ThorsProvoni 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (697)

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2022 @ 06:32pm

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

  But racist pro-genocide pro-libel legal nitwits that support ongoing violation of anti-discrimination law by a social medium platform is unlikely to be aware of any currently important legal issue. Why do you think I participated in the discussion? It was not merely because I am IP law professional.

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2022 @ 06:26pm

  I understand actual malice

  Actual malice is not necessary to render a racist pro-genocide social medium platform liable for libel of Palestinians and of pro-Palestine activists, but I have the evidence of actual malice anyway. Every racist pro-genocide social medium platform that perpetrates libel by active curating will crash and burn -- good riddance! I remember how the racist pro-genocide pro-libel participants in this forum made fun of my complaint when the District Court kicked it up to a higher court because the legal nitwits in this forum don't understand legal jargon.

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2022 @ 06:18pm

  Obviously I am in litigation in order to test my legal argument

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

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2022 @ 06:13pm

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

  Netchoice, LLC v. Paxton, No. 21A720 (U.S. May. 31, 2022) reinstated the stay 5-4. It's highly probable that of the five Justices in the majority, at least one wants to see more litigation in the lower courts before reviewing the case and making up his mind. It only takes one Justice to join the four Justices, who are uncomfortable with § 230, and every racist discriminatory pro-genocide libelous social medium platform is toast -- good riddance!

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2022 @ 06:04pm

  Typo -- Big Deal

  Somehow my case is still before the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. A District Court almost never underrules a higher Court. Dismissal without prejudice is legal jargon for kicking a litigation to a higher Court that can either ignore or overrule the caselaw. The racist pro-discrimination pro-defamation pro-genocide nitwit does not understand legal language -- no surprise there.

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2022 @ 11:30am

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

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

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2022 @ 11:20am

  I'm Not Arguing Great Replacement Theory

  I am arguing that depraved evil white racial supremacist European Zionist colonial settler anti-Jews put the Zionist genocide into operation in Dec 1947 a year after the international community banned genocide and made anti-genocide just cogens. I can identify top managers, who worked at each of the Defendants in my litigation and who specifically initiated a program of defending the Zionist state from a charge of genocide by defaming Palestinians by means of aggregate libel that resulted from removing any content (active curation) that defended Palestinians. By the doctrine of respondeat superior, each social medium platform is responsible for the libel by active curation and will be be bankrupted.

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2022 @ 11:08am

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

  I was replying to this statement.

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

  I pointed out that libel liability does not pertain only to one's own speech. A publisher can be liable for the speech of someone that the publisher publishes. I am not arguing that the racist genocide-supporting social medium platform is a publisher and therefore libel for the content it distributed. I am arguing that the social medium platform is an active curator that intentionally creates an aggregate libel by a specific defamatory program of active curation. I am not putting the racist genocide-supporting social medium platform in the role of a publisher or a speaker. I am putting the social medium platform in the role of an active curator -- a role that the social medium platform admits. If § 230 gives the social medium platform immunity to intentional aggregate libel by active curation, § 230 is unconstitutional and the social medium platform is bankrupted by the compensation it will have to pay to its victims. If § 230 does not give the social medium platform immunity to intentional aggregate libel by active curation, the plaintiff class prevails and the social medium is bankrupted by the compensation it will have to pay to its victims. The Plaintiff prevails either way, and a stake is driven through the heart of every racist genocide-supporting social medium platform. SCOTUS loves to make this sort of holding in an issued opinion.

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2022 @ 10:48am

  I have read hundreds of liable cases

  § 230 was intended to tell Courts that an Interactive Computer Service was like a distributor or like a passive conduit even if it had the superficial appearance of a publisher. Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Servs., undefined (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May. 24, 1995) discusses the issue in passing. In the general case, a 1996 ISC server software interacted with the ISC software on a user's PC to reformat the text that appeared on a user's computer screen. It looked a lot like publishing even though there was no human involvement. When a 2022 social medium platform actively curates and when I find numerous statements of intent from Zionists among members of social medium platform management, the social medium platform ceases to be a passive conduit. This text

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

  refers to the occasional removal of an obscene text or violent picture. It does not refer the conscious and concerted effort (active curation) of a genocide-supporting group to defame its victims and to prevent the victims from defending themselves from the defamation. Racist discriminatory genocide-legitimizing and genocide-normalizing active curation is practically the definition of common law libel per se, for which a plaintiff has a Constitutional right to file a lawsuit. It will be hard for a defendant to overcome the prima facie case of libel by active curation, and there is more than 50% likelihood that SCOTUS will find § 230 unconstitutional without possibility of Constitutionality by narrowing the interpretation of the statute.

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2022 @ 09:17am

  Is It Possible to Be So Clueless about Libel Law?

  A publisher can by its editorial choices become liable for the writing of someone it publishes. When a social medium platform in bad faith creates an aggregate liable by active curating in bad faith it becomes liable for this libel and manages to vitiate any immunity that § 230 might but probably does not give it. We will see within less than a year how the various involved Courts rule. At present, there are 10 involved Courts. It only takes one anti-social medium platform ruling affirmed by SCOTUS to kill every vile racist, discriminatory, libelous, genocide-supporting social medium platform. The odds don't look good. I'm good legal strategist because I calculate odds. Racist pro-discrimination pro-libel pro-genocide supporters of § 230 don't calculate the odds because they are bigoted fanatics. BTW, after 5 months of litigation, A Medium Corp finally realized that I was making a public accommodation/civil rights discrimination case and put an experienced civil rights litigator on its team. The situation is almost funny.

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2022 @ 09:02am

  I Have Been Doing Legal Strategies for Decades

  I hardly ever loose. There is evidence indicating that four Justices are uncomfortable with § 230. Here are my arguments for the Amended Complaint.

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

  Every major social medium platform holds out common carriage

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

  Every social medium platform is within the Internet, which is a vast state-supported facility, establishment, or place of public accommodation for resource sharing. Thus every social medium platform comes under public accommodation anti-discrimination law. Vague reference to subjective community standards does not obviate Reconstruction Era civil rights anti-discrimination law. Common carriage caselaw is clear. Common carriage of mass postcard distribution does not infringe the First Amendment Rights of the message carrier. AT&T mass announcement common carriage system for 3rd party announcements, stories, and political messages did not infringe on the 1st Amendment rights of AT&T. Common carriage can be layered on top of common carriage. State-regulated Telex message common carriage was layered on top of federally-regulated voice signal common carriage. Hosting a user blog has never been considered infringement of the First Amendment rights of the blog hosting service. No one ever confuses user speech with bloghost service speech. A judgment against each social medium platform in excess of a trillion dollars is highly likely and highly deserved. Every social medium platform will be bankrupted and ultimately placed under a government corporation holding company, which neatly solves the problems of:

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

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2022 @ 07:15am

  The Kook is the Pro-Discrimination Pro-Defamation Racist

  §230 refers to "[restricting] access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable", but if the material only defends against the (aggregate) liable, which the social medium platform is maliciously disseminating, the burden is upon the social medium platform to overcome the prima facie case of bad faith. I already have a full library that shows pro-Palestine material, which each racist pro-genocide social medium platform removes, only defends against the libel. I can convince a jury and bankrupt each social medium platform as it deserves and save the USA from racist pro-discrimination pro-defamation pro-genocide supporters of the abomination. which is the social medium platform of 2022.

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2022 @ 06:54am

  Mere Refusal to Publish Is Not the Issue

  When a newspaper decides not to publish one text, it's editorial discretion, a one-off, and not the issue. In active curation as practiced by a racist discriminatory genocide-supporting social medium platform like each of the 6 defendants in my case, the active curator makes a decision to facilitate 3rd parties to post content that altogether constitute libel while the active curator removes all opposing content -- to the harm of the party suffering the libel, which may only arise from the aggregate of the facilitated content. That conscious decision to enable and to distribute the aggregated libel becomes itself libelous speech,

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

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

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2022 @ 06:31am

  Active Curation is the social medium platform's own speech

  You have to find another argument. Active curation is a form of expression, i.e., speech.

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2022 @ 05:32am

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

  You have to make a Constitutional argument. No statute can immunize a social medium platform that libels by active curation (its own speech). Sometimes a Court might narrow the interpretation of a statute to find a way to render it Constitutional, but such narrowing won't happen in this case.

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2022 @ 05:23am

  Find a Constitutional Argument

  No statute can immunize a social medium platform,

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

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

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

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2022 @ 05:15am

  Continue to Show Utter Ignorance of Constitutional Law

  Every US citizen has a Constitutional right to sue for libel (common law right existent at the time of ratification). Such a right cannot be negatived without a Constitutional amendment. (Don't hold your breath while you wait for such a Constitutional amendment.) If active curating (a form of the social medium platform's own speech) occasions an act of libel, 47 U.S. Code § 230 is unconstitutional if it immunizes a social medium from the consequences of its own libelous speech. Once SCOTUS declares § 230 unconstitutional (at least four Justices seem poised to do so), my plaintiff class will on remand prevail and bankrupt the social medium platform. If § 230 does not immunize a social medium platform from the consequences of its own libelous speech in the form of active curating, my plaintiff class will prevail against a social medium platform and bankrupt the social medium platform without the detour to SCOTUS. Either way, my litigation will be the magic bullet that destroys § 230. Every abomination, which is a social medium platform, will die to the benefit of the Republic, and the good guys will defeat the pro-discrimination, pro-defamation, pro-genocide racists, who live for § 230.

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2022 @ 03:02am

  Active Curation by a Social Mediam Creates Libel

  47 U.S. Code § 230 provides no immunity to such a complaint that seeks compensation for a tort of libel by active curation. I was discussing the issue with patent professionals on the Patently-O blog in Supreme Court Continues Preliminary Injunction of HB20 – with dissent. The opinions of patent lawyers are interesting because many understand the technology, which underlies the Internet/WWW. The patent professionals generally agreed that § 230 gave a 2022 social medium platform an unconstitutional license to defame because active curating of content is a mechanism of defamation as a 2020 social medium platform uses it according to § 230 (c)(2)(A) along with the limited immunity § 230 (c)(1). So how does active curating lead to defamation? The patent lawyers were clear.

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

  The patent lawyers considered this scenario

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

  When Congress discussed the bill, which included § 230, the potential for defamation by active curating was never addressed. When we rewrite my Original Complaint into a class action Amended Complaint or into a class action New Complaint, we will include a count of defamation by active curating in the rewritten complaint, and we will address the obvious un-Constitutionality of § 230 -- at least according to the patent lawyers. The rewritten complaint will point out the following. White racial supremacist genocide-supporting Zionists organize on a social medium platform

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

  There is little evidence that it took much pressure to compel a social medium to apply such defamatory and discriminatory active curating. A jury verdict of defamation of a whole plaintiff class by a social medium platform will almost certainly bankrupt the social medium platform. Such bankruptcy will be something good for the US political system. The bankrupt social medium platform can be put under the control of a state-owned enterprise as a bankrupt railroad corporation was during the 1970s. The abusive management can be fired, and a serious danger to the US political system can be neutralized.

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 13 Jun, 2022 @ 04:45am

  The Predictability of a Racist That Tries to Reestablish Jim Crow

  Such a racist has no rational response to the truth and invariably screeches, "Go away!"

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 13 Jun, 2022 @ 02:23am

  "Oh look, an actual rights violation by an actual common carrier"

  It's entertaining that the USPS is not a statutorily defined federal telecommunications common carrier. The USPS is a common law-defined state message common carrier just like Twitter and other racist discriminatory social medium platforms. Racist participants in TechDirt seem unable to keep their racist pro-discrimination nonsense straight. The Plaintiffs did not bother with a complaint about denial of common carriage because there was no denial of common carriage. Because a racist, who supports the right of a social medium platform to discriminate against a US citizen, did not bother to read the complaint, he does not realize that the complaint contains no charge that is related to common carriage. It is worth mentioning that no private message carrier has ever argued that the carriage of a postcard, which openly contains the speech of a customer, infringes the First Amendment rights of the private message carrier.

Next >>