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: 1st amendment, a court of mist and fury, book burning, books, censorship, gender queer, obscenity, suing books, timothy anderson, virginia
Comments on “Virginia Politicians Are Suing Books They Don’t Like”
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.
Re:
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.
Re: Re:
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.
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.
Re: Re: Re:
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.
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.
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.
Re: Re: Re:3
‘Life is sacred and must be protected!’ … okay only unborn life. … okay only until it’s born. But like we said in the beginning life is sacred!’
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.
Re: Re: Re:4
I think That Anonymous Coward was referring to grifting shitheads like Tucker Carlson who are fully vaccinated yet are total JAQ-offs about vaccines and their efficacy to sow seeds of doubts.
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.
Re: Re: Re:5
I accept your apology. Maybe don’t generalise so broadly in the future, though.
Re: Re: Re:5
TBF, Autie’s got a point in his reply. You don’t have to use his name to be talking about him if you talk about a group he’s a part of.
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.
Re: Re: Re:7
“How many people died from CoVid after being told by some of those who were vaccinated that it was more dangerous than the disease.”
Those two words I added make all the difference.
Re: Re: Re:2
I don’t disagree. I’m just saying that I prematurely regionalized his argument but upon further review it didn’t hold any water.
Re: Re: Re:3
his = david’s
Re: Re: Re:
That being said, abortion rates are higher in blue areas than red areas.
Yeah, but if a red state bans abortions and a blue state doesn’t…
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.
Re: Bookwritinghouse
these are some of the great books of grat authors
Jacob’s School Play: Starring He, She, and They. …
Little People, Big Dreams: Andy Warhol. …
Little People, Big Dreams: RuPaul. …
This Little Rainbow
There those blasted liberal politicians go again, censoring content they don’t agree with…
Re:
It’s not censorship to stop the proliferation of love speech.
Well, it is, but it is in service of a higher good. Well, actually a lower evil, but you get the gist.
Who has standing to defend the books, the publisher, the author, librarians? Also, who received notification of the case, or was the initial hearing uncontested?
Re:
The books have to speak for themselves.
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.
Obviously one has to look more closely:
Well, it certainly would appear to depend on just in what light those traditional conservative family values are depicted.
Meanwhile their lawsuit to make “GoodNight UncleDaddy” the state book is making little headway.
Re:
Because Goodnight, Great Grandad-Daddy is already the state book. 😉
I say we sue Devin Nunes’ cow…oh wait…
Re:
Please don’t sue my mom.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
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.
Re:
Law? I thought it was voluntary adherence to a code.
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.
Re: Re:
More kids have been molested this week by pastors than have ever been molested by teachers.
Not to mention the fact that more children have been molested and/or murdered by school staff (not always teachers) than have ever been harmed by books supporting the LGBT+ community.
Re: Re:
i was going to say something, but you pretty much have it covered.
Re: Not Quite Right
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.
Re:
[Projects facts contrary to evidence]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
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.
Re:
Oh look, another legal case you are wrong about. I’ve seen snails with better pattern recognition than you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
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.
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.
Re: Re:
Are you still peddling that same tired bullshit that lost you your case? Q-/
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
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.
Re: Re: Re:2
A loss in court is a loss in court, appeal notwithstanding. Personally, I hope the courts keep dismissing without prejudice until either you’re down to whining, “Twitter’s a common carrier because I say so!” or you run out of money to file ridiculous lawsuits.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
From the Appellant’s Reply Brief to Mediums’s Appellee’s Brief.
I supplied the following summary to SCOTUS — my way of saying hi.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
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.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
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:
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.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 I left out a paragraph
From the Appellant’s Reply Brief to Mediums’s Appellee’s Brief.
Re: Re: Re:7
After all those walls of text, I have only one question: In what way is banning someone from a social media site publishing lies about them presented as statements of fact? But you go ahead and amend your complaint to include libel. It’ll give the rest of us a good laugh when you lose your case again.
Re: Re: Re:4
At least you admit you’re the clown.
This has probably been said before...
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.
Re:
That assumption is safer than myself being in my house (I survived and have even had internet access during rare hurricanes, so that should tell you something).
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.
Re: Re:
That has been done before, at least a few times I know of.
Only once did I see the target actually realize what was happening… and he still managed to bungle it. (The Good Liars interviewing Ralph Rebandt who was running for governor of Michigan. This is how it went. )
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.
Re: Re: Re:2
If that is your worst-section takeaway, you need to read that novel again.
I assure you, there’s so many passages of abnormal sex it just blows the mind.
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.
Re: Re: Re:3
I know, which is why I don’t follow everything I read in the Bible. Doing so could get me in trouble one day, you know?
All from olde is new again
Lest we forget:
United States v. 8765 Barrels of Beer
Re:
Give them to me, I’ll be sure they get the “punishment” they deserve.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Maybe I Should Have More Pity and Less Contempt
Maybe I should have more pity and less contempt for those that have understanding neither of law nor of technology.
It is painful to watch as the clueless destroy the legal system.
Goldman describes yet another judge that believes the Internet works by magic.
Here’s my comment.
Martinez v. Cot’n Wash, Inc., 2022 WL 3025828 (Cal. App. Ct. August 1, 2022) illustrates a problem of which I have apprised the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Until parties start to make use of experts, who can explain the technology and language of the Internet, cases like Martinez constitute cartoons or parodies.
Even if everyone uses or experiences a thing, everyone may not understand a thing. The archetypal example is gravity and falling objects. From Aristotle until Galileo, the average person completely misunderstood gravity and the law of falling objects.
42 U.S. Code § 12182 does not require that a place of public accommodation be permanent. Every Friday during the summer, a food market is set up next to the Ashmont T Station in Boston. This temporary food market is a place of public accommodation for sale of groceries.
[I use such examples because I know a lot of Appeals Court Judges and Supreme Court Justices, who studied in the Boston Cambridge area and in New Haven.]
42 U.S. Code § 12181 (7)
[The relevant clauses of § 12181 don’t even mention the word place, but this lack is not important.]
Software downloaded from https://www.dropps.com/ created (or established) a structure in a place in the memory of a computing device of Martinez Abelardo, JR. The physical structure in the computing device + the physical links to Cot’n Wash backend + the Cot’n Wash backend altogether assemble a temporary sales establishment or place of public accommodation for sales. One can include all the associated premises, grounds, and appurtenances in the description of the place. The place is somewhat distributed geographically, but Harvard University and Yale University are also geographically distributed. Yet, they come under Title III.
Internet exceptionalism is a crock, and Martillo v. Twitter will eventually wend its way to SCOTUS once again.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: My Inability to Make a Statement in 10 Words When I Could Use 500 Words
Cot’n Wash temporarily established (or operated) a place of public accommodation for retail sales within the premises of Martinez Abelardo, JR.
I reiterate.
Internet exceptionalism is a crock, and Martillo v. Twitter will eventually wend its way to SCOTUS once again.
Re:
How about you try competence for once in your life?
digtal marketin
digital marketing company trivandrum