ThorsProvoni 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (697)

• On the post: This Is Really, Really Dumb: Ohio Court Says Google May Be A Common Carrier

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 30 May, 2022 @ 04:23am

  Please Learn Something about Title II of the CRA of 1964

  If a town puts up a "democracy" wall outside the town hall, and residents can post political posters but takes down every poster from a non-white resident if the poster supports white-non-white equality or white-not-white intermarriage as Olivia and I did, the town violates Title II of the CRA of 1964. The hypothetical controversy above is not even a close call under Title II of the CRA of 1964.

• On the post: This Is Really, Really Dumb: Ohio Court Says Google May Be A Common Carrier

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 30 May, 2022 @ 04:16am

  Either You Are a Zionist, who denies the fact of Zionist Antisemitism,

  Or you don't known anything about the history of Zionism. No competent serious non-Zionist non-propagandist Jewish studies expert denies Zionist antisemitism. I first learned about Zionist antisemitism in the early 1960s in a Hebrew University lecture about Zionism and German völkisch racist ideology. Zionist antisemitism was still addressed in the Zionist state until well into the 1980s. See Classic Zionism and Modern Anti-Semitism: Parallels and Influences (1883-1914). This article is somewhat white-washy because the author is a white racial supremacist Zionist colonial settler, who benefits from the ongoing genocide that the colonial settler anti-Jews direct at the natives of stolen Palestine. The author's first name is interesting, isn't it?

• On the post: This Is Really, Really Dumb: Ohio Court Says Google May Be A Common Carrier

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 30 May, 2022 @ 03:14am

  SCOTUS Will Determine Whether Twitter is a Common Carrier

  It is a dishonest effort to silence the truth to keep demanding an actual law or judicial precedent. SCOTUS will determine whether Twitter is a common carrier by existing common law. §230 says nothing about common carriage. §230 does not refer to a social medium technology of 2022. It refers to an Internet On-Ramp of 1996. An Internet On-Ramp is an obsolete technology. 47 U.S. Code § 223(e)(6) tells us that an ICS/Internet On-Ramp cannot be called a common carrier in an active defense under 47 U.S. Code § 223, which is a statute that prohibits international or interstate obscene or harassing telephone calls. It's purely a prohibition under interstate commerce clause and says nothing about intrastate obscene or harassing telephone calls. The issue was important back then because a 1996 ICS/Interstate On-Ramp was a dial-up service. These two decisions are not exactly on-point because they don't deal with common carriage, but they do tell us that under certain circumstances a private actor has no valid claim of 1st Amendment infringement.

  1. Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 100 S. Ct. 2035 (1980).
  2. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622, 114 S. Ct. 2445 (1994).

  2022 Social Medium Platforms are so heavily supported by the US federal government that their claim of First Amendment infringement is even less valid than the claims in Pruneyard or Turner.

• On the post: This Is Really, Really Dumb: Ohio Court Says Google May Be A Common Carrier

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 30 May, 2022 @ 03:02am

  Which Cases?

  Prodigy, AOL, and Compuserve were all Internet On-Ramps in 1996. §230 is crafted to them. §223 refers to dial-up Internet On-Ramps. It forbids use of the common carriage defense in the case of an obscene or harassing interstate or international phone call. The statute says nothing about an intrastate obscene or harassing phone call. The Netchoice opinion of the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit is confused and off-point. Pruneyard and Turner tell us that a private actor's 1A rights are not infringed in certain circumstances. 2022 social medium platforms have even less of a claim of 1A infringement because these social medium platforms are so heavily funded.

• On the post: This Is Really, Really Dumb: Ohio Court Says Google May Be A Common Carrier

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 30 May, 2022 @ 02:50am

  Google and Twitter are Within the Internet

  Google and Twitter make intrinsic use of US federal government facilities, apparatus, appurtences, premises, etc. Without tons of federal funding, Google and Twitter could not exist of be profitable.

• On the post: This Is Really, Really Dumb: Ohio Court Says Google May Be A Common Carrier

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 30 May, 2022 @ 02:41am

  Disentangling Is Competely Possible

  Federal Courts use a Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system, which complete separates message carriage from blogging. It's too bad for anti-common carriage fanatics that every federal judge is familiar with this system.

• On the post: This Is Really, Really Dumb: Ohio Court Says Google May Be A Common Carrier

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 30 May, 2022 @ 01:54am

  It's Not a Question of Hosting Speech

  It's a question of escaping common Carriage obligation. Twitter can disentangle the common carriage tweet service from the non-common carriage microblogging service.

• On the post: This Is Really, Really Dumb: Ohio Court Says Google May Be A Common Carrier

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 29 May, 2022 @ 10:15pm

  I don't have to show anything

  Twitter's Obligations are being litigated in 5 courts right now. 1. SCOTUS 2. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 3. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 4. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 5. Court of Common Pleas for the State of Ohio There seems to be a conflict. Nothing about 47 U.S. Code § 230 is settled.

• On the post: This Is Really, Really Dumb: Ohio Court Says Google May Be A Common Carrier

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 29 May, 2022 @ 10:06pm

  Yoel Roth is a Genocide-Supporting White Racial Supremacist Zionist Anti-Jew

  The Doctrine of Respondeat Superior makes Twitter responsible for Roth's antisemitism. When the Charge of Antisemitism is Justified Two types of racism define Zionism. The first racism consists of genocidal hatred of Palestinians simply for existing. Zionists hate Palestinian natives because Palestinians are — as Ben-Gurion and Ben-Tzvi realized — true descendants of ancient Judeans and pose an insurmountable existential dilemma for the white racist colonial-settler invaders, who have stolen Palestine on the basis of a ridiculous fairy tale of their own descent from ancient Judeans. The second Zionist racism consists of Zionist racism directed against Diaspora Jews and probably deserves a unique name. Antisemitism among non-Jews of the late 19th century and of the first half of the 20th century results from the advantages European Jews had during European modernization. If gentile or traditional antisemitism is a thesis, which asserts that the rise of the Jews is wrong. Zionism is a counter-thesis, which asserts that there is nothing wrong with the rise of the Jews and that the real problem results

  1. from the manner of this rise and
  2. from the defects created in the course of this flawed rise.

  Jews were becoming wealthier faster than the non-Jews among whom they lived, but Jewish status and power did not increase concomitantly. Non-Jews were accusing Jews of materialism, avarice, parasitical occupation, physical weakness, and lasciviousness for non-Jewish women. The nascent Zionists internalized this critique. They concluded that the gentile critique could be overcome and Jewish defectiveness healed only by committing genocide on the natives of Palestine and by stealing the country of these natives. While Zionist racism against Palestinians results in genocide and expulsion, Zionist racism against Diaspora Jews, who are proud of their heritage and who reject the depravity of Zionist ideology and actions, is the hatred of true believer for the benighted old believer. The scorn and contempt of the murderous and genocidal Zionist for the Diaspora Jewish witness to Zionist depravity knows no bounds. Even if nowadays the Diaspora Jewish witness is less likely to be assassinated, Zionists work tirelessly to defame and to exclude such a witness as well as to create discrimination against him. Zionists suffer deserved hatred. A decent person hates Zionism, the Zionist state, and every Zionist because of the boundless criminality. Here is the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

  Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

  The above definition describes the hatred that the Zionist feels for the Diaspora Jew that rejects Zionism and this image fleshes out Zionist bigotry and prejudice (today’s antisemitism) against the proud ethical Diaspora Jew that rejects Zionism without qualification and without reservation. Zionists often express rhetorical (at least) manifestations of antisemitism against non-Zionist or anti-Zionist Jewish community institutions like the Jewish Voice for Peace and Boston Workers Circle Center for Jewish Culture and Social Justice. Zionism is not in any way part of Judaism. Zionism, Zionists, and the Zionist try to transform Judaism, Jewishness, and Jewish identity into a program of genocide. From the standpoint of Judaism, Zionism represents the utmost depravity.

• On the post: This Is Really, Really Dumb: Ohio Court Says Google May Be A Common Carrier

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 29 May, 2022 @ 09:45pm

  Information Service Has Specific Statutory Meaning

  See 47 USC § 153(24).

  information service The term “information service” means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service.

• On the post: This Is Really, Really Dumb: Ohio Court Says Google May Be A Common Carrier

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 29 May, 2022 @ 09:22pm

  Interpretation of a Statute is a Matter of Law and not a Matter of Fact

  There is no burden of proof upon a Judge, whose job comprises statutory interpretation. See Richards v United States, 369 US 1, 9 (1962), quoted in Welsh, 993 F2d at 1269 ("[W]e must always be cognizant of the fact that 'the legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used.'"). I analyze whether the CDA preempts Title II of the CRA of my Original Complaint at Original Complaint p.7 et seq. (PDF p.8 et seq).

• On the post: This Is Really, Really Dumb: Ohio Court Says Google May Be A Common Carrier

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 29 May, 2022 @ 08:41pm

  You guys nitpick the meaning of common carrier

  With much more logic I do it with the meaning of ICS. For it to mean what you guys want it to mean §230(f)(2) would have to say something like the following. The term “interactive computer service” means (A) any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions or (B) a computer server that is in the Internet.

• On the post: This Is Really, Really Dumb: Ohio Court Says Google May Be A Common Carrier

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 29 May, 2022 @ 05:01pm

  I have cited the statutes

  The specific meaning of 47 U.S. Code § 230 is at issue now in the Supreme Court, three federal courts, and one state court. There is a tidal wave about to wash out the current bad caselaw. The judges are about to decide the correct meaning of § 230. So don't pretend there is settled law. There is a lot of tremendously bad law, which is associated with § 230. Roe v. Wade was decided on January 22, 1973 almost 50 years ago. It was a crappy decision. It is about to be overturned. Good riddance. I hope that by this time next year I can write the same about § 230 caselaw.

• On the post: This Is Really, Really Dumb: Ohio Court Says Google May Be A Common Carrier

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 29 May, 2022 @ 04:43pm

  Yeah, right! As if you guys have not been abusing me for days!

  I know the Zionist playbook. I wrote large sections of it. A major tactic is the deflection that Stephen T. Stone tries to insert into the conversation. The social medium platforms disclosed exactly why I was report bombed and banned. I got tired of Zionist propaganda that alleges Palestinians are not a real people, whatever that means. I started to translate and to quote from Shlomo Zand's book, whose title is מתי ואיך הומצא העם היהודי -- When and How the "Jewish People" was invented. Zand demonstrates that the "Jewish People" was invented in the 19th century. I applied to the Jewish people the same logic that Zionists were applying to the Palestinian people. I was suspended while the Zionists were not -- a clear violation of 42 U.S. Code § 1981 - Equal rights under the law.

• On the post: This Is Really, Really Dumb: Ohio Court Says Google May Be A Common Carrier

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 29 May, 2022 @ 04:25pm

  Twitter Service Does Not Rethread -- It Can't

  The first Twitter Server you reach is the one used for the session. §230(f)(2) specifies that the User starts at the ICS and goes to "a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions". Twitter does not qualify to be an ICS under the definition of §230(f)(2). PTAB Tribunals and Article III courts always accept my claim construction. I studied with the top linguistics scholars and thoroughly know syntax and semantics.

• On the post: This Is Really, Really Dumb: Ohio Court Says Google May Be A Common Carrier

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 29 May, 2022 @ 03:34pm

  Nice Try But It's Now How a Law is Construed!

  ...information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

  You want to restrict the relative clause "that provides..." to the last noun, but system is too generic and must be qualified. The relative clause restricts information service as much as it restricts system and access software provider. An ICS is a specific sort of Information Service. A 2022 social medium platform does not conform to the definition.

• On the post: This Is Really, Really Dumb: Ohio Court Says Google May Be A Common Carrier

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 29 May, 2022 @ 02:55pm

  When I link to Twitter, I access the Twitter cloud service

  47 U.S. Code § 230 (f)(2) describes a 2-stage process at the edge of the Internet. The first step is access the ICS. The second step is access the Internet. The Twitter service does not act in this way. Twitter is not an access service to other services. Twitter is the service the user wishes to access.

• On the post: This Is Really, Really Dumb: Ohio Court Says Google May Be A Common Carrier

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 29 May, 2022 @ 02:16pm

  Hosting Speech is Not the Issue

  A depraved Zionist anti-Jew has betrayed himself by trying to deflect from the true question. [It's part of the hasbarah-monger playbook. Until Baruch Goldstein showed me the true nature of Zionism on Purim 1994, I used to teach hasbarah-mongering.] With respect to the Ohio decision, there is only one question: Can Twitter escape its common carriage obligations? Twitter can always disentangle is common carriage tweet service from its non-common carriage microblogging service.

• On the post: This Is Really, Really Dumb: Ohio Court Says Google May Be A Common Carrier

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 29 May, 2022 @ 01:55pm

  There is no federal common law (except in certain rare situations).

  Here is the federal statute. 47 U.S. Code § 230 (f)(2) Interactive computer service The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions. How does the above definition apply of a 2022 social medium platform? I know how the definition applies to AOL, Compuserve, and Prodigy in 1996. Such an Internet On-Ramp does not exist in 2022. A federal court has no authority to rewrite or to create federal law. If a lower federal court violates Constitution Article I Section I, SCOTUS must slap that Court down hard and explain the actual law. SCOTUS has done so in the past and seems poised to do so again in several areas.

• On the post: This Is Really, Really Dumb: Ohio Court Says Google May Be A Common Carrier

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 29 May, 2022 @ 01:41pm

  Which anti-Zionist Rant?

  I stated well known facts and history about the white racial supremacist European Zionist movement,

  1. white planned genocide against Palestinians staring in 1881,
  2. which laid the groundwork for genocide during the hostile occupation of the British Mandate for Palestine,
  3. which started genocide in Dec 1947, and
  4. which has never ceased to commit genocide ever since.

Next >>