. So that video was available for me to once again make public, which is super cool! But before I made it public again, I removed the section where I gave the update on Prause, because I decided I wanted to make this video where I explain everything. And honestly now that video is better for it because there’s no distraction from the new science about Christian fundamentalists and porn bans.
I then emailed YouTube and said “Hey, if the ten seconds of a profile pic were fair use in this video, then can you also reinstate the previous video that did the same thing?” I haven’t heard back yet and honestly it can be hard to get through to a human at Google so I don’t know if anyone will see it, but if that video gets reinstated I can go ahead and delete the bad quality one.
Right after I made the 2021 video public again, I got another automated email from YouTube announcing that an ***individual*** has requested removal of the re-uploaded 2019 video due to “privacy” concerns, with timestamps noting the seconds where I am speaking about the very public lawsuit filed against Nicole Prause with a censored box in the corner. YouTube was giving me 48 hours notice to make changes before a human takes a look and decides if it is, in fact, a privacy concern.
Meanwhile, I noticed some weird thing happening on Twitter. There were a bunch of replies to my Tweets that I couldn’t view, and it turns out that Nicole Prause blocked me on Twitter but somehow was able to keep replying to my Tweets. I…I did not even know that was possible. It’s not possible anymore because I went ahead and blocked her, too, but I took a look at her profile (thanks private browsers!) and found that she was accusing me of defamation. This helped explain something I noticed in her messages to YouTube trying to get my video removed, where she wrote, “The information presented is false, defamatory, and the current subject of a lawsuit against Rebecca Watson in California. She cannot be presenting “news” about herself.” I had no idea there was a lawsuit against me in California or elsewhere, but maybe it has something to do with this?
Prause claimed that it was “false and defamatory” for me to say that she was suspended from Twitter, but then she quotes herself thanking Twitter for reinstating her account. After she was suspended. So.
She also says I defamed her when I said she had lost defamation lawsuits. Let me correct the record and be as clear as possible: according to Gary Wilson, Prause sued him for defamation in an Oregon small claims court, which ruled against her and ordered her to pay court fees. She also lost one anti-SLAPP suit (I mistakenly thought there had been several anti-SLAPPs but it was just the one — as Prause says in her Tweet, I didn’t fully read all the documents — my bad!) in response to her trying to get a restraining order against Wilson. When neurosurgeon Don Hilton sued Prause for defamation, Prause agreed to settle out of court. NoFap’s Alexander Rhode’s defamation case against her is still ongoing. And psychotherapist Staci Sprout says that after she was asked to give a sworn statement about Prause’s harassment of her for one of those defamation lawsuits, Prause demanded Sprout pay her $10,000 and then tried to sue her in small claims court in California, where the case was dismissed for being in the wrong venue.
Back on Twitter, Prause claims that her critics are my “anti-porn heroes,” which is kind of hilarious considering that in each of my two videos on this topic I say pretty clearly that I don’t think porn is bad for people. She claims that I said I was in litigation with her (I never said that, that would be an absolutely insane thing to say) and that I said she was in litigation with ScramNews (I never said that either — I correctly said that ScramNews was sued for defamation for repeating Prause’s comments, they lost that case and had to apologize, pay fees, and then they went out of business). Then she says I “link to groups that say I was not sexually assaulted,” which….yeah. I never said anything about whether or not she was sexually assaulted. Quite the non sequitur.
Finally, she thanked YouTube for removing the previous video “that posted stolen photographs of me falsely claiming I had lost lawsuits, was involved in pornography, etc” and holy shit, what? I’m actually blown away by how casually she throws out this comment about her being involved in pornography. I NEVER said she was in porn, and why would it even matter if she was in porn? Like, you do you lady! There’s absolutely nothing wrong with or shameful about being in pornography.
So, Prause tweeted several things about me that are untrue. Does that mean I’m about to get in on all these defamation lawsuits? No. Here’s why: as I (a non-lawyer) understand it, defamation of a public figure such as myself requires that a statement be false, be malicious, and cause damage. Her statements are obviously false but did she know they were false? Maybe, maybe not! Maybe she has confused me with the many other people she is fighting with in the public sphere. Maybe one of those people said she does porn. I don’t know.
And was it damaging to me? Well, she did tag Patreon, my primary income provider, in one of the false Tweets (she also contacted them to try to have my previous video removed). And yes, her DMCA did remove this video for a period of time which resulted in some lost ad revenue, and it took me a few hours to edit, re-record, and re-upload these videos, which sucks. But for real, I seriously hate defamation lawsuits and if I’m going to launch my own you’d better believe it’s gotta be worth it. And as of right now, I still have my Patreon and YouTube accounts, so I’m willing to take the loss.
I’m staunchly opposed to people using the court system to silence critics. I would much rather trust in the common sense of rational people to see how Prause is behaving and understand that she is not to be taken seriously. It is truly jaw-dropping that she would go after me this hard when I AGREE WITH HER that the science shows that pornography isn’t damaging. And because I’m me, I can’t just delete everything and move on when I’m threatened. I prefer for everything to be out in the open. So I made this video and am fighting to make sure the other videos remain public.
So that’s the story as of right now. I’ve tried to record this several times but each time I get some new notification that Prause is trying to shut me up, which is mostly annoying because this isn’t the Nicole Prause channel and I’d prefer to make this my last video on the subject.
If you’d like more frequent updates on this, plus photos of my dog, stupid jokes, and sciencey stuff, you can follow me on Twitter @RebeccaWatson. Thank you so much to everyone on Patreon and here on YouTube who are liking my videos, subscribing, and sharing with friends. I really appreciate it.

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

At 4 in the morning Prause begins her cyber rampage. In tweet after tweet Prause cites “CA 6208.1“, which is a regulation related to the Confidential Address Program for Victims of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault and Stalking – Program Law (Safe At Home). It is enforced by the CA Attorney General’s office. The program functions to prevent publication of the enrollee’s address and phone number. Watson’s video contains neither (nor do her videos contain an image of Prause). Once again, Prause is misusing Safe At Home to harass her victims. See:

It’s certain that Prause fraudulently entered CA’s Safe At Home, because she named me as the reason for doing it in her lie-filled Motion To Dismiss filed in the Don Hilton lawsuit (her Motion to Dismiss was denied). I had not threatened her safety. More: November, 2019: Prause enters the California “Safe At Home Program” under false pretenses, misusing it to harass her victims and critics.

On to the rampage.

Falsely claims Watson violated CA Safe at Home (which Prause fraudulently entered).

Stated she filed a lawsuit against Patreon (if so, probably small claims court):

Claims Watson will be fined for telling the truth about her.

Then claims there’s a Netflix doc coming. Sure.

Continued cyberstalking and lying that Watson violated a CA Code regulation.

Prause creates her own thread to harass Watson, but she receives significant push-back on her lies (before she can block all her critics).

Actually, the law is anti-SLAPP, and granting a SLAPP motion is the remedy. Legal websites often use the 2 terms interchangeably. Prause owes no money, because she filed bankruptcy to avoid paying me some ~$40K in attorney fees after the SLAPP ruling the court awarded me. 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.

Several replies.

More replies with lies:

It used to be 8 women. Since I have seen all legal filings by Prause I know she is lying. More of the same:

Obsessive replying & lying: Watson’s videos did not contain a pic of Nikky.

Another account replies to the same 2 Prause comments. Prause blocks her and sneaks in a lie-filled reply.

Prause is lying. There are no photos of her in the May 2021 Watson video. Watson removed the photo of Prause from her re-uploaded version of the 2019 video:

Two more redundant tweets by Prause, with replies calling her out. She keeps citing CA Safe At Home, which is irrelevant. As usual she claims LAPD is involved.

No one believes her:

Prause adds 2 more tweets to the thread (seems as though she blocked the other accounts in the thread).

Yet another comment, and a reality check:

In another thread:

In yet another thread. The “TIL” reply is especially entertaining:

In yet another thread:

Continues with her porn-shill buddy Jerry Barnett:

Yet another tweet:

But she wasn’t yet done for the day.

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).

In the face of mounting criticism, Prause produced a lie-filled slide to “debunk” Watson’s video. She tweeted it 12 times in a 20-minute period, posting it under accounts that were critical of her. As none replied, I suspect Prause blocked all before posting her reply to their threads. Typical MO for her. Prause’s slide:

My commentary on the slide:

1) She claims Watson posted her image and this violates “Safe At Home.” First, Watson’s video had no pictures of Prause. Second, public images that can’t be copyrighted may be used freely and are not “stolen.” The Safe At Home regulations only protect against pictures posted with intent to incite imminent great bodily harm or to threaten someone or to place them in objectively reasonable fear for their personal safety. Watson did none of those things. Prause herself makes her images freely available on the internet, including those in her personal press kit. For more see- November, 2019: Prause enters the California “Safe At Home Program” under false pretenses, misusing it to harass her victims and critics.

2) Prause claims the Rhodes v. Prause lawsuit is completely wrapped up (Watson said it wasn’t yet completed). The NoFap lawsuit was settled in April, 2021 after Prause filed bankruptcy to avoid discovery, although the bankruptcy court has not finished ruling on final motions (so “completion” is not so clear cut). However, a third defamation suit filed against Prause is still ongoing, and Prause’s insurance company has refused to defend that one: 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 already settled with plaintiff Minc, and admitted that she (Farmer) had no evidence that the claims made by Prause (and retweeted by Farmer) were true and apologized to Minc [PDF of Melissa Farmer’s retraction].

3) Prause jabbers on about the Staci Sprout small claims suit Prause filed, which Watson correctly described in the video:

And psychotherapist Staci Sprout says that after she was asked to give a sworn statement about Prause’s harassment of her for one of those defamation lawsuits, Prause demanded Sprout pay her $10,000 and then tried to sue her in small claims court in California, where the case was dismissed for being in the wrong venue.

Prause then filed in Washington state. Prause’s small claims defamation suit against therapist Sprout is as likely to be thrown out as the one against me, which she lost. Prause has no case. She and her cronies can shout “death threats” and “financial fraud” as loudly as she likes as part of her smear campaign. Her defamatory claims are empty, and only risk triggering a counterclaim from Sprout.

4) Prause employs twisted language, which did not match what Watson said: “Hilton did not settle… A lawsuit settlement requires mutuality.” Huh? Watson said the following, which is accurate:

When neurosurgeon Don Hilton sued Prause for defamation, Prause agreed to settle out of court.

Hilton and Prause settled their lawsuit in late February, 2021. Although terms were not disclosed it’s likely Prause’s insurance company had to offer a hefty payment on her behalf, as Hilton was in no hurry to settle. So Prause indeed agreed to settle out of court.

5) Prause appears to be accusing Staci Sprout of advocating for the firebombing of Pornhub’s CEO house. It’s absurd to suggest that Sprout, or anyone else, advocated “for firebombing the house of a PornHub CEO.” However, the fire is indeed suspicious as it occurred just as PornHub, a private company, is apparently seeking a buyer.

6) Prause concocts a fairy tale about my “SLAPP” victory. Prause’s bogus restraining order against me was declared a “SLAPP” suit when the judge granted my anti-SLAPP motion. This obligated Prause to pay my legal fees, which she evaded only by filing for bankruptcy. No other women were part of this proceeding. No one had to relocate either. Prause has claimed to have relocated, but signed a sworn application as part of her bankruptcy admitting she has lived at the same address for 3 years. Lie upon lie.

7) Prause falsely states that Watson said she was permanently suspended from Twitter. From Watson’s video:

Prause claimed that it was “false and defamatory” for me to say that she was suspended from Twitter, but then she quotes herself thanking Twitter for reinstating her account. After she was suspended. So.

Twitter has suspended several Prause accounts, including a previous personal account. Inexplicably, they reinstated her current personal account after a recent suspension, despite her account’s endless stream of defamation and obvious ban evasion. Prause’s history of 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.

Bottom line: With a few insignificant errors, Watson’s video was accurate. It is clearly Prause who cannot regulate her emotions or stop harassing people.

Summary – reality versus Prause’s tweets:

The settlements in the Hilton and Rhodes defamation suits are under non-disclosure agreements, which Prause appears to be violating.
Prause’s insurance company almost certainly paid out substantial settlements on Prause’s behalf to Rhodes and Hilton.
Prause often tweets – “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.
She also 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).

On to her tweets containing the slide.

Claims Rebecca Watson has been harassing women for years:

Harassing? DARVO.

Now it’s “coordinated harassment.” Oh please.

Watson did not post 3 videos. She posted only one new video. One other was the re-posting of the 2019 video with Prause’s likeness removed.

One video, not 3.

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

“She knew to be false“? Afraid not. Promoted groups trying to kill her? BS.

Now Watson gets paid to “threaten female scholars.” Laughable.

Prause has not prevailed in any lawsuit:

“Death threats turned real“? So Prause is claiming she has been killed??

One video (not 3) exposing Prause’s lies, cyberstalking and defamation:

Lying about Watson being in violation of a California regulation.

Same.

———————-

Two days later she again tweets the slide.

———————-

Two more tweets on May 14, 2021:

The 2nd tweet of the day:

————————–

May 16. Claims she lost a contract due to her insane cyberstalking of Rebecca Watson

May 16. Posted her delayed, fraudulent small claims suit with Staci Sprout. Prause will lose as she has in previous small claims suits.

3rd tweet on May 16th. In response to Watson, but defaming Staci Sprout:

See – January 24, 2018: Prause files groundless complaints with Washington State against therapist Staci Sprout (section contains numerous other incidents of defamation & harassment).

But there’s more (next section).

Others – May 7, 2021: Prause appears to use an alias Reddit account (Agreeable-Plane-5361) to disparage Rebecca Watson and others mentioned in her video (Gary Wilson, NoFap)

Prause has created over 200 likely aliases, including about 30 reddit aliases used to troll porn recovery subreddits (r/pornfree, r/nofap): PDF documenting probable Nicole Prause aliases.

Evidently, Prause wasn’t satisfied with cyberstalking Rebecca via Twitter. There’s little doubt that Agreeable-Plane-5361 is the latest Prause alias as 3 of its 6 comments dealt directly with Watson’s video, mirroring the content of Prause’s tweets. In fact, 2 of the comments linked to court documents that only Prause and a few others would know about: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/30620620/RHODES_v_PRAUSE_et_al. The other links Prause regularly tweets and has entered into Wikipedia pages (using any of her 50+ Wikipedia sockpuppets).

In this comment Agreeable-Plane-5361 calls Watson a liar. The moderator welcomes “Agreeable-Plane-5361” as Nicole Prause. LOL.

She is fooling no one.

Others – May, 2021: In blatant support of Pornhub, Prause assists XBIZ and The Free Speech Coalition in their smear campaigns against TraffickingHub and Laila Mickelwait.

As documented in in other sections, Prause and her banned alias (@BrainOnPorn) are obsessed with discrediting Laila Mickelwait’s petition to hold PornHub accountable for unconscionable and illegal content. The petition 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 & Laila: The Children of Pornhub – Why does Canada allow this company to profit off videos of exploitation and assault?.

For 18 months Prause used her @BrainOnPorn alias to harass and defame Mickelwait, Exodus Cry and the petition. After @BrainOnPorn was permanently banned for harassment, Prause was forced to use her named account, which she did with gusto: Ongoing: Prause uses @BrainOnPorn and @NicoleRPrause to harass & defame Laila Mickelwait after she initiates the TraffickingHub campaign to hold Pornhub responsible for hosting child porn and videos of trafficked females (over 100 tweets). Prause falsely accuses Laila of supporting or sending death threats.

Mickelwait wrote an op-ed hinting at the coordinated campaign to discredit her and Exodus Cry, and to harass and defame her. A few bits from her article:

This overt public disinformation campaign is only the tip of the iceberg. For the last year, Mindgeek and its surrogates have simultaneously conducted a very dark, secret campaign to discredit, harass, and intimidate those who have sought to reveal the truth…
During this period, my family and I have also been threatened, harassed, defamed, and doxxed by a group of operatives, many of whom we can connect directly to Mindgeek and its consultants. Close family members had their emails, bank accounts, and cloud storage hacked. Private family photos were emailed to them in an obvious effort to threaten and intimidate them and myself….

Prause appears to be a significant part of the covert public disinformation campaign (is Prause also helping journalists behind the scenes to produce hit-pieces – such as VICE’s Samantha Cole?).

Prause leaves no doubt as to he allegiance with the following tweets.

XBIZ (Gustavo Turner) asks for help discrediting TraffickingHub petition. Prause goes to work, appearing to sign the petition with two aliases and then trying to discredit the TraffickingHub petition on that basis.

In 2 more replies to XBIZ’s Turner, she proudly displays the fake signatures. Check out her disgusting, insensitive comment about sex trafficking victims.

In another insensitive, vile tweet, Prause equates the successful insertion of 2 fake signatures into a petition with Pornhub allowing child porn and sex trafficking videos to be uploaded and monetized (and often refusing to remove the offending videos)!

She post this screen in her tweets:

Next, Prause posts the 2 fake signatures to support the Director of Public Affairs for the Free Speech Coalition (porn interest group) Mike Stabile in his smear of NCOSE and TraffickingHub. Again, she equates 2 petition signatures with Pornhub’s illegal, heartless activities.

Wow. Prause tweets under a video featuring one of Pornhub’s victims.

Prause has long been cozy with the Free Speech Coalition:

Continues her blatant support for Mindgeek, posting the 2 fake signatures under a tweet supporting an investigation.

She creates her own thread, proudly displaying the 2 fake signatures. “Pretty horrible” indeed to support Mindgeek millionaires over sex trafficking and revenge porn victims.

And Prause wonders why people think she’s involved in the porn industry.

May 2021: Prause fails to renew her old Span-Lab.com URL and loses it. When the URL redirects to a sex-toy shop she falsely accuses “anti-porn activists” of being involved and reports this non-event to the police.

Dr. Defamation’s previous site span-lab.com now appears to redirect to a sex-toy site called lovermart.com. (Lovemart is a sex-toy site similar to LoveHoney, which Prause once worked with.)

It is common for people to snatch up expired websites to make money from any stray traffic. Clearly somebody thought that span-lab.com visitors would be interested in sex toys – probably because Prause does research on sex toys.

This shift has nothing to do with any of us. It’s just Interneting 101 plus her usual false accusations about everything.

The above, arising from a non-event, is an excellent example of how Prause fabricates much of her victimhood.

WHOIS reveals that the expired Span-Lab.com URL was obtained 6 months earlier (11-11-2020):

After Prause spews her false accusation, 2 of her devotees quote-tweet her thread, repeating her ridiculous claim.

This is yet another example of Prause tricking her Twitter-brained followers into spreading her fabrications of victimhood. The following cartoon captures this little drama perfectly:

Others – May, 2021: Prause falsely accuses therapist Staci Sprout of reporting her to Twitter for making violent threats (which Prause incorrectly labels a “criminal report”)

In March, 2021, Prause’s second personal Twitter account (@NicoleRPrause) was temporarily suspended for making “violent threats.” After reinstatement Prause accused numerous Twitter accounts of “falsely” reporting her to Twitter for making violent threats. However, Prause has no idea who reported her as Twitter never reveals who files a report.

Her related cyberstalking begins with Prause tweeting under a Men’s Health article about the negative effects of porn use. Since the article mentions me, Prause goes nuts. For example, here’s one of her 8 tweets targeting me under the Men’s Health tweet. It’s all lies as no woman has ever sought law enforcement protection from me. Prause did file a fraudulent restraining order, which was denied, and led to my lawsuit victory exposing her as the perpetrator.

I do dispute her nonsense – and she posted no evidence (because none exists). But this current section is about Staci Sprout, so we’ll address Prause’s other lies.

Next up, a nonsensical tweet falsely claiming that Staci tried “to hide” Prause’s alleged sexual assault. (Note – Prause lied about her assault occurring at an address I posted on YBOP).

Prause states that Staci reported her to Twitter, but provided no evidence, because there is none. Prause previously claimed that both Laila Mickelwait and I had reported her, but has no evidence of those claims either.

Prause then posts under a 2-month old Sprout re-tweet of mine announcing the Twitter suspension of Prause’s account. Prause escalates, describing her temporary Twitter ban as a “criminal report.” She also tweets her malicious small claims suit against Staci Sprout.

It’s not defamation to state the truth: Prause was suspended from Twitter (Sprout never said for what because she probably doesn’t know which of Prause’s malicious Twitter posts triggered the temporary suspension).

There are two lies by Prause in the following tweet: (1) Staci never said Prause was not assaulted and (2) Staci has never posted Prause’s address (no one has).

While replying to Rebecca Watson’s supporters Prause randomly tweets a screenshot of her malicious small claims suit against Staci Sprout. Prause will lose, as she has in previous suits.

Again, in a response to Watson, but posting evidence of her small claims suit against Sprout.

As you can see Prause is obsessed with Sprout:

Others – May, 2021: Prause falsely accuses therapist Staci Sprout of (1) saying Prause was never assaulted and (2) disseminating the lab address where Prause claims she was assaulted

Once again, Prause defames Staci Sprout, falsely stating that:

Staci republished that Prause was never assaulted
Staci disseminated the lab address where Prause claims she was assaulted

Prause provides no evidence of Sprout doing either. Instead, Prause posts a screenshot of two sentences from our intro which correctly state that Prause is lying that her address was placed on YBOP.

After months of lying that her address is on YBOP, and me demanding she produce evidence, Prause finally produced an advertisement for a cancelled 2017 workshop at a private retreat center in Philo, California (100 miles north of San Francisco)

Prause also tweeted this…

[Gary Wilson died on May 20, 2021, so he didn’t complete this page]