YouTube Strike Backfires as Luthmann Turns a Danesh Censorship Play Into a Bigger Fort Myers Federal Court Headache
LUTHMANN NOTE: Danesh Noshirvan didn’t just file a takedown—he wandered straight into a Fort Myers federal court legal minefield and started stomping. When you weaponize copyright law against journalism, you’re not protecting anything—you’re daring the First Amendment to come looking for you. And that’s a fight you don’t win. The counter-notice flips the board. Now there’s a clock ticking, a paper trail locked in, and a direct road into the existing federal court case. This isn’t social media anymore. This is procedure, evidence, and consequences. If the goal was to silence criticism before a courtroom showdown, it backfired spectacularly. Because once discovery opens, the game changes. Intent gets dissected. Motive gets exposed. And every move leaves fingerprints. This doesn’t disappear. It doesn’t get memory-holed. It escalates. This fight isn’t over—it’s just entering the phase where the truth gets subpoenaed. This piece is “Danesh Hit With Fraud Claims.”
By Rick LaRivière with Richard Luthmann
The Strike That Lit the Fuse
(FORT MYERS, FLORIDA) – Woke social media mega-influencer Danesh Noshirvan made his move on March 30. He ran to YouTube’s copyright machinery and knocked down Florida-based journalist Richard Luthmann’s reporting. Danesh said that the material was his, subject to copyright, and did not fall within any of YouTube’s fair use exemptions for educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic (EDSA) content.
Danesh’s takedown email from “ThatDaneshGuy” using a Gmail address identified the claimed content — “Charlie Kirk should have stayed home” — was to be scrubbed from the Internet. Danesh had already pulled the same video from YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and other social media platforms.
Or more precisely, social media platforms had deplatformed him because of the video.
The strike against Luthmann wasn’t subtle. It was a precision shot at Luthmann’s journalism that captured Danesh’s own words in real time and documented the wreckage they caused— refusing to let the digital jihadist sanitize or spin them after the fact.
The takedown accomplished, he had effectively cleansed the digital record. The prospective jurors in his Fort Myers federal court case would never see his worst moment, or so Danesh thought.
Luthmann’s counter-notification went in almost immediately:
My use of the complained-of content is protected as fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107. The material was used for core First Amendment purposes—news reporting, commentary, and criticism—concerning a public figure and matters of public concern. Courts within the Eleventh Circuit recognize that transformative uses that add new meaning, context, or message strongly favor fair use. See Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F.3d 1257, 1268–69 (11th Cir. 2001) (finding transformative commentary weighs heavily in favor of fair use). Here, the content was not republished for its original expressive purpose but to analyze, critique, and document the subject’s own public statements and conduct.
The amount used was reasonable and necessary to achieve that purpose, and no more than required to identify and contextualize the statements at issue. The use does not substitute for the original work or harm any legitimate market for it, which is a critical factor under § 107. See Cambridge Univ. Press v. Patton, 769 F.3d 1232, 1270–71 (11th Cir. 2014). Instead, it serves the public interest by enabling scrutiny of a public figure’s actions.
Additionally, knowingly targeting such protected uses through a takedown request raises liability concerns under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f), as copyright claimants must consider fair use before asserting infringement. See Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126, 1135–36 (9th Cir. 2015). My use is lawful, non-infringing, and squarely within the protections afforded to journalistic speech.
YouTube’s own rules say a claimant who gets a valid counter-notice has a short runway to show legal action or the content comes back, putting a tight clock on Danesh’s chest, changing the posture of the whole fight.
“Danesh is used to casual social-media squabbles,” Luthmann said. “He just turned his hijinx into a legal record, a deadline, and a clean path toward court, undoubtedly in multiple cases. He just imploded his litigation chances by laying his tactics bare, and these are the tactics of an apex social media predator.”
Luthmann’s reporting rips the contradiction wide open. Danesh wants it both ways—and he leans hard into the victim role when it suits him. In Noshirvan v. Couture, he walks into Fort Myers federal court as the wounded party, painting himself as the target of reputational harm, harassment, and coordinated attacks, all while demanding millions in damages.
He claims that anyone opposed to him is “coming for his kids” and is a “child stalker.” This includes lawyers, journalists, doctors, businesspeople, social media influencers, and now federal court judges.
Danesh’s “money-whip” case is built on that image: Danesh and his wife and children are the ones wronged, the ones entitled to be compensated, the ones asking the court to step in and make them whole.
But that carefully constructed victim narrative collides with everything happening outside the courtroom. In reality, he hates children.
While simultaneously “harmed,” he shows himself to be quite adept in internet “self-defense,” with a deep arsenal of “tools,” “techniques,” and “skills” unavailable to the average social media user.
The same man claiming injury is actively trying to suppress reporting about his own conduct. But you can’t be the victim on paper while managing the narrative in real time. Noshirvan reaches for takedowns, threats, and legal maneuvers to suppress reporting about his own conduct.
He brags about getting people fired. Nowadays, he says “You’re fired!” more than Donald Trump did at the height of “The Apprentice.”
“You can’t plead victim in court while playing aggressor outside it. That contradiction isn’t a footnote—it’s the whole story, and I’m here to expose it down to the bone,” Luthmann said. “I can’t wait to take the stand in Danesh’s trial. I conned his stoned lawyer, Nick Chiappetta of Lake Worth, Florida, to include me on his witness list.”
Danesh Hit With Fraud Claims: The Record He Tried to Smother
The video Danesh targeted was not random. It sat on top of a long trail of his own statements, his own digital mob tactics, and the fallout that kept widening after Charlie Kirk’s killing.
“We don’t need to honor his memory,” he said of Kirk. “School shootings across the United States honor his memory. We need to add a footnote to his memory that he encouraged the violent culture that led to his death.”
That line detonated because it sounded like gloating wrapped in policy talk. It turned a murder into a sneer.
It is a familiar pattern. One known to Fort Myers mother and businesswoman Jennifer Couture. Danesh seized on a clip of the white woman in a parking lot altercation, identified her, broadcast details about her, and unleashed the kind of heat that follows him everywhere online. Harassment and threats hit Couture, her family, and her husband, Dr. Ralph Garramone, the world-renowned plastic surgeon.
Garramone Plastic Surgery stood by like an innocent bystander, taking internet shrapnel after Danesh (the self-proclaimed victim) spread his violent content, aided by bots and AI. The pattern matters because it is the bridge from speech to pressure to conduct that crosses the line. He posts. He names. His audience swarms. Then he tries to present himself as the aggrieved party after the damage is done.
“He’s a woke race hustler. No different from Al Sharpton or Barack Hussein Obama,” Luthmann said. “That’s his game. Social media extortion for the racists, because everyone is racist, that’s not paying him, and his audience of snowflakes fall for the grift as some kind of feel-good virtue-signalling social justice.”
The Charlie Kirk moment was different. For a moment, it was accountability for the “Accountability Influencer.” Danesh announced to his own followers that TikTok had banned him, but it wasn’t his fault. The “Iranian anchor baby” with anti-American sympathies, still apparently loyal to the Islamic Regime, played an old but solid card: Blame The Jews!
He crowed on and on about TikTok parent company ByteDance’s “new ownership.” Transparent code for the Israeli majority ownership group.
The same story lays the court mess alongside the platform collapse, showing a man who was already getting squeezed in Fort Myers while his giant TikTok megaphone disappeared underneath him.
Of course, when “The Jews” weren’t to blame, there was always Trump.
He pushes and pushes the same arc farther and farther. But now he’s not just lashing out at enemies. He was making absurd claims about court-filed evidence and flailing at anyone who would not accept his victim script. That is the record Luthmann’s removed video stitched together.
That is the record Danesh tried to sanitize, which he tried to pull off the wall.
Danesh Hit With Fraud Claims: A Pattern of Abuse, Not a One-Off
Luthmann isn’t treating the takedown as a nuisance. He’s treating it as a trigger to the weapon that will deliver the kill shot to the heart of Danesh’s legal claims.
The law is not murky here. Fair use covers criticism, comment, and news reporting. 17 U.S.C. § 107 says so in black and white. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) also carries a penalty for anyone who knowingly makes a materially false infringement claim. 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) is the part nobody likes to talk about until the paperwork starts to bite.
“Danesh didn’t file a copyright claim—he filed a fiction. And when you submit a materially false DMCA notice, you’re not enforcing rights, you’re creating liability. I intend to collect on that,” Luthmann said.
The mega-influencer did not just swing at a clip. He swung at a documented story about his own conduct. If that strike was filed to bury criticism instead of protect an actual copyright interest, then the takedown itself becomes part of the story.
“This was never housekeeping. It was a censorship operation, dressed up in legal language and pushed through a system that wasn’t built for abuse,” Luthmann said. “Well, Jon, I’m your huckleberry.”
In the same breath that he fired off his counter-notification, he opened a broader counter-offensive that reached beyond YouTube and straight into federal court and immigration scrutiny. He has already signaled that any fraudulent use of the DMCA system will be folded into his claims in Luthmann v. Noshirvan, alongside defamation and abuse-of-process theories, and he’s not stopping there.
Luthmann is also calling for a full review of Danesh Noshirvan’s immigration history and family status, arguing that someone who weaponizes platforms, spreads demonstrably false narratives, and allegedly engages in coordinated harassment should not enjoy the protections of the system he’s attacking.
“You don’t get to exploit American institutions while undermining them,” Luthmann said. “If the facts support it, he and anyone tied to fraudulent entry or sponsorship should be shown the door.”
It’s not a rhetorical flourish. It’s a pressure campaign—legal, public, and political—designed to box Danesh in on every front at once. And Luthmann believes it is justified.
The broader Danesh file is ugly, and it does not read like a single bad day. The same conduct keeps showing up around him: frivolous defamation suits, ugly conduct under oath, deposition blowups, and public smears after the fact. Fort Myers Judge John Steele’s Opinion and Order from last August lays it out bluntly.
Noshirvan barged into a deposition, cursed at lawyers, and later smeared an attorney as a racist on social media. That is not protesting, activism, or virtue signalling. That’s not excusable. Judge Steele found it sanctionable to the tune of over $62,000. Danesh has yet to pay the fine.
The record keeps forcing the same question: How does a man claim persecution while publicly naming people, rallying followers, and triggering reputational pile-ons every time the camera turns on?
That tension is not a side note. It is the center of the Danesh brand. Multiple women targeted by his “accountability campaigns” attempted suicide. The Danesh reflex that follows: deny, reframe, fundraise.
Federal attention is already hovering around him; Danesh is already carrying serious baggage into a federal courtroom in Fort Myers. He has a history and a reputation for using public pressure as a weapon. So when he suddenly reached for a copyright strike against a news piece documenting his own controversy, the move looked exactly like what it was: another lever pulled to suppress and sanitize the record.
Danesh did not come into the YouTube strike with clean hands and a tidy reputation. He came in looking like a man trying to control the narrative before the next round in Fort Myers. That is why the strike backfired so hard. It did not erase the controversy. It plugged the controversy directly into the court timeline.
Danesh Hit With Fraud Claims: Lawfare by Web Form
For Danesh, this is where the story stops being technical and starts getting explosive and existentially dangerous to his litigation. The DMCA is not a customer service form. It is a sworn legal trigger, and once you pull it, you own what comes next.
The law requires a real, good-faith belief that the use is unlawful—not awkward, not embarrassing, not politically inconvenient.
Unlawful.
That line is not fuzzy, and courts have made that clear for years. Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. is the standing warning shot across the bow: ignore fair use, pretend it doesn’t exist, and you’re not protecting rights—you’re abusing the process.
When the content in question is journalism built on comment, criticism, and a public figure’s own words, the margin for error isn’t slim. For Danesh, it’s gone.
That’s why the fork in the road here is so stark. Either Danesh had a legitimate copyright claim against a piece of reporting that documented his own conduct and the fallout it triggered, or he reached for the law as a weapon to bury a narrative he couldn’t control. There is no gray zone to hide in and no safe harbor for a bad call dressed up as enforcement.
Danesh’s record is already locked: the takedown is filed, the counter-notice is filed, the links are still alive, and the Fort Myers case is marching toward trial.
More importantly, this didn’t land in a vacuum. It lands on top of the Charlie Kirk backlash, the TikTok wipeout, the sanctions findings, the fee award, and a growing body of reporting that keeps circling the same conclusion.
And let’s not forget the coup de grace, the new fact in evidence: Danesh has a long history of WEAPONIZING THE DMCA to suit his purposes. This is just the latest chapter:
Video title: Sanctions Optional in Federal Court #ThatDaneshGuy
Video url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yXx79tLjSA
Content used: ICE Executed Renee Good
Content found during: 0:01:15 – 0:01:56
Removal request issued by: ThatDaneshguy
Contact info: th***********@***il.comVideo title: From accusation to threat: a controversial rallying cry #substack #shorts
Video url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlFxSontb5U
Content used: ICE Executed Renee Good
Content found during: 0:00:02 – 0:00:29
Removal request issued by: ThatDaneshguy
Contact info: th***********@***il.comVideo title: Explicit mobilization: defend communities against militias #substack #shorts
Video url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uIBTija1ds
Content used: ICE Executed Renee Good
Content found during: 0:00:02 – 0:00:29
Removal request issued by: ThatDaneshguy
Contact info: th***********@***il.comVideo title: How I Came Back After Losing My Appeal #substack #shorts
Video url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYRo3RqBzaI
Content used: How to come back from a PERMA BAN on TIKTOK
Content found in: Entire video
Removal request issued by: ThatDaneshguy
Contact info: th***********@***il.comVideo title: Coordination, tactics, and a vow: why the speaker urges militias #substack #shorts
Video url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVcZ5bigsKI
Content used: ICE Executed Renee Good
Content found during: 0:00:02 – 0:00:29
Removal request issued by: ThatDaneshguy
Contact info: th***********@***il.comVideo title: He called for left‑wing militias #substack #shorts
Video url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2lLhyqDS_k
Content used: ICE Executed Renee Good
Content found in: Entire video
Removal request issued by: ThatDaneshguy
Contact info: th***********@***il.comVideo title: The ‘middle finger’ email from TikTok #substack #shorts
Video url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-Y5g8qdKm4
Content used: How to come back from a PERMA BAN on TIKTOK
Content found in: Entire video
Removal request issued by: ThatDaneshguy
Contact info: th***********@***il.comVideo title: Danesh @ThatDaneshGuy Noshirvan Mocked Charlie Kirk’s Murder — Now the Spotlight Is On Him
Video url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee4OnfC0ULA
Content used: Charlie Kirk should have stayed home
Content found in: Entire video
Removal request issued by: ThatDaneshguy
Contact info: th***********@***il.comVideo title: Danesh @ThatDaneshGuy Noshirvan Danced on Trump’s Grave — Now Iran Falls. Was He Wrong?
Video url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V7BwY4Y8pM
Content used: Yall didn’t know your boi is thicccc
Content found in: Entire video
Removal request issued by: ThatDaneshguy
Contact info: th***********@***il.comVideo title: Antifa Leader Danesh @ThatDaneshGuy Noshirvan Dances on Donald Trump’s Grave
Video url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIkQBh_YpmA
Content used: Yall didn’t know your boi is thicccc
Content found in: Entire video
Removal request issued by: ThatDaneshguy
Contact info: th***********@***il.com
Seen in that light, the takedown doesn’t look like housekeeping. It looks like reflex—another lever pulled to control the narrative, another attempt to scrub a record that refuses to stay buried. And that’s where the move blows back. Because once you turn a legal process into a pressure tactic, it stops protecting you and starts exposing you.
Danesh’s intent is no longer abstract, nor is his motive theoretical. The paper trail becomes evidence, and evidence has a way of ending up exactly where Danesh doesn’t want it—on the record, under oath, and in front of a judge and jury. The mega-influencer has become his own executioner.
Leave a Reply