Virginia Politicians Are Suing Books They Don’t Like

from the book-burning-but-for-lawyers dept

Civil asset forfeiture has shown us the government has a weird way of instigating lawsuits. In rem forfeiture cases allow government agencies to file suits against objects, rather than the people they’ve been seized from. This leads to some very amusing case names (even if the underlying process verges on legalized theft), like South Dakota v. 15 Impounded Cats and, um… UNITED STATES of America v. AN ARTICLE of hazardous substance CONSISTING OF 50,000 cardboard BOXES more or less, each containing one pair OF CLACKER BALLS, labeled in part: (Box) “* * * Kbonger * * It’s Fun Test Your Skill It Bounces It Flips Count The Hits * * * Specialty Mfg. Co., Seattle, Wash. * *.

A state law in Virginia allows residents to sue things rather than people. That’s what a couple of ridiculous politicians (Delegate Timothy Anderson and congressional candidate Tommy Altman) have done. Their legal action targets two books — “Gender Queer” by Maia Kobabe and “A Court of Mist and Fury” by Sarah J. Mass — in hopes of securing a ruling declaring the books “legally obscene,” thereby prohibiting them from being distributed by the state’s public schools (either by instructors in classes or via school libraries).

“Gender Queer” offends these Republican politicians for reasons that can probably be inferred from the title. “A Court of Mist and Fury” is a bit trickier. For whatever reason, the pair of pols believe depictions of physical and sexual abuse are de facto obscene. And, for whatever reason, the two scored an early win in court, with a preliminary ruling stating enough evidence of potential obscenity had been alleged that the case could move forward.

Now, FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) has stepped in to ask the court to find the First Amendment far outweighs the overstated (and politically expedient) arguments of these two Virginia politicians.

In today’s brief, FIRE and the Woodhull Freedom Foundation argue that neither book comes close to constituting obscenity as defined for minors under longstanding state and federal precedent. The books “will not appeal to or have value to every audience,” we recognize, but the First Amendment only requires that the books have “value to an audience” — and both plainly do. 

The brief [PDF] points out the best arbiters of individual taste are (duh) individuals. Long-recognized rights give parents and readers the option to read what they want. A broadly interpreted obscenity statute — especially when attached to a bizarre law that allows people to sue books — allows the government to decide what people should be allowed to read. That decision isn’t the government’s to make.

Some readers will choose not to purchase or read the books at issue in this case. Some retailers and some librarians will decline to place them on the shelves. Our Constitution reserves these choices for individuals and forbids them from the state. In our pluralist democracy, the First Amendment prescribes a remedy for audiences offended by protected speech: those who seek to avoid “bombardment of their sensibilities” may do so “simply by averting their eyes.” Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 21 (1971). Declaring books obscene because they include discussions or depictions of sex would reprise a discredited era of censorship repudiated by decades of Supreme Court precedent.

If the court continues to entertain the bullshit arguments of easily offended politicians, it’s going to aid and abet all sorts of censorship — not just in Virginia, but anywhere else opportunists see an opportunity to use someone else’s ill-gotten courtroom gains as leverage to foist their mindset on the people they’re supposed to be serving.

Without clarity from this Court, petitioners like the politicians here may prohibit parents from deciding what their children may read. Nor is this authority limited to books. Broad authority to prohibit or criminalize the availability of materials containing references to sexual content would enable the state to incarcerate a parent who allows a teenager to view an R-rated movie or even to access the internet.

Nor would the effects of such an order be limited to this Court’s territorial jurisdiction. Instead, it would embolden and invite further calls for censorship in school districts, libraries, and bookstores across the country—not only of these books, but of any now targeted by ambitious politicians nationwide. The resulting chill will force libraries, bookstores, and publishers unable to bear the cost of litigation to choose the cheapest option: censorship. But state-enforced silence has a cost, too, and it will be borne by groups without the political power to defend speech of interest to their communities—those who most need the First Amendment and courts that will adhere to its narrow limitations.

Chilling effects can’t easily be contained. Slopes become slippery at a moment’s notice. What somehow worked in Virginia will become model legislation for would-be censors around the nation. The way to head this off is to shut down hyper-local efforts like this one with strong affirmations of constitutional rights. Hopefully, the court will come down on the right side of history when it dives deeper into the issues.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , ,

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 “Virginia Politicians Are Suing Books They Don’t Like”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
58 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Queer Children's books

If Timmy and Tommy are concerned about queer literature reaching children, they’re far, far too late.

Some of the most well known children’s books are made by queer authers:
-Frog & Toad
-Goodnight Moon
-anything by Maurice Sendak
-anything by James Marshall
-Strega Nona

Sorry, GOP, those books you were reading to your kids had gay authors. They’ve been raising your kids better than you have.

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

Re:

Sorry, GOP, those books you were reading to your kids had gay authors. They’ve been raising your kids better than you have.

Sort of a low bar. Check out underage abortion rates in the U.S. and, say, the Netherlands, and you’ll find that puritanism along with disowning your daughters of understanding and controlling their body does a terrible job at protecting the unborn life.

But a lot of Americans are believers in fighting symptoms instead of causes and paying lip service instead of being of service.

Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Check out underage abortion rates in the U.S. and, say, the Netherlands

Depends on which part of the US we’re talking about. New York State and New England are not very puritanistic, but the southern and midwestern states are very much so (with Illinois and Minnesota being big exceptions, with Colorado soon joining their ranks). Anyway, here’s how I see the contiguous US: New York State and New England are like Europe, The west coast states are like Asia, the southern states are like Africa, and Florida is like the US of the US.

Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Okay, I did some research, and I concede that you are right. Somewhere along the way (probably during George W. Bush’s administration), Sex Ed in the US became abstinence-only mostly. That being said, abortion rates are higher in blue areas than red areas. In fact, Utah has a lower abortion rate than the Netherlands (but if it were up to me, I’d choose the Netherlands’ model).

I’m just saying there’s some nuance lacking in your argument.

David says:

Re: Re: Re:

That being said, abortion rates are higher in blue areas than red areas.

You could also say that the socioeconomic conditions making for higher abortion rates affect parts of the populace more strongly that are more likely to vote Democratic.

But either way, it’s U.S. all over. The Democrats are not really significantly less Puritan (nor are the U.S. Catholics as the Puritanism appears to transcend religion). They try to take the separation of state and religion somewhat more seriously, but they aren’t all that good at it either.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: 'It scares us so don't do it'

Somewhere along the way (probably during George W. Bush’s administration), Sex Ed in the US became abstinence-only mostly.

To call ‘abstinence-only’ sex ed is like calling a class that tells the students ‘cars are dangerous, never get behind the wheel of one’ driver’s ed.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

“Sex Ed in the US became abstinence-only mostly”

Ummm that applies to US programs outside of the US.

No federal money for programs that explain to people having survival sex that a condom might protect them from HIV.

Because their moral outrage does not allow them to protect others from preventable death if it might offend their sensibilities, even as they make use of those same protections in their own lives.
See Also: How many people died from CoVid after being told by those who were vaccinated that it was more dangerous than the disease.

Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:3

How many people died from CoVid after being told by those who were vaccinated that it was more dangerous than the disease.

Excuse me? I’m vaccinated and I’ve never told anyone any such rubbish. I actually had the choice whether or not to be vaccinated because my job’s not public-facing, and I said yes because my scientific knowledge tells me that vaccines are far less dangerous than the diseases they prevent. And yes, that includes the hastily tested COVID vaccine.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Naughty Autie, I’m sorry.

I never meant to imply you would be so stupid, I was referring to the members of Congress, religious leaders, and other conservative assholes who have no problem knowing full well their words lead to needless death.

New TAC reading rule – Unless he names you directly, it isn’t referring to you directly.
I will try to do better, but I’m not always perfect and you should never ever feel like I am against you or singling you out.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

But I am also in the group of people vaccinated and I never told anyone to not get the shot.

I’m not sure the right way to grammar what I meant.

subset – vaccinated people
subsubset – vaccinated antivax nutjobs
subsubsubset – vaccinated antivax nutjobs telling others to avoid the shot.

I thought I had phrased it right, but it seems I failed.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Well, there’s a few likely outcomes there. The first is that banning something doesn’t necessarily stop it. Illegal back alley abortions are likely to increase greatly in popularity, as are women fleeing to other states to get abortions there (which these states know, because they’re also trying to criminalise that).

But, let’s say that they manage to mostly stop abortion and force women to give birth to unwanted children they can’t afford or are otherwise incapable of properly raising? Well, correlation noted elsewhere means that we’ll be seeing a nice rise in violent crime and other problems in about 15-20 years in those states.

With the recent decision in Kansas, hopefully this will all be theoretical rather than a reality for all but the unfortunate women who are pregnant while this who silly episode is happening, but it would seem that red states are voting against their own interests and for a lot of predictable problems in the future. Which, sadly, seems to be about the only possible outcome for people who vote that way today.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Further to that, it was a long standing principle (or better yet, a maxim) of law that if you had no standing to sue someone, then you could not be sued yourself. It was all meant to keep things somewhat fair and balanced… for whatever that means any more. I have a feeling, without any proof, that the above went out the window about the time that asset forfeiture became an ‘unmandated’ tax on the citizenry.

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

Michael Grimes (user link) says:

The Politicians Got it Right

There is no constitutional issue. The law only pertains to public schools and does not prohibit parents from deciding what a child may read. The material is available in the public marketplace.

There are already laws in place restricting what a child under 17 may view in a movie theater without a parent present. The same material can be viewed through other means if the parents allow it.

Government has a vested interest in protecting minors in a wide variety of areas. We do not need our schools engaging in sexualization of children or child grooming. It takes a sick mind to push these books onto children. The folks who push this stuff could care less about the constitution. They just want to make a buck while corrupting our young.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re:

“There is no constitutional issue.”

Read as, I have No idea what the 1st Amendment says.

“There are already laws in place restricting what a child under 17 may view in a movie theater without a parent present”

You mean that there rating system thats not an actual legal doctrine?

“We do not need our schools engaging in sexualization of children or child grooming”

Oh I’m sorry, I missed your I’m an idiot sign.
More kids have been molested this week by pastors than have every been molested by teachers.
Calling it grooming just defeats your attempt to sound reasonable, its not grooming, its a book.

You sound like one of those assholes who believe we should respect what parents want, but only if you approve of the activity, because the theocracy knows best.

Like one of those rabid anti-abortion protesters who stand outside screaming at women in a crisis, but have no issue getting an abortion themselves if they need it, then return to protesting outside the next day.

For all of these claims about grooming, where is any evidence showing it is happening but in your fevered dreams at night that lead to you losing your vital fluids as you dream about young children?

The bible is a much more disturbing book, rape, incest, bestiality, murder, and so much more… why no out cry to make sure children can’t be exposed to it but those seeking to groom them… and well we’ve got the court cases proving many sickos are using the bible to groom children to molest.

Thanks for playing… now FOAD.

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

Re: Not Quite Right

The law only pertains to public schools and does not prohibit parents from deciding what a child may read. The material is available in the public marketplace.

The plaintiffs intend that sales of the books should be restricted in the public marketplace. Either they must be removed, or they must be put in a special segregated section where minors are not allowed to shop.

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

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Captioning an In Rem Case

There is nothing weird about captioning a case with a title like IN RE: GENDER QUEER, A MEMOIR. This type of captioning is used all the time when the legal controversy relates to a thing like real or intellectual property, whose status might be subject to a legal question.

Obscenity is not protected speech, and there is a legal question with respect to the status of speech contained in the foregoing book.

When an appeal is brought before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the PTAB, the name of the lead inventor is used because it is more meaningful than a patent application number and usually shorter than the title of the patent application.

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

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: The "In re" Caption

Here is a typical “In Re” Caption as used before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

The Court judged in rem whether Patent Application Serial No. 07/181,105 validly staked out an invention (a region in the realm of knowledge) by means of a claim, whose metes and bounds reference a data structure that is described in the written description of the patent application.

Claim 1

A memory for storing data for access by an application program being executed on a data processing system, comprising:

a data structure stored in said memory, said data structure including information resident in a database used by said application program and including:

a plurality of attribute data objects stored in said memory, each of said attribute data objects containing different information from said database;

a single holder attribute data object for each of said attribute data objects, each of said holder attribute data objects being one of said plurality of attribute data objects, a being-held relationship existing between each attribute data object and its holder attribute data object, and each of said attribute data objects having a being-held relationship with only a single other attribute data object, thereby establishing a hierarchy of said plurality of attribute data objects;

a referent attribute data object for at least one of said attribute data objects, said referent attribute data object being nonhierarchically related to a holder attribute data object for the same at least one of said attribute data objects and also being one of said plurality of attribute data objects, attribute data objects for which there exist only holder attribute data objects being called element data objects, and attribute data objects for which there also exist referent attribute data objects being called relation data objects; and

an apex data object stored in said memory and having no being-held relationship with any of said attribute data objects, however, at least one of said attribute data objects having a being-held relationship with said apex data object.

In re Lowry is a far more useful caption than In re Patent Application Serial No. 07/181,105.

In re Lowry is an authority that I reference in Martillo v. Twitter in Memorandum in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Final Order of Dismissal.

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

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Coward's Denial of Reality

Martillo v. Twitter went to a panel of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for consideration on June 3 — over two months ago. If the case were such a slam dunk, the panel could have at any time in the past two months issued a one sentence affirmation of the District Court.

Arguendo, suppose the Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Original Complaint was dismissed without prejudice because the District Court asserted on the basis of an irrelevant voice precedent — Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. IMR Cap. Corp., 888 F. Sup. 221 (D. Mass. 1995) — that I had no monetary claim.

I can just refile.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Stupid Is As Stupid Asserts!

A clown babbles about irrelevant statutory federal common carriage law when the District Court and the Appeals Court are judging in diversity jurisdiction according to state common carriage law.

I have already won on the common carriage issue in District Court. Because the Appeals Court will overrule an incorrect judgment of law, Twitter has made the same moronic argument before the Appeals Court that Anonymous Coward makes here. Below is my rejoinder from the Reply Brief.

Twitter evinces a common confusion of those with little familiarity with Title 47 and the associated caselaw. In the context of Title 47, the FCC, the Court of Appeals for the DC circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States often refer to a telecommunications common carrier by the sloppy shorthand phrase “common carrier”. From the standpoint of the FCC and Title 47, an interstate trucker, which holds out common carriage, is not a (telecommunications) common carrier.

This instant Reply is not to appropriate place to discuss the basics of interstate telecommunications common carriage law. AT&T offered a 20 hour course on the basics to a Member of Technical Staff (MTS), who was assigned the task of working with the legal staff on legal filings. …

The FCC has the administrative authority to determine whether a service is a telecommunications service. Only if a service is a telecommunications service can it be an FCC-regulated telecommunications service. Like the aforementioned interstate trucker that provides common carriage service, an ICS that provides only an information service, which the FCC does not classify to be a telecommunications service, can still provide common carriage service that is neither a telecommunication service nor FCC-regulated.

Decisions like U.S. Telecom Ass’n v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 855 F.3d 381 (D.C. Cir. 2017) have no relevance to state common carriage law.

Federal telecommunications common carriage law never completely pre-empted state common carriage law with respect to the U.S. telephone network. End user access for POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) was a matter of state common carrier and public utility jurisdiction.

A Defendant may pretend not to be a common carrier by Commonwealth law, but it is, and the District Court never disagreed with Joachim when he alleged that a Defendant was a common carrier. (Quī tacet cōnsentīre vidētur.) The District Court tried to hold a Defendant to be a voice common carrier even though it is a common carrier of personal digital literary property, which is “other property” under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 159, § 1.

My attorney, who died in June 2021 a month before I filed, was a great chess player. We always intended to go to SCOTUS to seek guidance that overrules the Zeran-related crap that pollutes the US legal system. I wanted to crowd-fund a major class action lawsuit, but Zeran crap daunts funders.

We knew we could present correct legal arguments, which would still lose in district court, because only a rare district court judge will underrule higher courts — however wrong the existing caselaw is.

By our standards, it’s a win when I go to higher Courts before the district court trial and file thirteen case documents on the legal questions before an Appeals Court while Twitter and Medium each can only file one pitiful Appellee’s Brief.

We set up the logic of the case so that we won however the District Court ruled even if a legal nitwit is too clueless to understand that every step in this case has been a victory for McMahon (the chess player and legal strategist), Olivia, and me.

The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has never taken a position on 47 U.S. Code § 230 (c)(2)(A).

If the Court rules favorably and finds Zeran-related caselaw to be garbage as four Supreme Court Justices seem to believe, it will be a lot easier

  1. to crowd-fund the litigation,
  2. to hire some real legal muscle, and
  3. to blow away all the vile major social medium firms.

It’s a lot better to clarify (bury) the caselaw before we have the district court trial than to wait for clarification until after the district court trial.

Is it possible to have less legal understanding than Anonymous Coward has?

Raziel says:

Re: Re: Re:4

A clown babbles about irrelevant statutory federal common carriage law when the District Court and the Appeals Court are judging in diversity jurisdiction according to state common carriage law.

We know. See Martillo v. Twitter et al.

I have already won on the common carriage issue in District Court.

The correct word is “lost”, actually. Google the case above. Now stop showing how butthurt you are by incessantly bringing this up where it isn’t relevant, spamming troll.

Is it possible to have less legal understanding than Anonymous Coward has?

Absolutely, and it’s also possible to have less legal understanding than an ameba, as you constantly demonstrate. If your current behavior is anything to go by, Twitter’s reason’s for banning you definitely weren’t discriminatory. Now fuck off, fool.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 The Legal Nitwits Continue to Babble Incoherently

We have not gotten to the case yet. The legal controversy pertains not to the case, which I have not presented, but to pre-service procedure.

I may not succeed, but I am trying to persuade the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to reject Zeran-based caselaw and force a circuit split, which will give Martillo v. Twitter an open path to SCOTUS.

One can read the important case filings through June 5 2020 Update on Martillo v. Twitter.

From the Appellant’s Brief.

Because the dismissal of the Original Complaint was ideological, based on Constitutional violation, based on bad caselaw, and based on erroneous legal conclusions, it was an abuse of discretion. Such an abuse must be reversed so that service can be carried out. After service the case will proceed to conclusion in a US federal district jury trial.

If the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit begins to develop its own caselaw for Section 230, I will almost certainly will have to amend the Original Complaint.

From the Appellant’s Reply Brief to Twitter’s Appellee’s Brief.

Because the dismissal of the Original Complaint was based on logical fallacy, ideological legally unsound reasoning, Constitutional violation, bad caselaw, and erroneous legal conclusions, it was an abuse of discretion. Such an abuse must be reversed so that summons and service can be carried out. After summons, service, and amendment of the Original Complaint, the case will proceed to conclusion in a US federal district jury trial.

From the Appellant’s Reply Brief to Mediums’s Appellee’s Brief.

Each Defendant provides:

  • a state-supported lucrative fun (functional) place or (Internet1) facility of public accommodation of entertainment and of exhibition as well as
  • a state-supported lucrative useful (functional) place or (Internet2) facility of public accommodation of resource sharing and of communication for business or for other uses
    because each Defendant’s service is based on common carriage of digital personal literary property.

It is outrageous that the federal judiciary has given private corporations, which are supported with US government funds, which are raised by taxing US citizens, blanket immunity to discriminate against groups of US citizens on the basis of a statute that makes no reference either to immunity or to unfettered editorial discretion.

I supplied the following summary to SCOTUS — my way of saying hi.

Can Caselaw Based in Logical Fallacy be Allowed to Stand?

A court of appeals is an important teacher within of the U.S. legal system. If one court issues a judgment based on a logical fallacy,

  • another court will do the same,
  • a party to a legal controversy will follow the court’s example by arguing with similar illogic, and
  • a rational legal system ceases to exist.

Caselaw based on a logical fallacy must be excised from the legal system as quickly as possible.

Current § 230 Caselaw Is Potentially a Source of Major Corruption

Arguendo, suppose that a political party in power wants to exclude a political figure from a major public forum. It can make a major social medium ICS aware of its desire, and the social medium ICS will probably comply in order to avoid problems in the future with the political party in power. This sort of hypothetical corruption becomes extremely important when a national election looms.

Current § 230 Caselaw Effectively Vitiates All Anti-Discrimination Law

A business currently subject to anti-discrimination law can escape anti-discrimination law by requiring a customer to use a discriminatory social medium ICS to obtain a product or service from the business. Current § 230 caselaw gives an unfettered editorial discretion to the social medium ICS to discriminate and to remove or to exclude a user. There is no evidence that Congress had an original intent of vitiating all civil rights and common carriage anti-discrimination law.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Relevance of Dissent in Doe v. America Online, 783 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2001)

In Martillo v. Twitter, I did not include a count of libel although I will add a count of distributor libel in a New/Amended Class Action Complaint against the class of social medium platforms.

I read SCOTUS to be on the side of the Florida Supreme Court dissenters (3 of 7) in Doe v. America Online, 783 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2001).

In Martillo v. Twitter, I pointed out a more serious problem with Zeran-based caselaw.

The Zeran court used the logical fallacy of denial of the antecedent to reach its ruling.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Rules Related to Ending a Unlawful Action by a Social Medium Platform

The rules and procedures that Martillo v. Twitter will involve on remand or on refiling are interesting.

Because Zeran-based caselaw violates Art. I Sec. 1 of the US Constitution, the following rule applies:

Rule 44. Case Involving a Constitutional Question When the United States or the Relevant State is Not a Party.

Because Zeran-based caselaw eliminates an implicit right to sue for libel without a Constitutional Amendment, there is a 2nd Constitutional question that activates Rule 44.

There are also relevant federal statutes that will apply to the litigation and that will ultimately be useful in ending an unlawful action by a social medium platform:

  1. 42 U.S. Code § 2000a–3 – Civil actions for injunctive relief,
  2. 42 U.S. Code § 2000a–5 – Civil actions by the Attorney General, and
  3. 42 U.S. Code § 2000b – Civil actions by the Attorney General et seq.

Ending unlawful actions by every social medium platform and bankrupting every one of them can constitute a joint national project that all Americans (except racists, bigots, and elitists) will support. The project will represent a major step in national reconciliation.

ThorsProvoni (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 I left out a paragraph

From the Appellant’s Reply Brief to Mediums’s Appellee’s Brief.

Each Defendant provides:

  • a state-supported lucrative fun (functional) place or (Internet) facility of public accommodation of entertainment and of exhibition as well as
  • a state-supported lucrative useful (functional) place or (Internet2) facility of public accommodation of resource sharing and of communication for business or for other uses
    because each Defendant’s service is based on common carriage of digital personal literary property.

It is outrageous that the federal judiciary has given private corporations, which are supported with US government funds, which are raised by taxing US citizens, blanket immunity to discriminate against groups of US citizens on the basis of a statute that makes no reference either to immunity or to unfettered editorial discretion.

The District Court dismissed the Original Complaint on the basis of an affirmative defense that can be overcome and that Joachim has the knowledge to overcome. The dismissal was an abuse of discretion and must be reversed so that summons and service can be carried out. After summons, service, and amendment of the Original Complaint, the case will proceed to conclusion in a US federal district jury trial.

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

This has probably been said before...

For whatever reason, the pair of pols believe depictions of physical and sexual abuse are de facto obscene.

So, when will they ban the Bible?
It has a ton of obscene content, by their own standards. Rape, incest, prostitution, polygamy… Plus genocide, infanticide, slavery, death penalty for minor crimes and thought crimes…
We can go on for hours: this book is outright immoral.

But I assume hypocrisy has never stopped a republican.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: 'That book is terrible! ... It's WHAT?! I mean great, it's great!'

That actually gets me thinking of a way to prank politicians like these two idiots by describing the more ‘colorful’ parts of the bible without actually mentioning what book you’re talking about, letting them get all worked up over the ‘sinful and disgusting book’ that ‘must be kept out of the hands of children’ and only after they’re frothing at the mouth in righteous indignation letting slip which book you were describing.

The immediate 180 that would be sure to result would likely be all sorts of funny.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

‘We must keep pornographic books out of schools!’
‘Here’s a book that includes two daughters getting their dad drunk and having sex with him, you might have heard of it, it’s called the bible. Will that be banned?’
‘No, that should absolutely still be the cornerstone of education.’

Oh that was glorious, even more so because he ‘saw it coming’ and still had no response other than blatant hypocrisy and/or special pleading.

Wyrm (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

I know, but that was the one used in the clip with the pastor/governor candidate.

Also, this hypocrite mentions that “as the Founders said, the Bible should be a basic textbook…”
Which is the exact opposite of what the Founders wanted.
Read the Constitution. Read the first amendment. This is not difficult.
And there is no porn in the Constitution, so he has no excuse.

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...