ThorsProvoni 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (697)

• On the post: No One Has Any Clue How Texas’ Social Media Law Can Actually Work (Because It Can’t Work)

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 05 Oct, 2022 @ 12:49am

  What is Transient?

  I have had the argument over transience at the USPTO with respect to a number of deep science patents.

  That’s over 19 years. That’s not long enough to be considered non-transient? How long is long enough? Everything eventually breaks down – is nothing permanent to you then?

  One would think a decade would be long enough, but it seems not enough. It's possible that a victim of law school training only accepts the possibility of non-transience in the case of the rule against a perpetuity. RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES-ITS PART OF YOUR TRUST AND WILL. WHAT IS IT? Introduction: In law school, one of the most complex and seemingly arcane legal constructs is the Rule Against Perpetuities which, despite its long-standing existence, still is enforced in most states in the United States. In the past, failure to draft a document so it did not violate the Rule meant that the document was instantly void and that would hold even if all the parties to the document wanted it to remain in effect and simply did not take into account that Rule due to ignorance. The results were at times catastrophic, with the parties basing their own planning and actions on a document that was void from the moment it was executed. Put simply, the Rule as it pertained to trust documents provided that no trust document would be valid unless the interest must vest within twenty-one years after the death of the last beneficiary alive at the time the trust was written. Seem simple? It is not. And note that the key is that if there is anyway the document would not vest within that time, then the trust was immediately void. Modern interpretations and statutory work has altered this long rule and that is the subject of this article. The Basic Law: The common law Rule against Perpetuities is English in origin and was first promulgated centuries ago. The modern version of the Rule has been altered in California by statute. California has enacted the Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities, which supersedes the old common law rule. Under the Uniform Rule in the California Probate Code, an interest in a trust will be invalid if either of two alternative conditions are not met. Prob C §§21200-21231. Under the first alternative, the interest must be certain to either vest – (move from being merely an expected interest to a currently enforceable legal right) -- or terminate no later than 21 years after the death of a potential beneficiary who was alive when the trust was created. Under the second alternative, the interest must actually vest or terminate within 90 years after the trust was created. If either alternative is not achieved, the trust is void immediately. The purpose of the rule against perpetuities was and is to prevent property interests from being tied up for generations after a trustor's death. Thus, a provision in a trust that grants a property interest to a person who will be born several generations in the future will usually be invalid under the rule. One cannot use the trust to assure the inheritance of a relative two hundred years in the future. That is the thrust of the Rule and it is still the law. Whether an interest granted by a trust violates the Rule against Perpetuities can be difficult to determine. But note it is still quite possible to create a trust that will last a remarkably long period of time. A trust established in 1951 by the will of newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst is expected to last until at least 2040. See Hearst v Ganz (2006) 145 CA4th 1195, 52 CR3d 473. How? Solutions: The way most attorneys avoid the danger of void documents is to include the following provision, or one like it, in most California Wills or Trusts.

  Section XXX Maximum Term for Trusts Notwithstanding any contrary provisions or unless terminated earlier under other provisions of this trust, each trust created under this trust document will terminate 21 years after the death of the last to die of the descendants of my paternal and maternal grandparents who are living at the time of my death. At that time, the remaining trust property will vest in and be distributed to the persons entitled to receive mandatory distributions of the trust’s net income, in the same proportions. If no beneficiary is entitled to mandatory distributions of net income, the remaining trust property will vest in and be distributed to the beneficiaries entitled to receive discretionary distributions of the trust’s net income, in equal shares.

  The above clause or ones like it create a methodology such that under all circumstances the trust must vest within the time limit of the Rule. Conclusion: The original purpose of the ancient Rule was to stop the dead from controlling disposition of property to the living for unlimited amounts of time. While decades and, indeed, almost a century can pass while the decedent’s wishes are controlling, the law provides that such efforts must eventually lapse. That the Rule has lasted over half a millennium in one form or another would seem to indicate its value to the living. You can make directions on your property long after you are dead…but not forever. That’s the Rule.

• On the post: No One Has Any Clue How Texas’ Social Media Law Can Actually Work (Because It Can’t Work)

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 04 Oct, 2022 @ 05:09pm

  Read the Statute, Dummy!

  Stephen T. Stone and Anonymous Clown are beyond ignorant and stupid.

  42 U.S. Code § 1981 - Equal rights under the law (a) Statement of equal rights All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other. (b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship. (c) Protection against impairment The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.

• On the post: No One Has Any Clue How Texas’ Social Media Law Can Actually Work (Because It Can’t Work)

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 04 Oct, 2022 @ 03:58pm

  The Issue of Corporate Boycott of a State -- an Interesting Legal Question

  Intent might determine lawfulness. If the decision not to conduct business is purely a business decision and not some form of retaliation, there might be no problem. If there is collaboration in retaliation, there is probably unlawful restraint of trade or unfair trade practises in general. If the decision is not purely a business decision, there is probably a violation according to 42 U.S. Code § 1981 - Equal rights under the law. A customer in Texas must have the same contract rights that a white in any other state has.

• On the post: No One Has Any Clue How Texas’ Social Media Law Can Actually Work (Because It Can’t Work)

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 04 Oct, 2022 @ 02:56am

  Anonymous Clown Makes My Argument

  Anonymous Clown is so dumb that he can't keep his argument straight.

  The fucking Internet already does not censor your vile opinions. Twitter el al are the PRIVATE SHOPS in the big public square tjat is the Internet.

  While a private entity can host an open forum for discussion in its private space and abridge the speech of visitors to its forum, a private entity cannot host an open forum for discussion within the public square (the state-supported and state-designated public forum) of the Internet and abridge the freedom of speech of visitors without committing an action

  1. that is inextricably intertwined with the state and
  2. that thus violates the First Amendment Rights of the visitors.

• On the post: No One Has Any Clue How Texas’ Social Media Law Can Actually Work (Because It Can’t Work)

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 04 Oct, 2022 @ 01:44am

  Was Anonymous Clown born as stupid and as ignorant as he seems or does he work at it?

  Like a brain-damaged chimpanzee, Anonymous Clown babbles and drools the following.

  As for the idea you can have a switch without routing, well it only applies to power and mode switches etc, those that initiate a function in a system. Switching messages always involves routing.

  The first generation of Ethernet bridges/LAN switches only switched between ports and did address learning and packet-filtering. Until Radia Perlman introduced the Spanning Tree Protocol Ethernet bridges/LAN Switches implemented no path selection that could be equated to a form of routing. Bridged ethernet networks had to be designed statically without loops (redundant paths) in order to function. See Bridge circuit for interconnecting networks. To a message switch of a social medium platform, the Internet is one giant single flat network bus with neither routing nor path selection. I used to teach this material to freshmen at Harvard, MIT, and Yale. Anonymous Clown would not even have managed to achieve a failing grade.

• On the post: No One Has Any Clue How Texas’ Social Media Law Can Actually Work (Because It Can’t Work)

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 03 Oct, 2022 @ 04:29pm

  A Higher Court Tries to Extract General Principles to Create Legal Doctrine

  A higher Court does not worry about technological details although it wants them to have been properly explained before the trial Court. Yet, if we split technology hairs, a social medium platform provides a service, which is closer to telex than telegraphy.

• On the post: No One Has Any Clue How Texas’ Social Media Law Can Actually Work (Because It Can’t Work)

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 03 Oct, 2022 @ 04:16pm

  Does Anonymous Clown Actually Have a Brain?

  I hypothesize that aliens visited earth, abducted Anonymous Clown, scooped out his brain, and replaced it with an 8-bit microprocessor like the Bell Mac-8 (the one that used to run a payphone).

  A social medium platform provides store-and-forward message switching and temporary storage (bailment or hosting) of a message (digital personal literary property) within a backend server on its way to delivery to its destination by digital message common carriage. The operations of store-and-forward message switching and temporary storage of a message are both traditional operations of message common carriage.

  Wrong in that Social media perform no switching or routing of messages, it is a passive message board. To perform the forward part you would have to tell it who or where to deliver your message.

  What a joke!!!! Passive message board?????

  Social media provides persistent hosting, nor transient hosting because they do not delete all copies of a message on handover. That is post this message on your board, and give me a copy of your board is nothing like take this message and deliver to the addressee. Also, they are not open to anyone, but rather provide a service to those people who sign up for service, and are closer to a club that a common carrier. Also, through the various threads on this site you have more than adequately demonstrated why you are banned from some social media sites in that you fall back to childish name calling whenever it looks like you might be doing less that convincing other of the correctness of your view point.

  Why would I have to make an effort to humiliate Anonymous Clown? He does such a great job of humiliating himself. I did not know von Neumann, but I had a good relationship with Howard Aiken. I have been designing, building, and programming computers since the 1960s. I am one of the original full-stack engineers.

• On the post: No One Has Any Clue How Texas’ Social Media Law Can Actually Work (Because It Can’t Work)

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 03 Oct, 2022 @ 03:36pm

  Multiple Tiers of Common Carriage Are Allowed

  One could set up a tier for ME politics as long as the tier allows every POV on ME politics. One could set up a tier for cooking. Multiple tiers (market segmentation) represent a good thing from a marketing standpoint, and controversy brings more eyes to a page. (I used to coffee and pastries several times a week with Edward Bernays. He taught me a lot about marketing and public relations.) The comments of depraved and evil racial supremacist supporters of ZiΘnist genocide-supporters demonstrate that defense of the 1st Amendment is pretextual mendacity. Genocide-supporting monsters like Stephen T. Stone and Anonymous Clown strive to guarantee that there be no honest open discussion of ZiΘnist crimes in a major public forum in which Americans participate because they understand that the wrath of Americans will be unimaginable when Americans realize the magnitude of ZiΘnist fraud against the USA. I don't care about politics at all. I only care about technology and law (and my family). Yet I believe that Americans of every political stripe can be united against ZiΘnism, the ZiΘnist movement, and the ZiΘnist state. The world cannot help but become a better place through the process of eradicating ZiΘism

• On the post: No One Has Any Clue How Texas’ Social Media Law Can Actually Work (Because It Can’t Work)

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 03 Oct, 2022 @ 02:47pm

  It's Obvious Why a Depraved Genocide-Supporting Racist like Anonymous Clown Tried to Protect Discrimination by a Social Medium Platform

  I never asserted that Jews deserved the Holocaust. My family did not deserve to be murdered during the Holocaust in the Ukraine. I asserted correctly that the Zi°nist movement is the proximate cause of the Holocaust, which would not have happened but for the effort of the Zi°nist movement to transform the initial Phoney War phase of World War II into a hot shooting war. Because Zi°nists are desperate to make sure that the truth of WWII does not enter public discourse, they strive to guarantee continued discrimination by a social medium platform against a knowledgeable and scholarly Jew like me. World War II should have concluded with a peace treaty in 1940 before the Holocaust started in 1941. Approximately 80 million people would have lived that died during WWII. Not only a Palestinian like my wife but a Jew like me and the entire human race have a score to settle with every Zi°nist everywhere. [My Palestinian wife weeps uncontrollably whenever I describe to her what happened to my Ashkenazi Jewish family in Ukraine. I suffer PTSD from the Goldstein Purim massacre. Whenever a Zi°nist colonial settler goes on a murder spree against Palestinians, the 29 murdered worshipers pay me a visit and demand from me that I stop Zi°nist crimes.] Supporters of the Zi°nist program of replacement genocide believe and disseminate a completely false version of Jewish history in order

  1. to legitimize,
  2. to normalize, and
  3. to justify

  replacement genocide of the native population of Palestine with white racial supremacist European colonial settler invaders, interlopers, thieves, and impostors. While a modern Jew like me has no Greco-Roman Judean ancestry whatsoever, a Palestinian like my wife is a descendant of the Greco-Roman Judeans, whom depraved and evil Zi°nist colonial settlers falsely claim to be the ancestors of depraved and evil Zi°nist colonial settlers. Greco-Roman Judeans and other peoples of Greco-Roman Palestine never left Palestine. When the religious leadership supported the maniac Bar Kochba, who persecuted the Judean peasantry with the approval of Tannaim like Rabbi Akiba, Judaism was almost completely discredited in Judea, and the peasantry (90% of the population) left Judaism for Christianity and then later for Islam. There was no Roman Exile. The Roman Exile is a metaphor for the transformation of Judaism from the religion of Judea into a religion, which only descendants of non-Judean converts practice. Rabbinic Judaism is a Mesopotamian religion,

  1. which is completely different from Biblical Judaism,
  2. which has practically no connection to Palestine, and
  3. which is a Domain Specific Religion, which is customized for a community that provided a major if not the predominant transnational commercial financial stratum within Christian and Muslim regions during the pre-modern period.

  I know Finkelstein. I funded his speaking engagement at Macalester College because a Palestinian woman, who used to work for me, was a student there. I was disappointed. I told Finkelstein

  1. that he should learn Fake Invader Hebrew and
  2. that he was much too trusting of historical claims of a Zi°nist colonial settler.

• On the post: No One Has Any Clue How Texas’ Social Media Law Can Actually Work (Because It Can’t Work)

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 03 Oct, 2022 @ 02:18pm

  Not Surprising at All!

  It is hardly surprising that a depraved and evil racial supremacist Zi°nist thug like Stephen T. Stone considers amusing the ongoing genocide that Zi°nist colonial settlers perpetrate.

• On the post: No One Has Any Clue How Texas’ Social Media Law Can Actually Work (Because It Can’t Work)

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 03 Oct, 2022 @ 01:28pm

  The Congruence of a Zi°nist with a Nazi

  A Nazi also laughed when it was suggested that there was something wrong with Nazi belief or with Nazi action. Now we see clearly why a depraved and evil monster like Stephen T. Stone wants to protect and to encourage discrimination by a major social medium platform in order to guarantee that there can be no honest open discussion of Zi°nism in a major public forum. Hatred of Zi°nism has entered the exponential growth phase throughout most of the world. When Zi°nist control of public discourse is shattered in the USA, we will see similar completely justified hatred of Zi°nism and of the Zi°nist movement increase throughout US society.

• On the post: No One Has Any Clue How Texas’ Social Media Law Can Actually Work (Because It Can’t Work)

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 03 Oct, 2022 @ 12:57pm

  The Depraved and Evil Racial Supremacism of Stephen T. Stone

  Genocide is a capital crime just like 1st-degree murder. The depraved racial supremacism of the monster Stephen T. Stone demands that a Zi°nist have a license to commit a capital crime with impunity because the Zi°nist alleges Jewish ancestry. It is not genocide to impose the maximum penalty on a Zi°nist for the capital crime of genocide because such execution of a legally correct sentence does not implicate dolus specialis of genocide. In this communication, only Stephen T. Stone is a Nazi equivalent. I wield the sword of justice according to the scales of justice. Under Jewish law, it is far easier to impose the death penalty for blasphemy on a depraved and evil Zi°nist than it is in international law or according to the US federal criminal code to impose the death penalty upon a Zi°nist for the crime of genocide. For this reason, I tell my Haredi relatives that it is incorrect to consider a Zi°nist to be a Jew. A Zi°nist is a depraved and evil antisemite and anti-Jew as well as a probable perpetrator of the capital crime of genocide because the Zi°nist movement has murdered Judaism by transforming Judaism into a program of genocide.

• On the post: No One Has Any Clue How Texas’ Social Media Law Can Actually Work (Because It Can’t Work)

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 03 Oct, 2022 @ 12:31pm

  I am committed only to operation of law

  Every Zi°nist on the planet must be arrested by operation of law for probable perpetration of the international or US federal crime of genocide so that he can be:

  1. tried,
  2. almost certainly convicted, and
  3. sentenced to a long prison term or to a short jab in the arm.

  All assets of every Zi°nist individual or organization must be seized. Every Zi°nist must die penniless and impoverished.

• On the post: No One Has Any Clue How Texas’ Social Media Law Can Actually Work (Because It Can’t Work)

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 03 Oct, 2022 @ 12:21pm

  I am not political

  Any social medium platform is a common law message common carrier if it holds out carriage to the public, under uniform terms, for a fee, which can include a monetary charge, barter (e.g., collecting user info), or work for carriage (e.g., "eyes on a page"). Implicit or explicit license to distribute digital literary property, which is held in temporary storage on a backend server by bailment, is also a fair exchange because the distribution of digital literary property brings "eyes to a page". Calling bailment hosting does not enable the social medium platform to violate common carriage law with impunity. Bailment is not the speech of a social medium platform. From the standpoint of common carriage law, storing digital personal literary property in a backend server of the social medium platform hardly differs from the temporary storage of a paper letter in a satchel at a USPS sorting location or at a FedEx office until the paper letter can be delivered to its destination by common carriage.

• On the post: No One Has Any Clue How Texas’ Social Media Law Can Actually Work (Because It Can’t Work)

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 02 Oct, 2022 @ 12:38pm

  Anonymous Clown Confuses Virtual Reality with Material Reality

  Hosting is bailment. It is not speech in any way that a Court understands speech. I am not convinced of the permanence of hosting (bailment) of literary property by a social medium platform. Yahoo!Groups launched on January 30, 2001. Yahoo!Groups dissolved on December 15, 2020. Yahoo!Groups only provided transient bailment. Neither permanence nor transience of bailment is relevant to the issues of the legal controversy. I only mentioned transience for completeness and because transience is an important aspect of certain tech caselaw. When Anonymous Clown asserts the following, he shows both technological cluelessness and also legal ignorance.

  Wrong in that Social media perform no switching or routing of messages, it is a passive message board. To perform the forward part you would have to tell it who or where to deliver your message.

  I said nothing about routing. Every social medium platform performs store-and-forward switching of a message among users. Anonymous Clown seems to believe that the message arrives at the computing device of a destination user by magic. There is nothing passive about the backend of a social medium platform. It betrays more tech cluelessness when Anonymous Clown imputes passivity. Neither mass mailing common carriage nor mass announcement common carriage requires a specific destination address. The common law legal definition of common carriage makes no reference to a specific destination address. Question: Does a notice board accessible to passing members of the public -- by being at the entrance of a supermarket for example -- offer a common carriage service? If not, how does Twitter differ from that in function, other than by being a service attached to a network that offers public access? Answer: The described public notice board is a material board to which a member affixes a material message. The material board provides neither message switching nor message common carriage. Twitter provides store-and-forward message switching as well as message common carriage among users. Twitter temporarily stores a message in a backend database system (hosting) while the message is on the way to an end-user by message common carriage. The question confuses the frontend model (a pure concept or abstract idea†) with a material notice board. The frontend model makes it easier for an end user to interact with Twitter’s system. In other words, Twitter’s system has no similarity whatsoever to the material notice board and the question shows no comprehension of Internet technology whatsoever. [The terminology of full-stack software engineering is somewhat confusing. A software engineer generally uses the Model-View-Controller design pattern to design a web or cloud service. The end user invokes a browser on his end host (a laptop or mobile computing device) to access the service. A single-page application is frontend social medium platform software that runs in a web browser to access the service of the social medium platform. A mobile device typically runs a mobile app (provided by the social medium platform) to access the service, which the social medium platform's backend provides.] Note † Abstract idea in this context has some similarities to the abstract idea exception to patent eligibility.

• On the post: No One Has Any Clue How Texas’ Social Media Law Can Actually Work (Because It Can’t Work)

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 02 Oct, 2022 @ 10:38am

  The Pellucid Common Law Definition of Common Carriage

  Every social medium platform is a message common carrier of digital personal literary property as long as it holds out message carriage to the public under uniform terms for a fee. The service provided by a social medium platform hardly differs from the common carriage service provided by telegraph or by telex. The only major difference is a whizzier interface, which the social medium platform downloads to the end user computing device. A social medium platform provides

  1. store-and-forward message switching and
  2. temporary storage (bailment or hosting) of a message (digital personal literary property) within a backend server on its way to delivery to its destination by digital message common carriage. The operations of store-and-forward message switching and temporary storage of a message are both traditional operations of message common carriage.

  Bailment or hosting of digital personal literary property is not the speech of the social medium platform, and the social medium platform has neither editorial discretion nor distributor discretion with respect to bailment or to hosting except in the mind of a complete legal ignoramus like a Tech Dirt supporter of discrimination by a social medium platform. If a social medium platform wishes to escape the obligations that common carriage law imposes on the social medium platform, the social medium platform need only

  1. cease to monetize eyes on a page and
  2. cease trading in the information that it collects from a user in exchange for message common carriage service.

  In other words, as long as a social medium platform makes money from common carriage, it is legally and constitutionally obligated to obey the law of common carriage. The Ninth Amendment gives the public the Constitutional right to non-discriminatory common carriage. A common carrier has no right to refuse common carriage to a customer except for some very special circumstances.

  • A common carrier is a person who holds himself out as willing to serve any shipper who offers him a reasonable fee to transport the kinds of goods he professes to carry to a place he professes to serve, provided they were not unfit and his conveyance was not already full. See Lovett v. Hobbs, 2 Show. K.B. 127, 89 Eng. Rep. 836 (K.B. 1680); Jackson v. Rogers, 2 Show. K.B. 327, 89 Eng. Rep. 968 (K.B. 1683).
  • By definition, a common carrier has to serve all comers. If he wrongfully refuses to accept a consignment, he is suable in tort. Jackson v. Rogers, 2 Show. K.B. 327, 89 Eng. Rep. 968 (K.B. 1683).

  Denial of common carriage is a self-evidencing violation and must be punished with draconian penalties because common carriage law is the root and beginning of anti-discrimination law, without which modern civil society does not function.

• On the post: No One Has Any Clue How Texas’ Social Media Law Can Actually Work (Because It Can’t Work)

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 02 Oct, 2022 @ 07:24am

  Anonymous Clown Continues to Exhibit Ramblings of a Depraved White Racist/Elitist Dummy

  I don't like Donald. My uncle Nat used to work with Fred Trump. He considered Fred a psychopath. I guess it takes one to know one. Fred told Nat that Donald had two skills: whoring and losing lots of money. Donald has lots of Daddy issues. These issues drive Donald. It is sad in a way that Fred did not live to see Donald become president. Of course, it is also said that Donald became president. I don't care about Donald's politics, but Donald is temperamentally unfit for the presidency. Twitter is not a platform for speech, and only a clueless nitwit calls Twitter such. Twitter holds out to the public message common carriage under uniform terms at a reasonable fee. Donald has a right to message common carriage of personal digital literary property under the Ninth Amendment. Twitter has no right whatsoever to refuse message common carriage to Donald. It is un-American and unconstitutional to assert that Twitter has such a right. The ignorance and stupidity of Anonymous Clown could fill Rose Bowl.

• On the post: No One Has Any Clue How Texas’ Social Media Law Can Actually Work (Because It Can’t Work)

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2022 @ 11:27pm

  The Prion of Section 230 Caselaw and Judicial Spongiform Encephalitis (II)

  There is a circuit split between the competent appellate judges of the Fifth Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit pseudo-judges,

  1. who seem unable to read a statute from the US federal code and
  2. who ignore almost 180 years of caselaw of message common carriage of digital personal literary property.

  Netchoice v. Paxton will almost certainly go to the Supreme Court and Martillo v. Twitter has a substantial probability of joining Netchoice v. Paxton before SCOTUS. According to 28 U.S. Code § 2101(e), I can file a 2nd petition for certiorari before Judgment.

• On the post: No One Has Any Clue How Texas’ Social Media Law Can Actually Work (Because It Can’t Work)

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2022 @ 05:26pm

  A Depraved White Racist/Elitist Dummy Rejects Constitutional Authority

  The public's right to non-discriminatory (message) common carriage was well-established at the time of the enactment of the Constitution. A message common carrier has no right (First Amendment or otherwise) to refuse common carriage. The vile white racist/elitist dummy has probably never read the Constitution about which he babbles and drools incoherently. Here's the Ninth Amendment.

  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  Hosting is not speech. It is the temporary storage of digital personal literary property in a backend server. Hosting is the intermediate storage of merchandise, goods, or property on the way to its final destination by message common carriage. A common carrier is a person who holds himself out as willing to serve any shipper who offers him a reasonable fee to transport the kinds of goods he professes to carry to a place he professes to serve, provided they were not unfit and his conveyance was not already full. See Lovett v. Hobbs, 2 Show. K.B. 127, 89 Eng. Rep. 836 (K.B. 1680); Jackson v. Rogers, 2 Show. K.B. 327, 89 Eng. Rep. 968 (K.B. 1683). By definition, a common carrier has to serve all comers. If he wrongfully refuses to accept a consignment, he is suable in tort. Jackson v. Rogers, 2 Show. K.B. 327, 89 Eng. Rep. 968 (K.B. 1683).

• On the post: No One Has Any Clue How Texas’ Social Media Law Can Actually Work (Because It Can’t Work)

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2022 @ 08:14am

  I Don't Care When a Zio Screeches Nonsense About Antisemitism!

  A depraved and evil Zio screeches the usual nonsense.

  FYI: If you actually got your way and forced interactive web services to carry all legally protected speech, you’d give anti-Semites the ability to spew all their hatred on social media without consequence.

  Yet it's perfectly okay for a depraved and evil Zio to spew that basest and most outrageous hate-speech about the native people of Palestine! I used to work in Gaza. Even though I never hid my Jewishness, I had no problem whatsoever. Hamas seemed to appreciate my work in improving telecommunications infrastructure. I held classes to explain Zio ideology and Judaism mostly for Hamas officials, but everyone was welcome. More than one family wanted me to marry an unmarried daughter. I was everybody's cousin from America. Antisemitism is something completely insignificant. Hating a Zio is a duty upon the entire human race. Until the Zio state is abolished and every Zio is

  • on trial for genocide,
  • sentenced to a long prison term, or
  • scheduled for a jab in the arm,

  it is perverted and disgusting to worry about a phenomenon as minor as antisemitism.

Next >>