NOTE: This piece was first published on FLGulfNews.com.
By Frankie Pressman with Richard Luthmann and Michael Volpe
THE HARASSMENT HEARD ‘ROUND YOUTUBE
Richard Luthmann wants to know: If he kills himself, will YouTube CEO Neal Mohan and WOKE influencer Jeremy Hales face charges?
It sounds like a sick question, but it’s the crux of a disturbing saga playing out online.
On Episode 44 of The Unknown Podcast, Luthmann and co-host Michael Volpe aired the latest chapter in the ongoing feud between Luthmann, a Florida-based journalist, and YouTube mega-influencer Jeremy Hales, a man with nearly 1 million subscribers and a growing legal track record of leveraging his fan base for coordinated harassment campaigns.
The flashpoint: A new AI-generated “satire” video published by one of Hales’ online foot soldiers, DJ Rattis.
The video mocks Luthmann’s past and current efforts related to legal self-defense. Hales sued Luthmann in Gainesville Federal Court.
DJ Rattis’ satire creation calls Luthmann a “legal cosplayer” and the “Duke of Dumb Decisions.”
It features a fake interview with an AI-modified version of a nearly decade-old picture of Luthmann. The video pokes fun at duct tape, subpoenas, and Luthmann teaming up with “Bruce the Deuce,” Massachusetts lawyer Bruce Matzkin, another defendant in the Hales case.
“I believe that video violates YouTube’s Terms of Service,” Luthmann said. “It’s harassment. It’s bullying. And I’ve reported it multiple times.”
YouTube responded with an automated message suggesting he “contact local authorities.” Luthmann did. Their reply? “There’s nothing we can do.”
DEATH BY YOUTUBE SATIRE: WHEN A VIDEO BECOMES A SUICIDE NOTE
In his on-air monologue, Luthmann laid it all out. The harassment, he says, has become unbearable.
“I’m thinking about killing myself,” he told Volpe. “Because that would make my legal claim stronger. The harm of death is pretty good harm in legal circles.”
He’s considering a declaratory judgment lawsuit against YouTube and Hales. But he admitted that dying might make for a better lawsuit.
“If I end up killing myself because of YouTube harassment,” Luthmann said, “just let everyone know I was a good guy.”
Volpe, stunned but maintaining gallows humor, replied, “If you kill yourself, can I have that shirt?”
Luthmann promised to leave him the shirt.
While many may brush this off as dark satire, Luthmann sounds like he could be serious.
“I want to sue Neal Mohan’s little brown Indian ass before I die,” he said, accusing the YouTube CEO of selectively enforcing Community Standards and banning Luthmann while allowing Hales’ attack videos to remain up.
DEATH BY YOUTUBE SATIRE: DEPLATFORMED FOR COMPLAINING?
To add insult to psychological injury, Luthmann says YouTube deplatformed him after he complained, not for violating any policy, but for trying to invoke one.
“I made a good-faith complaint, and they booted me,” he said. “So who’s responsible if I’m dead?”
The stakes are higher than most online drama. Luthmann—a former attorney, now journalist—says Hales has “weaponized lawsuits, protective orders, CPS reports, and fake conspiracies” against critics.
He’s accused Hales of filing frivolous lawsuits against multiple women, falsely claiming people were served, and even interfering in custody cases across state lines.
Volpe has also been a target.
“Today is Day 26 of Hales’ empty threat to get me criminally charged,” he said. “He promised ‘wheels in motion’ on May 31. Nothing’s happened.”
The podcast paints a chilling picture of coordinated psychological warfare.
IS IT “SATIRE” OR IS IT A CRIME?
Volpe doesn’t mince words: “If that video’s not bullying, then remove every Don Rickles clip from YouTube.”
He points out the irony: The same people who screamed “revenge porn” at a previous satirical video made by Luthmann—one that visually mocked Hales and Megan Fox—are now defending a much harsher parody targeting Luthmann himself.
“DJ Rattis’ video may cross a line based on YouTube’s Community Guidelines on Harassment & Cyberbullying,” Volpe said.
The Guidelines read: “Don’t post content intended to harass, bully, or threaten others.”
Luthmann says Hales’ followers made another video of him in prison garb “French kissing” Georgia Attorney Allie Jett, the wife of Hales’ groupie “ShizzyWhizNut.” The YouTube creator had sent threatening communications to another creator, Legally Leslie Ferderigos (@HotLipsbyLegallyLeslie). Thereafter, Shizzy organized a successful “deplatforming campaign” against Luthmann, Legally Leslie, and others.
“If it mocks someone who’s already mentally on edge. You wouldn’t know if it’s comedy or cruelty. Again, the way the policy is written, no more Don Rickles,” Volpe said.
Luthmann says YouTube’s Guidelines pay “lip service” to harassment. DJ Rattis’ AI satire video ridicules Luthmann in a malicious and prolonged manner, including mocking threats or suggesting serious psychological harm. It fits the banned behavior.
“YouTube explicitly states it does not allow content that targets individuals with ‘prolonged insults or slurs’ or includes ‘threats, bullying, doxxing, or encouraging abusive fan behavior,’” Luthmann said. “That’s completely untrue, and YouTube has allowed DJ Rattis to harm me, violating its own promises in the process.”
Regarding Jeremy Hales’ echo chamber, Luthmann is crystal clear.
“They’re mocking me because they can’t mock the truth. They have to make things up,” Luthmann said.
He says it all comes down to what YouTube allows and what it punishes. And right now, he says, the scales are tipped toward an Anti-Semitic bully named Jeremy Hales.
DEATH BY YOUTUBE SATIRE: WHO’S LIABLE IF LUTHMANN DIES?
That’s the question no one wants to ask—but Luthmann insists the public needs to hear.
“If I’m found dead,” he said, “the blood is on Jeremy Hales, DJ Rattis, and Neal Mohan.”
Luthmann says his mental health is deteriorating from the cyberbullying. He feels cornered. Some say Luthmann’s already in crazy – like a fox.
“I’ve followed YouTube’s process. I’ve made complaints. I even called the police,” Luthmann said. “They said they can’t help. So what now? Some people have actually died because of social media bulling and law enforcement and Big Tech could give two shits.”
And if the only relief he can get is through court—alive or dead—then he says the system is broken.
“I want to stay alive. But they’re making that hard,” he said. “But I have the answer, and it’s not vigilante justice, which would probably also work but is not something that I endorse.”
LUTHMANN: “DEPLATFORMED BECAUSE I TOLD THE TRUTH.”
Luthmann isn’t just miffed about cyber harassment. He’s building a legal case—and it could rock the tech world.
“I live in Florida. I’m a journalist. I run media channels. And I was deplatformed from YouTube for exposing Jeremy Hales and his biased ways. Under Florida law, that’s not just unfair—it’s illegal thanks to Governor DeSantis. He protects his people,” Luthmann said. “I’m under attack from an echo chamber of WOKE-right bigots. They are Andrew Tate-style assholes who hate equality, common sense, and the State of Israel, aided and abetted by Neal Mohan and Big Tech. The Florida law will hold them accountable.”
He’s referring to Fla. Stat. § 501.2041, Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, which specifically protects users—especially journalistic enterprises—from arbitrary censorship and deplatforming by major social media companies.
“They censored me. They shadow-banned me. Then they permanently deplatformed me,” Luthmann said. “That’s three separate statutory violations.”
Luthmann argues that YouTube’s actions fit the law’s definitions perfectly:
Censorship under § 501.2041(b): YouTube “restricted and edited” Luthmann’s content.
Deplatforming under § 501.2041(c): Luthmann was banned longer than 14 days—indefinitely.
Shadow banning under § 501.2041(f): His content was made invisible to others, without notification or justification.
Even more damning, Luthmann claims YouTube violated § 501.2041(j), which forbids social media platforms from censoring journalistic enterprises based on content—unless that content is obscene.
“Nothing I published was obscene,” Luthmann said. “It was reporting—investigative, accurate, and protected by the First Amendment.”
He also alleges that YouTube failed to comply with transparency requirements, such as providing algorithm opt-out options (§ 501.2041(f)(2)) and usage notifications (§ 501.2041(g)).
“Neal Mohan’s YouTube never gave me a heads-up,” Luthmann said. “They changed the rules, then banned me without proper notice. That’s a direct violation of § 501.2041(d).”
Luthmann is preparing a demand letter and possibly a civil complaint in Florida state court. He intends to seek statutory damages, injunctive relief, and restoration of his access.
“I’m not just doing this for me. I’m doing it for every censored voice,” he said. “Big Tech thinks it’s above the law—but in Florida, we have the law on our side. We will have our reckoning. I just hope I don’t have to die in the process.”
Share this post