Man Sues Facebook For Moderating His Bigoted Posts, Wants Section 230 Declared Unconstitutional

from the asshole-seeks-open-platform-for-assholes dept

Eric Goldman has come across an amazing pro se lawsuit [PDF] being brought by Nicholas C. Georgalis, an aggrieved social media user who believes he's owed an open platform in perpetuity, no matter what awful things he dumps onto service providers' pages. Oh, and he wants Section 230 immunity declared unconstitutional.

Georgalis -- who sidelines as a "professional training professionals" when not filing stupid lawsuits -- is suing Facebook for periodically placing him in social media purgatory after removing posts of his. The lawsuit is heady stuff. And by "heady stuff," I mean we're going to be dealing with a lot of arguments about "sovereign rights" and "common law" and other related asshattery.

Here's the opening. And it only gets better/worse from there:

Now comes Plaintiff in suit in a court of law holding Facebook, Inc, Defendant, liable for willfully and with malice aforethought abrogating the priceless, God given, and thus inalienable right to free Speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and the inalienable right to due process as guaranteed under the First and Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution respectively…

[...]

Plaintiff has standing through Defendant's repeated, prolonged, and unconstitutional blocking, and otherwise restricting with great aplomb, Plaintiff's ability to post his public comments which include, but are not limited to political opinions, philosophical observations, cultural observations, religious and scientific observations, and ideas on Defendant's publicly offered and universally available electronic platform. Such ideas and opinions are the private property of Plaintiff and not to be taken without due process by anyone including Defendant.

This is the first time I've seen it argued that a private corporation's moderation decisions are a Fifth Amendment violation. Nonetheless, that's what we're dealing with. Georgalis has been temp-banned repeatedly and had posts removed. Well, let's take a look at the value Georgalis is adding to the Facebook platform.

[O.J.] simpson - more proof that you can take a darkie out of the jungle but you can't take the jungle out of the darkie.

[...]

The Negroid evolved from lower animals while God created the Caucasoid and the Mongoloid evolved from the the Caucasoid. This find merely proves that the modern human visited Africa after the Creation.

[...]

I agree with the fact that this proposed union will taint the blood of the Royal Family. Miscegenation of this sort is akin to bestiality and thus an affront to God and to man. It is a threat to the survival of mankind. It must not stand.

That's just a taste of the stuff that's still live. The lawsuit provides no detail on the posts Facebook has found offensive enough to remove. Georgalis is a Trump fan (he often refers to Trump as a capital-K "King") and an obvious bigot. That he receives a lot of direct moderation from Facebook isn't surprising. But Georgalis somehow believes deep in his sovereign, bigoted heart that Facebook should never take action against his account or Facebook posts.

Here's how he explains it:

Defendant has repeatedly denied and thus silenced Plaintiff ability to express his opinion on Defendant's publicly and universally available electronic forums which said opinions or comments Defendant disagrees or finds otherwise objectionable. Indeed Defendant has had the audacity to remove content posted by Plaintiff that Defendant did not like and thus erasing his written words, which are his property, from the sight and memory of man and the eyes of posterity. In so doing Defendant promotes his political, cultural, religious, philosophical, and economic opinions and ideas above all others and at the expense of Plaintiff's before the voting public…

Good lord.

Georgalis' Section 230 argument is just as bad as everything proceeding it. To sum up (because direct quoting would eat up pages of text and valuable real estate in readers' brains), Georgalis argues the immunity provided to service providers by Section 230 means they should never have to practice moderation. If they're immune from civil liability for end users' posts and actions, they shouldn't take action ever against third-party content. Georgalis targets Section 230 (2)(A) specifically -- the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts. In Georgalis' eyes, this elevates Facebook, et al into proxy censors of unpopular speech and somehow confers sovereign status to social media platforms. Georgalis' twisted legal argument comes to the conclusion that Section 230 is a violation of the "separation of powers enshrined in the enumerated powers of the US Constitution." Therefore: unconstitutional.

And then the lawsuit goes on for another dozen pages, which deploy even more ridiculous arguments in an attempt to talk the court into viewing social media companies as extensions of the government. This becomes even more cognitively dissonant when Georgalis' favored political leader and party are running the country. His "king" is somehow using Section 230 to shut down opinions the government doesn't like, even if his opinions are probably of the sort the current government does like. Go figure.

Total damages requested are $1 billion. Because you can't put a price tag on free speech. But if you do have to come up with an estimate, be insanely ridiculous about it. This damage award is buttressed by arguments that government taxation and liberal social policies have stifled the US economy so much Georgalis would be almost 80 times as wealthy as he currently is. Or something.

The punitive damages are also supported by the fact that the statist and stoic philosophy and ideology and Keynesian economics promulgated by the Defendant as earnestly implemented by the US governance, education and other institutions since 1930 has led to tremendous economic losses. Exhibit 1 presents an analysis of the extent of the damage done to the US economy by the statist and stoic ideology espoused by Defendant wherein the 2016 GDP would have been almost 80 times larger in constant dollars.

To add the final inadvertent lol to Georgalis' stupid lawsuit, he's appended a copyright notice to every page of the filing claiming no one can copy or reproduce it without his written permission. You'll note the lawsuit is linked above and embedded below. It's also quoted as extensively as I could stomach. So... ball's in your common law court, Nick.

This suit won't go anywhere and it will add to the number of times the state has beaten Georgalis at his own game. Georgalis -- after losing a defamation lawsuit where he admitted the "libelous" statements made about him were factually true -- tried to have an Ohio court rule that summary judgment rulings were unconstitutional. Check this out:

Ohio Civil Rule 56, Summary Judgment is unconstitutional because it deprives litigants, in the instant case Plaintiffs/Appellants, the constitutional right to trial by jury. Accordingly it violates Article 1.05 of the Ohio Constitution which plainly and unequivocally states that "The right of trial by jury shall be inviolate... " Ohio Civil Rule 56 endows powers upon the court that were never intended by the authors of the Ohio Constitution and the people of the State of Ohio who ratified the constitution. Summary judgment usurps the constitutional power of the jury to decide the facts in a case and instead unconstitutionally endows the judge with these powers, powers that the judge was never intended to have.

Georgalis appears to believe he's continually being deprived of due process, even when he's engaged in civil litigation. The Fifth Amendment only covers criminal cases. He also believes the state should waste more money paying jurors, judges, and lawyers to ensure every ridiculous lawsuit gets presented to a jury. I can't see how he squares this with his small government assertions. (This filing probably has more to do with him being on the hook for appellate fees from his failed defamation lawsuit than any pure notion of constitutionality.)

Then there's Georgalis' multiple battles with public entities over the release of certain information. It appears Georgalis has asked several states to hand over info on registered engineers, including their email addresses. His appeal to the state of Delaware was denied by the attorney general, who pointed out Georgalis hardly has the public interest in mind when demanding info on licensed engineers.

Here, DAPE (Delaware Association of Professional Engineers) does not dispute that the right to privacy may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure. Rather, DAPE argues that your request is a clear attempt to further your private commercial interest and in no way contributes to the public understanding of the activities of the government. DAPE notes that you are a developer and instructor of training courses, which you make available to professional engineers for a fee, and argues that you are using FOIA to obtain the email addresses of private citizens who meet the target audience of your product for sale.

This suit will be tossed and undoubtedly Georgalis will mark this up to the government protecting its own -- even if the current government is the government he desires and "its own" is a private corporation that provides a social media service it can moderate however it wants without troubling the Constitution.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 10:45am

    I think good ole OOTB has finally revealed himself.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    tony in san diego, 12 Feb 2018 @ 11:03am

    everybody needs a hobby

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 11:53am

      Re:

      In his case it would very much be for the public good if he changed his to slamming his head against the nearest desk, so as to spare numerous judges and lawyers from that very fate .

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    sorrykb (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 11:07am

    The punitive damages are also supported by the fact that the statist and stoic philosophy and ideology and Keynesian economics promulgated by the Defendant as earnestly implemented by the US governance, education and other institutions since 1930 has led to tremendous economic losses.

    Georgalis v. Zeno, et al.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 11:07am

    "pro se lawsuit"

    But of course, it is.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Agammamon, 12 Feb 2018 @ 11:10am

    I'm confused. Doesn't sec 230 mean that Facebook *doesn't have to moderate* his comments?

    I can understand his aggrievement regarding the company's moderation policy - but he wants to remove the one thing that keeps moderation from being *mandatory*?

    And come on editing software - I'm pretty sure aggrievement is a real word.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 11:32am

      Re:

      Before CDA 230 Facebook wouldn't have been liable if they didn't moderate anyone's comments. But the moment they did any moderation, they would have assumed liability.

      CDA 230 means that Facebook can moderate his comments without assuming liability.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 11:34am

      Re:

      He wants to remove the part of sec 230 which states that voluntary moderation on the part of the provider does not make them liable for content. Removing just that part while leaving the rest intact would make the provider liable if, and only if they performed any level of moderation.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    JustMe (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 11:31am

    I'm confused

    Isn't the Defendant Facebook? I did not realize Facebook promulgated anything in 1930 to the U.S. government for implementation. I guess ol' Zuckerberk is older than he looks.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 11:58am

      Re: I'm confused

      I think he thinks Facebook is the government

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:44pm

        Re: Re: I'm confused

        I think he thinks Facebook is the Illuminati.

        FTFY

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        norahc, 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:45pm

        Re: Re: I'm confused

        "I think he thinks Facebook is the government"

        Nah...everyone knows Apple is the government, Google is the Internet and Facebook is the media.

        :s

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:31pm

        Re: Re: I'm confused

        I know The Onion did a piece on how the CIA commissioned the creation of facebook through their secret operative Zuckerberg. Did this guy read that and think it was true?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Get off my cyber-lawn! (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 4:06pm

          Re: Re: Re: I'm confused

          I worked at the White House for four years and read in a book that my position was a deep-cover operation for NSA used for spying on our enemies & allies.....I printed that page out and took it to my boss and asked for a raise. He laughed til he cried.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      JEDIDIAH, 13 Feb 2018 @ 7:54am

      Re: I'm confused

      Why would you be confused? Aren't you part of the same contingent that labels the death of net neutrality "censorship". Well, this is what censorship really looks like.

      The identity of the entity violating the principle doesn't alter the principle. It also doesn't matter what part of the network stack you're talking about.

      The people that wrote our Bill of Rights equally despised the British East India Company.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Thad, 13 Feb 2018 @ 9:07am

        Re: Re: I'm confused

        Aren't you part of the same contingent that labels the death of net neutrality "censorship".

        If there's a whole "contingent" of people saying that, I'm sure you can produce some examples.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    discordian_eris (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 11:36am

    Sigh

    quote from article "The Fifth Amendment only covers criminal cases."

    Last part of 5th Amendment: nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    First clause is both civil and criminal. Second almost exclusively civil.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 11:42am

      Re: Sigh

      nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

      When did facebook become public property? Public use here is referring to things controlled by the government, like parks and such. Not private companies. As such, it's still just covering criminal cases.

      Regarding the first part, I could see where you could make the argument that it covers both criminal and civil, but context is everything and you left out the first part of that quote:

      nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

      I think that pretty clearly makes it cover criminal, not civil cases.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        btr1701 (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 11:51am

        Re: Re: Sigh

        > Public use here is referring to things controlled by the
        > government

        You'd think, wouldn't you? But no, ever since Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), the government can take private property, hand it over to other private/non-public entities and call it a "public use" and that's cool under the 5th Amendment.

        Quite possibly the worst Supreme Court decision in the last 20 years.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 11:54am

          Re: Re: Re: Sigh

          the government can take private property, hand it over to other private/non-public entities

          The actions are being done by the government, not the private entities, so it still counts as criminal, not civil.

          That court case and the results are not related and a whole other ball of wax.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            cpt kangarooski, 12 Feb 2018 @ 3:12pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh

            No, eminent domain is civil in nature. The criminal / civil dichotomy doesn’t rest on whether the government is involved.

            Rather, and to simplify quite a lot, it depends on whether a person commits a criminal offense against the government (not that the government has to be the victim, but just that’s how it’s treated), as opposed to whether one person is harmed by another and personally seeks redress of their injury.

            When the government takes your land through eminent domain, it’s not because you’ve committed a crime. It’s because it needs it for at least some notionally public purpose. It brings the suit, since it needs the court to order that the condemnation occurs, but the role of the private defendant is unusual in that he or she isn’t arguing that they didn’t do anything writing, but just that they haven’t been paid enough or that the taking doesn’t fall within the scope of what ought to be allowed.

            There’s all manner of tell-tales, including that it all goes through civil courts, not criminal ones.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    wshuff (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 11:55am

    How does one restrict “with great aplomb?” Asking for a friend.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:05pm

    Take a bow

    And the Fractally Wrong Award for February goes to... Nicholas C. Georgalis!

    Congrats for being wrong at every possible level, from your laughable legal arguments to your horrifically bigoted position on race! It takes real effort to be that wrong, but you can now bask in the attention you've garnered from making the contents of your terrible, terrible mind public for all to see.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    NeghVar (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:29pm

    The question has been brought up numerous times as to whether or not major avenues of free speech, thought and expression should have the 1st amendment applied to them. Even if the owner/ operator is a private company.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:51pm

      Re:

      And each time it has been brought up, it has been immediately crushed by the forces of sensibility and reason. Buy your own soapbox, kid.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        btr1701 (profile), 13 Feb 2018 @ 1:06pm

        Re: Re:

        Not completely true. In the past, private commercial property has been held by the Supreme Court and various state courts to be "limited public forums" and therefore subject to 1st Amendment restrictions and protections.

        In 1943, a Jehovah's Witness, was arrested for distributing Watchtower magazines in a private company town, built and owned by Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the company town could not exclude 1st Amendment-protected religious expression.

        In 1968, the Supreme Court held in Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza that union members had a right to picket a non-union store where the shoppers picked up groceries, even though the store was private property.

        In 1979, the California Supreme Court held in Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center that high school students had a constitutional right to collect petition signatures at a privately-owned mall. The mall's owner appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and argued that the ruling was essentially to a governmental "taking" of private land under the 5th Amendment. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held unanimously that states could use their state constitutions to provide free-speech rights on private property if they chose to do so.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Feb 2018 @ 9:13am

      Re:

      Never mind that the First Amendment *does* apply to them, just not in the way that people expect it to. (Editorial activity is just as First Amendment protected as authorship of content. See *CBS v. Democratic National Committee* for an example of this.)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Richard O, 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:33pm

    Lots of 'em

    I will say this for Georgalis. He sure, uh, knows, um, words.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:33pm

    "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".

    Techdirt always forgets that KEY part, that a "platform" can't decide on its own what to suppress but must do so impartially and equally by common law, yes. It's a hurdle for Facebook.

    Let's not forget to mention that an apparently egregious test case like this could always be a "false flag" made up out of the blue by someone who wants precedent set exactly so that globalist mega-corporations can control speech of "natural" persons (that means YOU too): a boot stomping on your best posts forever.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:37pm

      Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".

      "Techdirt always forgets that KEY part, that a "platform" can't decide on its own what to suppress but must do so impartially and equally by common law, yes."

      This is 100% false, and you, as always, have no idea what common law is.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:43pm

        Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".

        This is 100% false, and you, as always, have no idea what common law is.

        Well, 'splain it me, then! I do my best, but I will learn from your expert advice, so DISH.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:47pm

          Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".

          There is no point in explaining anything to you.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:51pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".

            There is no point in explaining anything to you.

            Exactly! ... Er, or did you mean that in some contradictory way?

            You are not explaining to just me, snowflake. You now have the broadcasting power of mighty Techdirt to reach... uh, 27 Bangladeshi a day for sure, unknown beyond that.

            So, anyway, DISH for benefit of the rabble... Or looks like you can't, that you were just making stuff up, as an AC.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:03pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".

              I meant that you have had things explained to you many times, and you are incapable of comprehension.

              Indeed, even this has been explained to you before.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:17pm

          Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".

          Ok I’ll bite. Here you go for the umteenth time.

          https://xkcd.com/1357/

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:42pm

      Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".

      >that a "platform" can't decide on its own what to suppress but must do so impartially and equally by common law

      If you cannot cite the case setting the precedence, you are using common law you mean what you think the law should be, which is not valid law.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:46pm

        Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".

        If you cannot cite the case setting the precedence, you are using common law you mean what you think the law should be, which is not valid law.

        Well, who says I "can't"? Am I going to more effort for here? HA.

        You claim to know, so CITE.

        By the way, Washington and Jefferson didn't have precedent to cite, either, yet kicked out British serfs enforcing illegal-under-common-law commands of a KING. Try that on for how powerful common law is.

        Anyway, YOU CITE NOW.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:49pm

          Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".

          lol

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:52pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".

            lol

            Lol, lol! There, twice back, and properly punctuated. TOP THAT if you can, "AC".

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:03pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".

              Don't worry, no one can top your inanity.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 4:43pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".

                Except for you blue.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:58pm

          Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".

          You made the claim that “a ‘platform’ can’t decide on its own what to suppress but must do so impartially and equally”. The burden of proof lies upon you to prove your claim, not on anyone else to disprove it. If you cannot cite anything to back up the claim you made, your claim is bullshit. Cite now or back off—make your choice.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:25pm

        Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".

        <i>If you cannot cite the case setting the precedence, you are using common law </i>

        And yet somehow caselaw gets made. Now he may be trying for 1st blush but they want ya calling that out right off the bat.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        cpt kangarooski, 12 Feb 2018 @ 3:26pm

        Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".

        Just in case someone is foolish enough to listen to you, a quick rebuttal:

        The statute is 47 USC 230. (Note that because there is a statute, it overrides common law, which only exists in the absence of legislation; were this not the case, the judiciary would be superior to the legislature, rather than equal.)

        The relevant bits read:

        (c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

        (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
        No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.


        (2) Civil liability
        No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

        (A) 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, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
        (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

        ...

        (e) Effect on other laws

        (3) State law

        ... No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.




        Thus it does not need to be impartial or equal. All that’s required is that the action be an attempt made in good faith (that is, the attempt need not succeed and may have unanticipated side effects) to remove anything the user or provider deems — ie a subjective standard — objectionable.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:54pm

      Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".

      Actually, no. In fact, HELL NO.

      I suppress things all the time on the various newsgroups, mailing lists, and web sites that I have my fingers in. Sometimes I do it because it's against announced policies. Sometimes I do it because it's so egregious that I never thought to have a policy covering it. Sometimes I do it because I feel like it.

      I don't care if you like it. I don't care if the users like it. I don't care. My stuff: my rules.

      Don't like my rules? Build your own.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:02pm

        Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".

        "announced policies"

        Are actually part of common law.

        The rest you get away with merely because users don't know their rights or don't considier it worth costs to enforce merely to prattle on some tiny little site run by an ogre who's set himself up as King.

        But one of these cases almost necessarily MUST be decided along my notions, unless Supreme Court fabricates out of whole cloth the rights of corporations to control the speech of "natural" persons.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 2:35pm

          Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".

          "The rest you get away with merely because users don't know their rights or don't considier it worth costs to enforce merely to prattle on some tiny little site run by an ogre who's set himself up as King."

          You know, if I did such an unspeakably horrible job at what I do, then they would have long since all banded together, set up their own, and abandoned my operation. It's not hard -- well, it would be hard for YOU, but for people who understand the Internet and have at least middling technical competence, its not hard.

          That hasn't happened. Ever. And there's no sign of it happening now.

          That's because in addition to being autocratic and ruthless, I'm also very VERY good at what I do. Apparently the users value my high level of competence over the chaos that would result if I sat on my hands and did nothing.

          By the way, I'm not a king, I'm a dictator. Please make a note of this for future reference.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:54pm

      Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".

      a "platform" can't decide on its own what to suppress but must do so impartially and equally

      Show me the part of the law that says moderation must be done with “objectivity”.

      by common law

      …ah, never mind, you have no idea what you are talking about.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:58pm

        Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".

        Show me the part of the law that says moderation must be done with “objectivity”.

        Lunch-counter principle: every person to be served unless good reason in common law not to (that can include lack of shirt and shoes and so on, IF there's a sign stating reserve that right, but it's still common law).

        Now, snowflake, suppose you walk into a business wanting, say, a gay wedding cake -- which are at least two current actual cases; are YOU ready to just shrug and walk out, or (at least support) those making a fuss about not being "accommodated"?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:00pm

          Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".

          Lunch-counter principle

          A principle is not a law. Cite an actual law or court ruling, not some “common law” SovCit hogwash, that backs up your claim.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:05pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: &quot;the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts.&quot; -- includes a requirement of &quot;in good faith&quot;.

            A principle is not a law. Cite an actual law or court ruling, not some “common law” SovCit hogwash, that backs up your claim.

            The principle is in whatever decision that was.

            Evidently you're one of those who advocate "separate but equal", meaning schools, and are still ranting about Eisenhower sending in the National Guard to see that black children were let into same schools as whites. Not me: I support the rights of Americans of all kinds -- but those here illegally are not "Americans".

            YOU are wanting case law, so YOU can cite it all you want. Again, Founding Fathers didn't have case law...

            Now, think I'm done here, unless you have another howler.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:11pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: &quot;the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts.&quot; -- includes a requirement of &quot;in good faith&quot;.

              The principle is in whatever decision that was.

              A principle alone is not a law. I have principles of my own, but those do not override local/state/federal law.

              YOU are wanting case law, so YOU can cite it all you want.

              You made a claim that goes against well-understood federal law and legal precedent. The burden of proof for that claim falls upon you. Cite the law or court ruling that backs up your claim or your claim is bullshit.

              Again, Founding Fathers didn't have case law

              If we were living in the time of the Founding Fathers, that might mean something.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:21pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: &amp;quot;the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts.&amp;quot; -- includes a requirement of &amp;quot;in good faith&amp;quot;.

                We hold these truths to be self-evident..." IS THE LAW OF AMERICA, KID.

                Learn it. Live it. LOVE it.

                Unless you're okay with blacks being "two-thirds" of a person and enslaved, AS WAS CORRECTED BY BLOODY WAR BETWEEN THE STATES. So, deny that racism intrinsic to your disparaging common law, Mr South-shall-rise-again.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:26pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  You have failed to cite any law or court ruling to back your original claim. I therefore deem your claim to be bullshit. Game over.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:33pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    You have failed to cite any law or court ruling to back your original claim. I therefore deem your claim to be bullshit. Game over.

                    I note you don't deny the views I impute to you on black persons, though.

                    Anyhoo: Great! We agree that you won. -- Now, don't ruin it by going on!

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:30pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: &amp;amp;quot;the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts.&amp;amp;quot; -- includes a requirement of &amp;amp;quot;in good faith&amp;amp;quot;.

                  <i>We hold these truths to be self-evident..." IS THE LAW OF AMERICA, KID.</i>

                  No.

                  I believe you are citing the break up note. And that isn't law. I believe between the break up note and the present Constitution there were 2 sets of law in force that have been scrapped. Certainly one.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:36pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: &amp;amp;amp;quot;the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts.&amp;amp;amp;quot; -- includes a requirement of &amp;amp;amp;quot;in good faith&amp;amp;amp;quot;.

                    I believe you are citing the break up note. And that isn't law.

                    YOU BELIEVE? Not familiar with our founding documents like Declaration Of Independence, eh?

                    I assure you, then, now that you've stated inability to refute, that IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.

                    In any case, it concisely states common law, there's NO separation with ANY common law.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 9:13pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: &amp;amp;amp;quot;the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts.&amp;amp;amp;quot; -- includes a requirement of &amp;amp;amp;quot;in good faith&amp;amp;amp;quot;.

                      YOU BELIEVE? Not familiar with our founding documents like Declaration Of Independence, eh?

                      He is, but obviously you are not.

                      I assure you, then, now that you've stated inability to refute, that IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.

                      Uh, no. The Constitution is the law of the land. As he said, the Declaration was just the break up note. A 'declaration' of intent if you will.

                      In any case, it concisely states common law, there's NO separation with ANY common law.

                      It states nothing of the sort.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:34pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: &amp;quot;the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts.&amp;quot; -- includes a requirement of &amp;quot;in good faith&amp;quot;.

                  “We hold these truths to be self evident.” Is a Declaration, not a law. It’s right there in the name. Blacks being three-fifths of a person was an Admendent, again not a law. So you’ve failed at basic jurisprudence, civics, sociology, history, and math all in one paragraph. That’s a new record for you.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:38pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: &amp;amp;quot;the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts.&amp;amp;quot; -- includes a requirement of &amp;amp;quot;in good faith&amp;amp;quot;.

                    “We hold these truths to be self evident.” Is a Declaration, not a law. It’s right there in the name. Blacks being three-fifths of a person was an Admendent, again not a law. So you’ve failed at basic jurisprudence, civics, sociology, history, and math all in one paragraph. That’s a new record for you.

                    Sheesh. That is law which any court in the US of A is bound to recognize, even if you ACs don't.

                    YOU having hit a low by mangling OUR founding documents, I know enough to stop arguing.

                    Enjoy your corporatized serfdom, then.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:49pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: &amp;amp;quot;the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts.&amp;amp;quot; -- includes a requirement of &amp;amp;quot;in good faith&amp;amp;quot;.

                      “I know enough to stop arguing.”

                      That’s your best one liner yet blue balls. Look at this thread alone. You have at least four different arguements you are losing right now. Arguements you lost yesterday, and the day before that, ad nausium.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 2:16pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: &amp;amp;quot;the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts.&amp;amp;quot; -- includes a requirement of &amp;amp;quot;in good faith&amp;amp;quot;.

                      Uh, no, the Declaration of Independence is not law, nor a collection of laws. It is/was a "Declaration of Independence" from England, and our Constitution is the codification of laws formed from ideas and beliefs, some of which were stated in the Declaration.

                      I could see where the Declaration could be used to help interpret the intent behind the Constitution, but it can't be used to enforce law as it contains none and is not recognized as a law in the USA.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:17pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: &quot;the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts.&quot; -- includes a requirement of &quot;in good faith&quot;.

              Don't forget about the rights of the gay frogs.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Cpt kangarooski, 12 Feb 2018 @ 3:33pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: &quot;the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts.&quot; -- includes a requirement of &quot;in good faith&quot;.

              “Again, Founding Fathers didn't have case law...”

              Yes they did. They had loads of it. For example, one case that any lawyer among the founding fathers would’ve known was the Duke of Norfolk’s Case, which established the Rule Against Perpetuities. For this reason, the case is sill taught to first year law students today in property law classes. A classic if much hated — because the rule is a bit tricky to apply — example of common law jurisprudence.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 9:04pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: &quot;the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts.&quot; -- includes a requirement of &quot;in good faith&quot;.

                Check and mate.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 4:05pm

          Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".

          >IF there's a sign stating reserve that right

          And platforms reserve the right to moderate speech.

          Also:

          you can be thrown out from the lunch-counter if you speech is annoying other customers there, or the staff for that matter.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:35pm

      Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".

      It seems out of the blue is again trying to look informed.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:38pm

    Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."

    Clearly relevant to the case: a "platform" inserts itself outside of common law to control speech thereby loses its immunity.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:39pm

      Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."

      Admittedly, this person isn't the best test case, let alone advocate for rights and decency. -- That's why Techdirt picked it to feature. The Roger Strong, Pepper and Spice, Alex Jones, cases? Never mentioned here except by me.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:39pm

        Re: Re: Just today this is up: &quot;In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&quot;

        Nonetheless, is in the right -- at least compared to Techdirt, with its sneaky moderating-by-stealth, pretending there's no "Moderator" though evidently an administrator is involved, pretending it's "the community" with a "voting system", even though there are no possible up votes, and totally ignoring that the "hiding" is only of dissenters, NEVER fanboys.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:40pm

          Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: &amp;quot;In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&amp;quot;

          And never forget that according to piratey Techdirt: links to (someone else's) infringed content, now THAT'S protected speech! ... Yet Techdirt will never stand up for actual political speech unless agree with the opinion.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:42pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: &amp;amp;quot;In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&amp;am

            ** THAT'D BE ALL ONE COMMENT EXCEPT WOULDN'T GO IN!**

            **I went paragraph by paragraph and got ALL in, so don't tell me there's some "filter".*

            Techdirt has another length limit on. -- Except subject line is still long!

            Okay, Techdirt: you wasted my time finding that out, and to what end? I still got ALL in as first written!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:48pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: &amp;amp;quot;In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&am

              "I KEEP TRYING NEW WAYS TO BYPASS A SPAM FILTER WHY DO MY POSTS KEEP GETTING BLOCKED FOR SPAM!"

              Keep on being a great example of why, on most other sites, you would already have been banned.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:55pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: &amp;amp;amp;quot;In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted

                > "I KEEP TRYING NEW WAYS TO BYPASS A SPAM FILTER WHY DO MY POSTS KEEP GETTING BLOCKED FOR SPAM!"

                Again, WHAT "filter"? I GOT ALL IN PIECES!

                > Keep on being a great example of why, on most other sites, you would already have been banned.

                What do you mean "would already have"? Techdirt HAS indeed blocked my home IP address at least THRICE, no doubt about, so I have to use The TOR Browser now.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:05pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: &amp;amp;amp;quot;In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was po

                  Uh huh.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:07pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: &amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for wha

                    Uh huh.

                    Uh huh, uh huh.

                    I note you're up to two syllables, capitalized and punctuated that time. You're learning.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:18pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: &amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for

                      Yes, learning, try that.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:23pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was li

                        Yes, learning, try that.

                        WELL? Cite case law and explain: I CAN learn and IF accurate will use in future.

                        How am I ever to learn unless you netwits turn loose of more than a few syllables at once?

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Doris, 13 Feb 2018 @ 7:44pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: &amp;amp;quot;In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted

                  Is that you, Georgialis?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:54pm

          Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: &quot;In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&quot;

          And a law has been passed since then protecting those who moderate their sites, and that replaces any common law precedent that was created.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:09pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: &amp;quot;In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&amp;quot;

            And a law has been passed since then protecting those who moderate their sites, and that replaces any common law precedent that was created.

            No, NOTHING replaces common law.

            YOU are saying then that everything the Nazis did to peasants across Europe, Jews in particular as they like to point out, was LEGAL BY STATUTE and there's no objection to be made. YOU are supporting Nazi-ism, whether know it or not, by this ignorance or lying about the primacy of common law.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:18pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: &amp;quot;In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&amp;qu

              Ah, and there it is.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:20pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: &amp;quot;In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&amp;qu

              Way to Godwin the thread numbnuts. I knew we could count on you to take the stupid upp to 11.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:25pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: &amp;amp;quot;In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&am

                Way to Godwin the thread numbnuts. I knew we could count on you to take the stupid upp to 11.

                Thanks! I modestly style myself an expert.

                And I just "owned you", huh?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 8:12pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: &amp;amp;quot;In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted

                  SOPA got trumped by common law. Sucks to be you, blue!

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Roger Strong (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:30pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: &amp;quot;In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&amp;qu

              No, NOTHING replaces common law.

              Common law evolves. New laws are made all the time. Old laws get updated or replaced all the time.

              And it branches off and evolves differently in different jurisdictions. There are significant differences between the laws of US states. There are significant differences between common law in Britain, Canada and the US even though they were once the same.

              As for the rest, grow up.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:31pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: &amp;quot;In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&amp;qu

              Can you point out one instance of this crazy theory of yours. Something at least reputable and put into practice.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Qwertygiy, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:38pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: &amp;quot;In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&amp;qu

              My gosh, already resorting to Godwin's law?

              Your legal fallacies are now drifting into logical fallacies.

              Something being legal in 1935 does not, in and of itself, mean it is legal in 2017. Meth was perfectly legal in 1935. Meth is clearly not legal now. Gay marriage was illegal in 1935. Gay marriage is clearly not illegal now.

              Stating that an act was perfectly legal in 1935 does not, in and of itself, mean that the person stating that fact supports that act. Segregation was perfectly legal in 1935. That doesn't mean that I support it, or think it should be legal again.

              And it is a sad display of logical deficiency to claim that by stating "a court ruling over 20 years ago relied on laws that are no longer in effect due to newer legislation", someone is supporting the mass murder of millions of people. I don't even know if there are names for all the fallacies required to make that connection.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:51pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: &amp;amp;quot;In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&am

              >No, NOTHING replaces common law.

              Errr, that CAN be a hill to try and die on. But in the 1920's in an attempt to obtain legal uniformity the move was away from common law to statutes.

              Good luck in getting a modern court to decide that clearly written statutes (and caselaw) beat common law.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:58pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: &amp;amp;quot;In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&am

                Common law == caselaw.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 11:26pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: &amp;amp;quot;In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted

                  > Common law == caselaw.

                  I'd say there are 2 different words because they are 2 different things.

                  If the argument is 'nothing replaces the common law' and there is no caselaw then statute has replaced the common law.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 13 Feb 2018 @ 3:52am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: &amp;amp;quot;In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was po

                    Black's Law Dictionary – Common law (10th ed.). 2014. p. 334. "1. The body of law derived from judicial decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions; [synonym] CASE LAW [contrast to] STATUTORY LAW."

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Roger Strong (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:20pm

        Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."

        The Roger Strong, Pepper and Spice, Alex Jones, cases? Never mentioned here except by me.

        Sure wish I'd mentioned what I posted....

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:26pm

          Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: &quot;In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&quot;

          Sure wish I'd mentioned what I posted....

          Oh, right, because you're the ONLY person in the world with that name. -- As I recall, he was kicked off Twitter and is suing. Try a little tool I call "The Google".

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:38pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: &quot;In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&quot;

            I thought you didn’t use google. What with the way you rant on about them.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Roger Strong (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:52pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: &quot;In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&quot;

            Sometimes I'm amazed that the Spice Girls and Salt-N-Pepa never sued each other over trademark violations.

            The Roger Strong, Pepper and Spice, Alex Jones, cases? Never mentioned here except by me.

            It's like you hear/read something and then start repeating it with no comprehension whatsoever. Like a parrot taught to repeat "common law!" over and over.

            Oh, right, because you're the ONLY person in the world with that name. -- As I recall, he was kicked off Twitter and is suing.

            :D

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:18pm

      Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."

      Clearly relevant to the case: a "platform" inserts itself outside of common law to control speech thereby loses its immunity.

      Read the entire post.

      That's how it worked before 1996's CDA 230. Any moderation - say, because you wanted a family-friendly site - meant that you assumed liability.

      CDA 230 means that it's safe to moderate without assuming liability.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:30pm

        Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."

        Read MY entire answer to that:

        "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".

        Techdirt always forgets that KEY part, that a "platform" can't decide on its own what to suppress but must do so impartially and equally by common law, yes. It's a hurdle for Facebook.

        I think the plaintiff will be able to establish that Facebook is deliberately targeting speech which no matter how much you or I dislike it, is still okay in common law.

        In any event: Facebook is not the arbiter of what's acceptable: only a jury of our peers is, so even with a modicum of "good faith", this is fine to try the case. YOU may be surprised to find what The Law actually is!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:40pm

          Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."

          includes a requirement of "in good faith"

          [citation needed]

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Roger Strong (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 2:04pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."

            [citation needed]

            Apparently that would be me. Those were my words, and he's citing me.

            Seems I'm somehow also the citation for his "The Roger Strong case" and "Pepper and Spice case" above.

            It's nice to feel needed.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Qwertygiy, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:44pm

          Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."

          Maybe you would be surprised to find what The Law actully is?

          "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of 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, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"

          https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 10:04pm

      Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."

      Um, blue, CDA 230 was passed *in response* to the Stratton Oakmont ruling specifically to overturn whatever precedent it set, and the Zeran case (and all similar cases since then) show that Stratton Oakmont is no longer considered the law BECAUSE of CDA 230. We've discussed this many times in the past, but you skipped out those days I guess?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 10:49pm

        How's that saying go?

        'It is difficult to get a man/woman to understand something, when admitting that they have been shown to be wrong so many times that you'd need a mathematician to count it out would undermine, if ever so slightly, their ability to rant incoherently on the subject.'

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        cpt kangarooski, 13 Feb 2018 @ 6:02am

        Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."

        We've discussed this many times in the past, but you skipped out those days I guess?

        Can we explore how to also get him to skip all the other days?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:42pm

    Such ideas and opinions are the private property of Plaintiff and not to be taken without due process by anyone including Defendant."

    So he wants his "proerty" rights respected by forcing them to be displayed on Facebook's "property"?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:03pm

      "MY property rights are important! Yours are only important to the extent they impact mine!"

      Yeah, among the other reasons that it's impossible to take him serious the fact that his position is so grossly hypocritical is definitely at the top.

      Demands respect for his 'property', shows nothing but contempt for the property of others.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 12:43pm

    Grade A Complete and Total Nutjob.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 1:08pm

    I would argue that silence is a form of speech.
    If Georgalis is talking does that mean that he's repressing my freedom of speech?
    Can I get a restraining order for that?
    (Also I'll leave the minor issue of how to keep him from both being silent, and thus engaging in speech, and speaking, and thus murdering other peoples silence, to the courts, they should be able to easily resolve it).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 3:51pm

    Of course, the censoring, I mean "hiding" of my comments above does not at all support the plaintiff!

    Again, sites get away with it only because it's not worth suing them over, NOT because they've any "Right" to control the speech of we "natural" persons.

    But even little Techdirt might get into a case that sets precedent: I've set it up, patiently complaining without being answered by the site -- except that once, when Masnick slipped and admitted that Geigner wasn't acting on "his own behalf". That's why Masnick never states anything: any facts he admits favor the dissent.

    [In fine point, Techdirt / Masnick DODGE responsibility for the censoring, claiming there's NO "Moderator" here, though silent on whether an administrator approves the "hiding". -- It's same thing, legally, Masnick. You should stop being such a chicken, and you could IF WERE JUSTIFIED AND SUPPORTED IN LAW AS CLAIMED.]

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 4:55pm

      Re: Of course, the censoring, I mean "hiding" of my comments above does not at all support the plaintiff!

      Quit being a chickenshit and sue. I’d love to see a judge throw out your case for the garbage it is. Do it! Bawk! Bawk Bawk!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 5:19pm

        Re: Re: Of course, the censoring, I mean "hiding" of my comments above does not at all support the plaintiff!

        So out_of_the_blue has taken to mimicking average_joe/antidirt too, eh? They did always have a soft, copyright-shaped spot for each other.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 4:58pm

      One question.

      Were you an intern at Prenda Law?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 3:52pm

    So when can Facebook change / remove an account? Here's the answer:

    "McArthur, who is charged with five counts of murder and is alleged to have hidden some victims' remains in planters around Toronto, served as Santa Claus at Agincourt Mall in the Scarborough neighborhood of the city."

    http://ktla.com/2018/02/12/toronto-serial-killer-suspect-had-served-as-a-mall-santa-clau s/

    Murder is sufficient level of offense required for cause under common law: "The suspect's Facebook account was deactivated shortly thereafter."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Qwertygiy, 12 Feb 2018 @ 4:24pm

      Re: So when can Facebook change / remove an account? Here's the answer:

      Or providing false information, or breaking any other parts of Facebook's ToS whatsoever. Facebook isn't the government. They're not required to *allow* anything.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 4:27pm

    MAKe your own site..

    Someone PLEASE..
    Show him how to create his own site...
    He can post anything he wishes and we dont have to pay attention..
    OR, he can DEAL lwith those that would contend with him and SCREAM BACK at him,,, and watch him EDIT IT ALL..

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2018 @ 4:46pm

    There once was an out_of_the_blue
    Who hated the process of due
    Each film that he'd paid
    Was DMCAed
    And shoved up his ass with a screw

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    R2_v2.0 (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 5:53pm

    Guilty pleasures

    112+ comments on this one. It's comforting to know that even Techdirters (myself included) can enjoy a little bit of guilty click-bait pleasure

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    The Wanderer (profile), 13 Feb 2018 @ 7:16am

    Trump a King?

    So... he claims that black people evolved from (and therefore still are) animals, but that white people were created by God...

    ...and he apparently likes Trump, who is (as far as anyone can tell) white...

    ...but he calls Trump a King?

    Doesn't he realize that the King family is clearly black?

    I wonder if the MLK estate could find something to sue over in that...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    bhull242 (profile), 13 Feb 2018 @ 9:43am

    Say, if Facebook is a sovereign state like he claims, would it be protected by sovereign immunity anyway? This goes beyond fractal wrongness; it’s also fractally contradictory.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Feb 2018 @ 6:31pm

    Missed His Calling

    Nicholas C. Georgalis should totally write for The Onion.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    George C Nicholalis, 13 Feb 2018 @ 7:54pm

    Renaissance Idiot

    Mr Georgalis not only offers online training in "Professional Ethics for Texas Engineers" (1hr/$6) which must be an eye-opener but served as a Patent Examiner for the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer
Anonymous number for texting and calling from Hushed. $25 lifetime membership, use code TECHDIRT25
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.