Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the speak-the-truth dept

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is an anonymous comment about the Republican attempt to legislate against spam filtering of political emails:

Nothing new

See: The exemption that gave themselves around Texting unsolicited political spam.

In second place, it’s another anonymous comment in response to a certain prolific commenter:

Hyman has the same respect for free speech as the Taliban does…

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with one more anonymous comment about the spam filtering law:

Not only is this an onerous waste of time and resources, it’s another domain for the consulting industry to exploit for profit and getting around filters by complaining or gaming.

Next, it’s That One Guy responding to a question about how Michigan dismantling its forfeiture reforms interacts with Constitutional rights:

On paper those rights mean laws like this could be challenged in court, potentially overturning them so the state and law enforcement once more have to at least pretend to respect the public’s rights for a time.

In practice… it’s a bit more complex and difficult, as criminals tend to react poorly when someone threatens their source of ill-gotten wealth and that applies all the more so when they’re official criminals and believe they have a right to take whatever they want.

Over on the funny side, our first place winner is an anonymous response to a comment about Republicans on Twitter:

Aren’t they all living in the freeze peach paradise that is Truth Social?

You want some cheese with your whine?

In second place, it’s Not Koby responding to… well, you can guess who:

Needs more buzzwords

You have to add in “woke” and “libt*rd” if you really want to be taken seriously as a RWNJ.

For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with an anonymous response to a comment asking someone to exit a conversation about Section 230 because “the adults are talking”:

That’s actually very unfair; children are capable of learning. 😜

Finally, it’s That One Guy responding to a complaint about one of our posts in the classic category of “what does this have to do with tech?”:

‘What do you mean FOX news isn’t all about foxes?!’

Yes indeed, what possible tech angle could there be from a state spending hundred of thousands of taxpayer dollars defending a blatantly unconstitutional law aimed at forcing online platforms to not engage in moderation…

To answer your question though the article is showcasing TD’s magic coding that forces people to read articles they aren’t interested in, though whether as a warning of their impending plans of world domination or merely as a a test to work out all the bugs is unknown at the moment.

That’s all for this week, folks!


Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
150 Comments
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

I’d like to see the algorithm. That’s often what folks have been asking for. Since the overlords consistently freak out whenever we ask to take a peek, it’s similar to when police cover up their body cam footage — there’s probably some corruption involved. – Koby

This should have received the funniest votes. Koby thinks he can understand an algorithm as if he’s just going to find a line of code that says:

function librulBias {
if conservative_comment = true,
then (suppress);
return “You broke the terms of service!”
}

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:2

In 2017: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-cyber-rnc-idUSKBN14U2DD
In 2021: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/06/technology/rnc-hacked-cyberattack-russia.html

If you aren’t aware, there is this wonderful resource called the internet – you can find all sorts of information on it…

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:4

That’s not what you usually say when others make even small claims without links to back them. Why is that?

In this instance it’s because it was widely publicized that the RNC was hacked and the easiest way to poke the ignorant is to link to the stories – that’s why. If someone makes some obscure claim it’s up to them to actually provide the evidence and if they don’t I poke them for that.

Did you somehow think I was inconsistent? I’m not, I always try to poke the ignorant, the dishonest and the lazy.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Your post indicates that I successfully poked you so that only leaves the question if you are ignorant, dishonest or just plain lazy? Of course, the qualifications above doesn’t actually exclude the possibility that you are just a troll with below average intelligence, especially considering your repeated use of bad rhetorical gimmicks.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

“That’s not what you usually say when others make even small claims without links to back them. Why is that?”

“…he whined, triumphantly, in response to an assertion **which had the exact linked resources he was asking for…”

I’m pretty damn sure that was less of a ‘gotcha’ and more of a solid shot to your own crotch. At least think before you troll.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Toom1275 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican-emails-fbi-director-says/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee_cyber_attacks

https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/12/10/report-russian-hackers-had-rnc-data-but-didn-t-release-it

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Since the topic was about the hacking of a political party in the USA, butting in with an “O RLY?” without actually having a grasp of what has been happening in the USA is just plain ignorant.

The simple truth is, it doesn’t matter where someone comes from in the world, if they don’t want to be seen as ignorant it’s their damned responsibility to learn about the topic being discussed before dropping stupid comments.

Well, unless they actually want to appear ignorant that is.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Active Curation by a Social Mediam Creates Libel

47 U.S. Code § 230 provides no immunity to such a complaint that seeks compensation for a tort of libel by active curation. I was discussing the issue with patent professionals on the Patently-O blog in Supreme Court Continues Preliminary Injunction of HB20 – with dissent.

The opinions of patent lawyers are interesting because many understand the technology, which underlies the Internet/WWW. The patent professionals generally agreed that § 230 gave a 2022 social medium platform an unconstitutional license to defame because active curating of content is a mechanism of defamation as a 2020 social medium platform uses it according to § 230 (c)(2)(A) along with the limited immunity § 230 (c)(1).

So how does active curating lead to defamation?

The patent lawyers were clear.

  1. Social Medium Crowd A posts, tweets, or comments an attack on a target.
  2. Social Medium Crowd B posts, tweets, or comments a defense of the target.
  3. The social medium platform removes the defense of the target under § 230 (c)(2)(A) and then defends itself against a charge of libel by means of § 230 (c)(1).

The patent lawyers considered this scenario

  1. to show the fundamental un-Constitutionality of § 230 and
  2. to demonstrate the need for state regulation of a social medium platform à la S.B. 7072 or HB20 when the FCC declines to exercise its regulatory authority over the social medium platform.

When Congress discussed the bill, which included § 230, the potential for defamation by active curating was never addressed.

When we rewrite my Original Complaint into a class action Amended Complaint or into a class action New Complaint, we will include a count of defamation by active curating in the rewritten complaint, and we will address the obvious un-Constitutionality of § 230 — at least according to the patent lawyers.

The rewritten complaint will point out the following.

White racial supremacist genocide-supporting Zionists organize on a social medium platform

  1. in order to defame Palestinians and pro-Palestine users and
  2. in order to pressure the social medium platform to apply active curating to remove a pro-Palestine user and his content.

There is little evidence that it took much pressure to compel a social medium to apply such defamatory and discriminatory active curating.

A jury verdict of defamation of a whole plaintiff class by a social medium platform will almost certainly bankrupt the social medium platform. Such bankruptcy will be something good for the US political system. The bankrupt social medium platform can be put under the control of a state-owned enterprise as a bankrupt railroad corporation was during the 1970s. The abusive management can be fired, and a serious danger to the US political system can be neutralized.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Continue to Show Utter Ignorance of Constitutional Law

Every US citizen has a Constitutional right to sue for libel (common law right existent at the time of ratification). Such a right cannot be negatived without a Constitutional amendment. (Don’t hold your breath while you wait for such a Constitutional amendment.)

If active curating (a form of the social medium platform’s own speech) occasions an act of libel, 47 U.S. Code § 230 is unconstitutional if it immunizes a social medium from the consequences of its own libelous speech. Once SCOTUS declares § 230 unconstitutional (at least four Justices seem poised to do so), my plaintiff class will on remand prevail and bankrupt the social medium platform.

If § 230 does not immunize a social medium platform from the consequences of its own libelous speech in the form of active curating, my plaintiff class will prevail against a social medium platform and bankrupt the social medium platform without the detour to SCOTUS.

Either way, my litigation will be the magic bullet that destroys § 230. Every abomination, which is a social medium platform, will die to the benefit of the Republic, and the good guys will defeat the pro-discrimination, pro-defamation, pro-genocide racists, who live for § 230.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 I Roll on the Floor and Laugh at a Clown That Knows Nothing About Constitutional Law

You have to make a Constitutional argument.

No statute can immunize a social medium platform that libels by active curation (its own speech).

Sometimes a Court might narrow the interpretation of a statute to find a way to render it Constitutional, but such narrowing won’t happen in this case.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
David says:

Re: Re: Re:2

“fervent belief” would be an improvement over the openly disgusting “let’s all agree on pretending to believe the following expedient alternative reality talking points” shit that is by now the entry ticket to Republican politics.

Which is a shame because the two-party system already conflates far too many complex issues into just two tickets to add disingenuousness (well, more than par for the course) as a required component into one of the two.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 I Have Been Doing Legal Strategies for Decades

I hardly ever loose.

There is evidence indicating that four Justices are uncomfortable with § 230.

Here are my arguments for the Amended Complaint.

  1. No statute can immunize against defamation liability for active curating — Constitutional argument.
  2. § 230 does not give a social medium platform unfettered editorial discretion of a publisher — caselaw built on denial of the antecedent is invalid.
  3. § 230 only applies to a 1996 Interactive Computer Service, which cannot be mapped to a 2022 social medium platform — inapplicable statute.
  4. Title II of the 1964 CRA (public accommodation anti-discrimination law) takes precedence over § 230 — public accommodation argument.
  5. Reconstruction Era civil rights anti-discrimination law takes precedence over § 230 — civil rights arguement.
  6. When the federal government declines to regulate social medium platform common carriage, the Tenth Amendment gives a state the right to regulate social medium common carriage — state common carriage law argument.

Every major social medium platform holds out common carriage

  1. to the public,
  2. under uniform terms,
  3. for a fee.

Every social medium platform is within the Internet, which is a vast state-supported facility, establishment, or place of public accommodation for resource sharing. Thus every social medium platform comes under public accommodation anti-discrimination law.

Vague reference to subjective community standards does not obviate Reconstruction Era civil rights anti-discrimination law.

Common carriage caselaw is clear.

Common carriage of mass postcard distribution does not infringe the First Amendment Rights of the message carrier.

AT&T mass announcement common carriage system for 3rd party announcements, stories, and political messages did not infringe on the 1st Amendment rights of AT&T.

Common carriage can be layered on top of common carriage. State-regulated Telex message common carriage was layered on top of federally-regulated voice signal common carriage.

Hosting a user blog has never been considered infringement of the First Amendment rights of the blog hosting service. No one ever confuses user speech with bloghost service speech.

A judgment against each social medium platform in excess of a trillion dollars is highly likely and highly deserved.

Every social medium platform will be bankrupted and ultimately placed under a government corporation holding company, which neatly solves the problems of:

  1. social medium platform libel,
  2. social medium platform public accommodation discrimination,
  3. social medium platform civil rights discrimination,
  4. social medium platform common carriage discrimination, and
  5. social medium platform support for an ongoing genocide.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Typo -- Big Deal

Somehow my case is still before the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

A District Court almost never underrules a higher Court.

Dismissal without prejudice is legal jargon for kicking a litigation to a higher Court that can either ignore or overrule the caselaw.

The racist pro-discrimination pro-defamation pro-genocide nitwit does not understand legal language — no surprise there.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
David says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Dismissal without prejudice is legal jargon for kicking a litigation to a higher Court that can either ignore or overrule the caselaw.

Say what? Dismissal without prejudice is legal jargon for not kicking a litigation to a higher court but leaving the plaintiff with the option of filing an amended complaint.

It’s dismissal with prejudice that leaves no option other than appealing to a higher court.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

The fact that you submitted an appeal is… not nearly the argument slamdunk that you think it is.

The guy who claimed to have invented EMAIL also appealed after he failed to have this website scorched off the face of the Internet on flimsy defamation grounds. He lost that appeal, too.

Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Dismissal without prejudice is legal jargon for kicking a litigation to a higher court that can either ignore the caselaw, overrule it, or, as in most cases, treat it as precedent. You know, it’s good that you’re so ignorant of the full facts. It makes your arguments that much easier to destroy.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:3

I hardly ever loose.

There are too many comment threads to link to here on Techdirt that would beg to differ.

There is evidence indicating that four Justices are uncomfortable with § 230.

Big claims like that need definitive links. Otherwise, they are nothing more than what the male pachyderm drops behind him.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 A Pro-Defamatation Pro-Genocide Pro-Discriminiation Racist Lives in the Twilight Zone

Netchoice, LLC v. Paxton, No. 21A720 (U.S. May. 31, 2022) reinstated the stay 5-4. It’s highly probable that of the five Justices in the majority, at least one wants to see more litigation in the lower courts before reviewing the case and making up his mind.

It only takes one Justice to join the four Justices, who are uncomfortable with § 230, and every racist discriminatory pro-genocide libelous social medium platform is toast — good riddance!

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

There are twelve Supreme Court justices, fool. Five out of twelve leaves seven, so those five do not make a majority.

Um. Hate to burst your bubble here, but there are 9 Supreme Court Justices.

But, he’s wrong about his math. Kagan disagreed with the reasoning, but did not sign on to the dissent, and does not seem likely to be a vote to kill 230. There are two likely anti-230 votes. Then there is one maybe. They might have 3 votes right now.

David says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Frankly, if you have to count names from biographies to know the number of Supreme Court justices, maybe you are not the most suitable person for lecturing everybody else about the U.S. court system.

This is so much over the news that it’s hard to get wrong for a layman. It certainly seems baffling for a self-declared legal eagle.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9

Frankly, if you have to count names from biographies to know the number of Supreme Court justices, maybe you are not the most suitable person for lecturing everybody else about the U.S. court system.

Apparently, Autie’s from the UK, so can be forgiven for not automatically knowing certain information about the US court system. Or do you think Americans should automatically know the price of a 12 ounce can of Wild Cherry Pepsi in pounds sterling? As for Autie “lecturing people on how US courts work”, I think you’ll find that your alter ego ThorsProvoni started that one, and with a lot less accuracy.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:3

1. No statute can immunize against defamation liability for active curating — Constitutional argument.

Here’s the thing you (obviously deliberately) don’t get, curation, whether active or otherwise,involves the publication of what has been curated. When someone uses a platform such as Twitter, AO3, or YouTube, it’s them who’s the publisher, not the platform. To put it in a way even you can’t pretend to misunderstand, just as a ‘dumb consumer’ has no choice in what’s shown on TV, only whether or not to watch it, so platforms have no choice in what’s said by their users, only whether or not to continue hosting that speech after the fact. Ignoramus.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:

If active curating (a form of the social medium platform’s own speech) occasions an act of libel, 47 U.S. Code § 230 is unconstitutional if it immunizes a social medium from the consequences of its own libelous speech.

But it doesn’t, you have constructed a strawman of what §230 is that has no bearing on reality. A social media platform is only responsible for its own speech. A platform saying that your or other peoples speech isn’t acceptable can never be libel and it’s a necessary function for them to use to avoid actually being sued for other people’s posts. If we take your argument to it’s logical conclusion, anyone refusing to publish your speech, regardless of medium, can then be sued for libel.

What can be considered to be libel though, is you saying that Twitter are pro-discrimination, pro-defamation, pro-genocide racists or any other of your vitriolic statements about social media.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 The Kook is the Pro-Discrimination Pro-Defamation Racist

§230 refers to “[restricting] access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable”, but if the material only defends against the (aggregate) liable, which the social medium platform is maliciously disseminating, the burden is upon the social medium platform to overcome the prima facie case of bad faith.

I already have a full library that shows pro-Palestine material, which each racist pro-genocide social medium platform removes, only defends against the libel.

I can convince a jury and bankrupt each social medium platform as it deserves and save the USA from racist pro-discrimination pro-defamation pro-genocide supporters of the abomination. which is the social medium platform of 2022.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:6

And the odds favor my anti-racist, anti-discrimination, anti-libel, anti-genocide argument, and not pro-genocide, pro-discrimination racists that support coverup of ongoing genocide by racist pro-genocide social medium platforms.

Got a time machine, mate? It’s the only way you’ll be able to put a bet on winning the case that you lost last year.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Mere Refusal to Publish Is Not the Issue

When a newspaper decides not to publish one text, it’s editorial discretion, a one-off, and not the issue.

In active curation as practiced by a racist discriminatory genocide-supporting social medium platform like each of the 6 defendants in my case, the active curator makes a decision to facilitate 3rd parties to post content that altogether constitute libel while the active curator removes all opposing content — to the harm of the party suffering the libel, which may only arise from the aggregate of the facilitated content.

That conscious decision to enable and to distribute the aggregated libel becomes itself libelous speech,

  1. which is characterized by actual malice and
  2. for which the social medium platform is liable.

The editorial discretion for the newspaper might merely be a space consideration, which does not exist for a social medium platform, which in contrast creates a pattern of libelous behavior with actual malice.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

The editorial discretion for the newspaper might merely be a space consideration, which does not exist for a social medium platform, which in contrast creates a pattern of libelous behavior with actual malice.

Okay. We can add “actual malice” to the increasingly long list of legal concepts you do not understand.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 I understand actual malice

Actual malice is not necessary to render a racist pro-genocide social medium platform liable for libel of Palestinians and of pro-Palestine activists, but I have the evidence of actual malice anyway.

Every racist pro-genocide social medium platform that perpetrates libel by active curating will crash and burn — good riddance!

I remember how the racist pro-genocide pro-libel participants in this forum made fun of my complaint when the District Court kicked it up to a higher court because the legal nitwits in this forum don’t understand legal jargon.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Is It Possible to Be So Clueless about Libel Law?

A publisher can by its editorial choices become liable for the writing of someone it publishes.

When a social medium platform in bad faith creates an aggregate liable by active curating in bad faith it becomes liable for this libel and manages to vitiate any immunity that § 230 might but probably does not give it.

We will see within less than a year how the various involved Courts rule. At present, there are 10 involved Courts. It only takes one anti-social medium platform ruling affirmed by SCOTUS to kill every vile racist, discriminatory, libelous, genocide-supporting social medium platform.

The odds don’t look good. I’m good legal strategist because I calculate odds. Racist pro-discrimination pro-libel pro-genocide supporters of § 230 don’t calculate the odds because they are bigoted fanatics.

BTW, after 5 months of litigation, A Medium Corp finally realized that I was making a public accommodation/civil rights discrimination case and put an experienced civil rights litigator on its team. The situation is almost funny.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 I have read hundreds of liable cases

§ 230 was intended to tell Courts that an Interactive Computer Service was like a distributor or like a passive conduit even if it had the superficial appearance of a publisher.

Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Servs., undefined (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May. 24, 1995) discusses the issue in passing.

In the general case, a 1996 ISC server software interacted with the ISC software on a user’s PC to reformat the text that appeared on a user’s computer screen. It looked a lot like publishing even though there was no human involvement.

When a 2022 social medium platform actively curates and when I find numerous statements of intent from Zionists among members of social medium platform management, the social medium platform ceases to be a passive conduit.

This text

any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable…

refers to the occasional removal of an obscene text or violent picture.

It does not refer the conscious and concerted effort (active curation) of a genocide-supporting group to defame its victims and to prevent the victims from defending themselves from the defamation.

Racist discriminatory genocide-legitimizing and genocide-normalizing active curation is practically the definition of common law libel per se, for which a plaintiff has a Constitutional right to file a lawsuit. It will be hard for a defendant to overcome the prima facie case of libel by active curation, and there is more than 50% likelihood that SCOTUS will find § 230 unconstitutional without possibility of Constitutionality by narrowing the interpretation of the statute.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Non-sequitur from a fanatic supporter of racism and genocide-support from a social medium platform

Someone did not read Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Servs., undefined (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May. 24, 1995). This case shows the inadequacy of the libel law in 1995. § 230 was meant to address this inadequacy, but no one in 1996 conceived of aggregate libel by means of active curation. This oversight makes § 230 unconstitutional.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Toom1275 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Reminder: the “libelous” statements at issue were actually true.

Amd defamation law itself makes Thors’s “aggregate libel by curation” fantasies not hold any water. Can’t make a statement you know to be false if there’s no possible way to know something is false without possessing magical omniscience.

Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:8

And defamation law itself makes Thors’s “aggregate libel by curation” fantasies not hold any water.

Yes. If US law is anything like that of in the UK, statements from the one individual or organisation cannot be aggregated to give rise to a charge of defamation, so Thors has no chance of getting the statements of several individual Twitter accounts aggregated, and § 230 protects Twitter as the mere host of the statements Thors has decided are defamatory.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:5

§ 230 was intended to tell Courts that an Interactive Computer Service was like a distributor or like a passive conduit even if it had the superficial appearance of a publisher.

Correction: § 230 was intended to quickly shut down expensive lawsuits against websites for the speech and actions of their users. But you already knew that, which is why you keep coming back to make the same tired arguments rather than accept that your view of the law is not the same as that of the judiciary or the rest of the world.

When a 2022 social medium platform actively curates…

Except a social media platform doesn’t actively curate anything, as I explained in an earlier comment.

…and when I find numerous statements of intent from Zionists among members of social medium platform management, the social medium platform ceases to be a passive conduit.

You want to sue the website because you don’t like its users criticising Islamic countries. Free clue: criticising a country isn’t the same as being predjudiced against its citizens of a shared religion. If it were, then I would be engaging in anti-Christian predjudice every time I criticise yet another boneheaded decision by my government, and I’m Christian myself.

This text

any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable…

refers to the occasional removal of an obscene text or violent picture.

It refers to the constant monitoring and the investigation of complaints or the immediate removal of clearly objectionable content, actually.

It does not refer the conscious and concerted effort (active curation) of a genocide-supporting group to defame its victims and to prevent the victims from defending themselves from the defamation.

Please refer to my earlier comment about what constitutes active curation. Link’s in there. Also, said ‘victims’? Potential terrorists, going by what I’ve read of their comments. Sometimes, shit just needs removing, and removal of that content doesn’t meet the definition of genocide.

Racist discriminatory genocide-legitimizing and genocide-normalizing active curation is practically the definition of common law libel per se, for which a plaintiff has a Constitutional right to file a lawsuit. It will be hard for a defendant to overcome the prima facie case of libel by active curation, and there is more than 50% likelihood that SCOTUS will find § 230 unconstitutional without possibility of Constitutionality by narrowing the interpretation of the statute.

Now I understand. You want to destroy § 230 because websites have more money than their individual users. This isn’t about what speech is taken down and what’s allowed to stay up, it’s about a big payday for you. Now go away, fool. Those who bothered to make the most of our education are talking.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Hottest Topic in Patent Law Today is Interplay of Constitutional Law, Statutory Law, and Common Law

But racist pro-genocide pro-libel legal nitwits that support ongoing violation of anti-discrimination law by a social medium platform is unlikely to be aware of any currently important legal issue.

Why do you think I participated in the discussion? It was not merely because I am IP law professional.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

The last “IP law professional” who tried to destroy a website based on comments making fun of them was a law firm that specialized in scamming grandmothers for pornography they didn’t download.

That law firm was eventually dissolved after their two leaders were arrested. (The third died from alcoholism brought on by stress that the other two put him under.)

Your methodologies, likewise, do not inspire much confidence.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Why do you think I participated in the discussion? It was not merely because I am IP law professional.

If that means you’re a lawyer, then someone ought to take your bar license away before you bring your profession into disrepute if you haven’t already.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 The Racist Supporter of Social Medium Platform Racism and Defamation Distorts the Context

I was replying to this statement.

A social media platform is only responsible for its own speech.

I pointed out that libel liability does not pertain only to one’s own speech. A publisher can be liable for the speech of someone that the publisher publishes.

I am not arguing that the racist genocide-supporting social medium platform is a publisher and therefore libel for the content it distributed. I am arguing that the social medium platform is an active curator that intentionally creates an aggregate libel by a specific defamatory program of active curation.

I am not putting the racist genocide-supporting social medium platform in the role of a publisher or a speaker.

I am putting the social medium platform in the role of an active curator — a role that the social medium platform admits.

If § 230 gives the social medium platform immunity to intentional aggregate libel by active curation, § 230 is unconstitutional and the social medium platform is bankrupted by the compensation it will have to pay to its victims.

If § 230 does not give the social medium platform immunity to intentional aggregate libel by active curation, the plaintiff class prevails and the social medium is bankrupted by the compensation it will have to pay to its victims.

The Plaintiff prevails either way, and a stake is driven through the heart of every racist genocide-supporting social medium platform.

SCOTUS loves to make this sort of holding in an issued opinion.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:5

A publisher can be liable for the speech of someone that the publisher publishes.

Again, true. However, I’m still waiting for you to give a point-by-point analysis with links as to how Twitter or YouTube decide what their users post or upload, and are therefore publishers. And before you bring it up, the ToS of each website says what can’t be posted or uploaded, not what should.

Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:2

What can be considered to be libel though, is you saying that Twitter are pro-discrimination, pro-defamation, pro-genocide racists or any other of your vitriolic statements about social media.

Only if such statements are likely to be believed by reasonable people, and if there’s one thing I’ve learnt by observation, it’s that the GOP and its supporters can hardly be described as reasonable. 😜

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Every US citizen has a Constitutional right to sue for libel (common law right existent at the time of ratification). Such a right cannot be negatived without a Constitutional amendment.

Nothing in 230 takes away the right to sue for libel. It just requires that you sue the correct party.

If active curating (a form of the social medium platform’s own speech) occasions an act of libel, 47 U.S. Code § 230 is unconstitutional if it immunizes a social medium from the consequences of its own libelous speech.

Good news, then, as 230 does not immunize a company from the consequences of its own libelous speech. Only 3rd party speech. So, it’s not unconstitutional.

Either way, my litigation will be the magic bullet that destroys § 230

Your litigation that has lost, you mean?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Another Racist Pro-Genocide Pro-Libel Legal Nitwit

My litigation is before the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and A Medium Corp just added to its team a litigator, who is experienced in public accommodation and civil rights law. It took 5 months, but Medium’s legal team seems to have realized that the Deefendants were highly exposed with respect to Reconstruction civil rights statutes.

A litigation that raises a challenge to existing caselaw on grounds of Constitutional law, of violation of basic logic, and of statutory conflict often makes multiple visits to SCOTUS. I’ve been on this road many times before.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

I’ll note you ignored my larger point. 230 does not take away anyone’s right to sue for libel. If that’s the basis of your suit, you’re wrong, and you’re going to get laughed out of court again.

And the defendant hiring another lawyer is not the big win you seem to think it is. Dude, you filed a dumb lawsuit, you don’t understand the law at all, and you’re going to lose.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

I’ve been on this road many times before

I mean… that I can believe. I can see you going into courtroom after courtroom to scream at everyone, lose the case, then leave the courtroom shaking your fist and screaming “I’ll be back!”

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Every US citizen has a Constitutional right to sue for libel (common law right existent at the time of ratification).

That’s— no. That’s not how either of those things work.

First, something being a common law right doesn’t make it a constitutional right because constitutional rights are, y’know, part of the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution or in case law around the Constitution that establishes a constitutional right to sue for libel beyond the fact that you have the right to file a lawsuit over just about anything (though not without consequence, and there’s no guarantee the lawsuit will get past the pleadings stage).

Second, there is no federal common law. Historical British common law is handled on the state level, not the federal level. And even where there was a common law right existent at the time the Constitution was ratified, that doesn’t mean it is still recognized in any given state, and those rights can differ between states. For example, at the time the Constitution was ratified, there was still an established common law right to trial by combat, but no state still recognizes that right.

Now, there are written state laws in all 50 states (plus DC) that allow for someone to sue one who defames them (which includes both libel and slander), and there is case law that allows them to coexist with the 1st Amendment protections of freedom of speech and of the press, but that is not a constitutional right to sue for libel so much as a limitation of certain constitutional rights to allow one to sue for libel. Also, there is nothing there that establishes intermediary liability for libel.

Such a right cannot be negatived without a Constitutional amendment.

For actual constitutional rights? True, with the caveat that interpretations of those rights are done by the judiciary. For historical common law rights? Absolutely not. If there is a conflict between a statute or law (by the state or the federal government) and common law, the statute or law almost always overrules the common law. For the right to sue for libel? Hell no. That is neither a constitutional right nor a common law right; it is established by written state statutes and curbed by the 1A, the corresponding state constitution, and by federal statutes as interpreted by the judiciary (thanks to the Supremacy Clause).

If active curating (a form of the social medium platform’s own speech) occasions an act of libel, […]

How can deciding whether or not to host someone else’s speech be libelous? While the decision not to host something is speech by the platform that is protected by the 1A, I fail to see how it could possibly be defamatory speech.

[…] 47 U.S. Code § 230 is unconstitutional if it immunizes a social medium from the consequences of its own libelous speech.

There is no right (constitutional or otherwise) to impose legal consequences on someone because they failed to remove someone else’s libelous content or because they did remove someone else’s non-libelous content. There is a statutory right to sue anyone (including the makers of a social media platform) for their own libelous speech, and that isn’t immunized by §230, but curation of user-generated content cannot itself be libelous. Only statements of fact can be libelous, and actions—even when they are expressive, like with curation—are not statements of fact.

Once SCOTUS declares § 230 unconstitutional (at least four Justices seem poised to do so), my plaintiff class will on remand prevail and bankrupt the social medium platform.

First off, you need 5 to prevail in the Supreme Court, so even by your own account, this is far from a foregone conclusion. You have also failed to state a case that §230 might be unconstitutional.

If § 230 does not immunize a social medium platform from the consequences of its own libelous speech in the form of active curating, my plaintiff class will prevail against a social medium platform and bankrupt the social medium platform without the detour to SCOTUS.

Again, active curation cannot be a statement of fact, so it cannot be libelous speech. As such, you have failed to state a claim against the platform at all.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Find a Constitutional Argument

No statute can immunize a social medium platform,

  • which libels by active curation (its own speech) and
  • which discriminates in order to facilitate an ongoing genocide,

but the management of the social medium platform can go to jail

  1. for aiding, abetting, or inciting an ongoing genocide or
  2. for conspiring or participating in the selfsame ongoing genocide.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: I'm Not Arguing Great Replacement Theory

I am arguing that depraved evil white racial supremacist European Zionist colonial settler anti-Jews put the Zionist genocide into operation in Dec 1947 a year after the international community banned genocide and made anti-genocide just cogens.

I can identify top managers, who worked at each of the Defendants in my litigation and who specifically initiated a program of defending the Zionist state from a charge of genocide by defaming Palestinians by means of aggregate libel that resulted from removing any content (active curation) that defended Palestinians.

By the doctrine of respondeat superior, each social medium platform is responsible for the libel by active curation and will be be bankrupted.

Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:

By the doctrine of respondeat superior, each social medium platform is responsible for the libel by active curation and will be be bankrupted.

Except that social media platforms (as they are actually called) don’t curate anything, actively or otherwise. As I stated in an earlier comment, you’re just after a big payday you know you won’t get by suing individual user’s whose viewpoints you don’t like.

bluegrassgeek (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Let me get this right: you’re claiming that “anti-Jews” supported the creation of Jerusalem just so they could wipe out Palestinians?

I mean, to not get laughed out of court with that argument, you’d have to prove the conspiracy in the first place. Which you clearly can’t, so I hope you enjoy losing your money paying lawyers to make bad arguments.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Zionism is a depraved and evil ideology of replacement genocide

Zionist leaders have openly proclaimed the goal of replacement genocide since 1881.

Guess what! Genocide and material support to terrorists (perpetrators of genocide) are violations of US federal statutory criminal law.

It is prima facie evidence of bad faith to suppress discussion both

  1. of ongoing criminal violations by US Zionists and also
  2. of selective enforcement/prosecution of US federal criminal law by the DOJ.

Screech vacuous accusations of antisemitism at me all you want. Members of my family have been Zionist leaders in Palestine since the 2nd Aliyah, and two family members were involved in deep planning from Dec 1946 through Nov 1947 of the genocide

  1. that Zionist rape&murder gangs started in Dec 1947 and
  2. that has never ceased since.

I know where all the skeletons are buried and have documented Zionist pressure on a social medium platform to remove a pro-Palestine user and his content.

Reread 47 U.S. Code § 230 (c)(2)(A) and note the word voluntary.

any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable…

SCOTUS hates selective enforcement/prosecution, which tears the heart out of the US legal system.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Members of my family have been Zionist leaders in Palestine since the 2nd Aliyah, and two family members were involved in deep planning from Dec 1946 through Nov 1947 of the genocide

So your big bullet against Section 230 is to cite your own family history and accuse them of participating in the actions you claim Section 230 promotes? You must be fun at family gatherings.

I remember the last guy who claimed he had a silver bullet against Section 230. He regularly espoused bigoted claims of being angry at women and non-binary people, calling women whores, and boasted of raping boys on the autism spectrum. It’s only a matter of time before you demonstrate your true twisted desires.

Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Zionist leaders have openly proclaimed the goal of replacement genocide since 1881.

You know, that’s the same type of bullshit argument used as an excuse for the Russian pogroms and the inclusion of Jewish people in the Holocaust. You may describe yourself as ‘anti-Zionist’, but the truth is that you’re anti-Semitic and pro-genocide of Jewish people. Perhaps Techdirters should sue you for the libel contained in your attacks against us and your neo-Nazism.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

If you such an airtight case, why didn’t you go to the news agencies?

Oh wait, it’s because they probably laughed at you for admission of guilt.

Even Haaretz, who is critical of the current Israeli leadership and has ran actual articles detailing a coverup of early Jewish history by the same Israeli government they criticize.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Eh… doubt it. The last thing John Smith wants is for people to connect dots and put his identity together. That’s why he keeps boasting about lawsuits and press releases and police arrests, without anything stronger than a vaguely worded but ultimately unsupported threat.

Thors is a self-absorbed nutjob, but gives away far too much information to be John Smith. (There’s also the lack of overt sexism, which John Smith will never be able to resist ranting on with minor prompting.)

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Dude….

have you every thought to just quit digging?

Your arguments are joke worthy and apparently have already been laughed out of court.

Maybe you should just quit while you still can and realize that you are just a low grade fucking asshole that nobody wants to associate with.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...