ThorsProvoni 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (697)

• On the post: There Are Real Threats To Free Speech Everywhere. Cancel Culture Is Far Down The List

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2022 @ 07:20am

  Errant Nonsense of a Zio and his Supporter

  My previous comment has caused my suspension at a social medium platform. A Zio hates someone that can quote the Bible knowledgeably. The Zio mobilizes his ilk to mob-report someone like me for hate speech. Here is another comment that has caused my suspension. It is as silly to call Palestine the ancestral homeland of Jews as it is to call Palestine the ancestral homeland of Jesus because Jesus lived there. Here is Babylonia Talmud Sanhedrin 39a-b. אמר ליה ההוא מינא לרבי אבינא כתיב (שמואל ב ז, כג) מי כעמך כישראל גוי אחד בארץ מאי רבותייהו אתון נמי ערביתו בהדן דכתיב (ישעיהו מ, יז) כל הגוים כאין נגדו אמר ליה מדידכו אסהידו עלן דכתיב A certain heretic said to Rabbi Avina: It is written: “And who is like Your people, Israel, one nation in the earth” (II Samuel 7:23). The heretic asked: What is your greatness? You are also mixed together with us, as it is written: “All nations before Him are as nothing; they are counted by Him less than nothing and vanity” (Isaiah 40:17). Rabbi Avina said to him: One of yours, the gentile prophet Balaam, has already testified for us, as it is written: (במדבר כג, ט) ובגוים לא יתחשב “It is a (voluntarily assembled) throng that shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations” (Numbers 23:9), teaching that where the verse mentions “the nations,” the community of Israel is not included. When one engages a pre-modern text, one must read between the lines.

  You are also mixed together with us

  The above is not hard to parse out. Israel is mixed with us because of the massive proselytization that took place in the Greco-Roman period and before. Israel is not counted among the nations because it is a religious spiritual community that has no territorial homeland. The homeland of the community of Israel is the Torah. Every Zio colonial settler in stolen Palestine is a depraved evil genocidal invader, interloper, thief, and impostor. The human race is under a categorical imperative to hate, to scorn, and to loathe every Zio on the planet.

• On the post: There Are Real Threats To Free Speech Everywhere. Cancel Culture Is Far Down The List

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2022 @ 06:55am

  I meant Israel not Israe

  I studied at Brisk. My education causes a Freudian slip in typing now and then. There is no more outrageous fraud than the aggregation of Zio lies and assertions. Blasphemy of Land of Israel and of State of Israel Outside of the cultic religious context of Judaism, no one used the phrase the Land of Israel. The reason is evident to anyone that takes Judaism seriously. The two exiles were ordained because the community of Israel sinned, and rights under the patriarchal covenant were abrogated. The Assyrian Exile has not ended, and only the Messiah can end it because the Assyrian Exile only exists in sacred time and space. Cyrus, who ended the Babylonian Exile, is explicitly identified to be God’s Messiah. The Bible clarifies that Cyrus was purely an instrument of God’s mercy and did not act on his own initiative. Without explicit evidence, which demonstrates that God has selected a Messiah (e.g., ending the Assyrian Exile), the use of the phrase “Land of Israel” or “King of Israel” outside of a sacred, religious, or cultic context is pure arrogance and arguably blasphemy. The Hasmoneans and Herodians never called themselves kings of Israel. Isaiah 45:1

  Thus saith the LORD to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him, and to loose the loins of kings; to open the doors before him, and that the gates may not be shut:

  כֹּה-אָמַר יְהוָה, לִמְשִׁיחוֹ לְכוֹרֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר-הֶחֱזַקְתִּי בִימִינוֹ לְרַד-לְפָנָיו גּוֹיִם, וּמָתְנֵי מְלָכִים, אֲפַתֵּחַ--לִפְתֹּחַ לְפָנָיו דְּלָתַיִם, וּשְׁעָרִים לֹא יִסָּגֵרוּ Ezra 1:1

  Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying:

  וּבִשְׁנַת אַחַת, לְכוֹרֶשׁ מֶלֶךְ פָּרַס, לִכְלוֹת דְּבַר-יְהוָה, מִפִּי יִרְמְיָה: הֵעִיר יְהוָה, אֶת-רוּחַ כֹּרֶשׁ מֶלֶךְ-פָּרַס, וַיַּעֲבֶר-קוֹל בְּכָל-מַלְכוּתוֹ, וְגַם-בְּמִכְתָּב לֵאמֹר Final Covenant Jeremiah 31:30–33 provides the final statement of the Covenant.

  30 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; 31 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; forasmuch as they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, saith the LORD. 32 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people; 33 and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying: 'Know the LORD'; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more. {S}

  ל הִנֵּה יָמִים בָּאִים, נְאֻם-יְהוָה; וְכָרַתִּי, אֶת-בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת-בֵּית יְהוּדָה--בְּרִית חֲדָשָׁה לא לֹא כַבְּרִית, אֲשֶׁר כָּרַתִּי אֶת-אֲבוֹתָם, בְּיוֹם הֶחֱזִיקִי בְיָדָם, לְהוֹצִיאָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם: אֲשֶׁר-הֵמָּה הֵפֵרוּ אֶת-בְּרִיתִי, וְאָנֹכִי בָּעַלְתִּי בָם--נְאֻם-יְהוָה לב כִּי זֹאת הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר אֶכְרֹת אֶת-בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֲרֵי הַיָּמִים הָהֵם, נְאֻם-יְהוָה, נָתַתִּי אֶת-תּוֹרָתִי בְּקִרְבָּם, וְעַל-לִבָּם אֶכְתְּבֶנָּה; וְהָיִיתִי לָהֶם לֵאלֹהִים, וְהֵמָּה יִהְיוּ-לִי לְעָם לג וְלֹא יְלַמְּדוּ עוֹד, אִישׁ אֶת-רֵעֵהוּ וְאִישׁ אֶת-אָחִיו לֵאמֹר, דְּעוּ, אֶת-יְהוָה: כִּי-כוּלָּם יֵדְעוּ אוֹתִי לְמִקְּטַנָּם וְעַד-גְּדוֹלָם, נְאֻם-יְהוָה--כִּי אֶסְלַח לַעֲוֺנָם, וּלְחַטָּאתָם לֹא אֶזְכָּר-עוֹד. {ס}

• On the post: There Are Real Threats To Free Speech Everywhere. Cancel Culture Is Far Down The List

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2022 @ 06:30am

  A Zio finds bias and hate in a true statement about Israe.

  The depraved ideology of Zios is an ideology of replacement genocide. White racial supremacist supremacist Zio colonial settlers founded the depraved evil Zio state by genocide after the international community banned genocide and made anti-genocide jus cogens (a peremptory international legal norm) just as anti-slavery is jus cogens. Until Palestinians return to their homes, property, and villages, the genocide, which started in Dec 1947, has never ended. International law obligates the international community to abolish the Zio state forthwith. Genocide is a capital crime without statute of limitations both in international law and also in the US federal criminal code. Every Zio must be hunted down:

  1. to be arrested,
  2. to be tried,
  3. almost certainly to be convicted, and
  4. to be sentenced either to a long prison term or to a quick jab in the arm.

  We know exactly where bhull242's mind is. Babbling about bias against the Zio state is like babbling

  1. about bias against the Nazi state or
  2. about bias against the Confederacy.

  When the white racist/elitist dummy asserts, the following, he lies.

  Finally, TechDirt supports the right of privately owned social media platforms to engage in viewpoint discrimination within their platforms of without government coercion one way or the other, not discrimination by social media platforms in general. This is also irrelevant to your other claims.

  • A privately-owned company, which operates within an establishment [the Internet] affecting interstate commerce or supported in its activities by State action as ["as" indicates simile] a place of public accommodation, may not discriminate against a protected class [42 U.S. Code § 2000a].
  • A privately-owned company violates civil rights law (42 U.S. Code § 1981) when it applies its TOS in a discriminatory fashion.
  • A privately-owned company, which operates an open forum within a state-supported state-designated public forum, may not abridge freedom of speech of the public in the open forum, which the privately-owned company operates.
  • Action of a privately-owned company, which has become intrinsically intertwined with the government because this action either supports the government or is supported by the government, perpetrates unlawful unconstitutional state action if the private company's action violates any provision of the US constitutional action.
  • Because the right of the public to non-discriminatory common carriage was long established in the original 13 colonial states when the US Constitution was ratified, a social medium platform acts unconstitutionally and unlawfully when it declines to provide common carriage to any member of the US public (except for a limited set of established reasons).

  How does punishing a social medium platform for violating common carriage law do anything but uphold US law in a content-neutral way? A Tech Dirt supporter of discrimination by a social medium platform rejects the rule of law and is anti-American.

• 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 @ 12:33am

  Anonymous Clown Proclaims the Standard Libel

  I am proud of my Jewish heritage. I am a scion of the families of 5 major פוסקים‎ -- the earliest of whom was ר׳ עוֹבַדְיָה בֵּן אַבְרָהָם מִבַּרְטֵנוּרָא and the least of whom was the קיצור שולחן ערוך. Here is a summary of my digital personal literary property that a social medium platform, which is an obvious message common carrier, denies common carriage in violation of Massachusetts statutory and judge-made law. Practically all of my father's family was murdered during the Holocaust in the Ukraine. A depraved and evil white racial supremacist and antisemite like Anonymous Clown defecates

  1. on the memory of my murdered relatives and
  2. on the memory of all Jews, who were murdered during the Holocaust,

  when he tries to use the Holocaust to deflect criticism from the genocide

  1. that vicious bloodthirsty white racial supremacist Zio colonial settlers have perpetrated on the native population of Palestine since Dec 1947 and
  2. that has never ceased.

  Because some of my relatives have been prominent leaders among the Zio colonial settlers, I tried to be a liberal religious Zio until I was outside the Mosque of Abraham when Baruch Goldstein celebrated Purim by murdering 29 worshipers. Goldstein showed to me the logical conclusion of the Zio program. A Zio murders Judaism by transforming Judaism into a program of genocide. Every Zio is a vile and atrocious enemy of Palestinians, of Jews, and of the human race. My wife is a Judean Palestinian,

  1. whose family was subjected to genocide in Ein Karem and
  2. whose family continues to suffer from ongoing genocide, apartheid, and persecution in stolen Palestine.

  My mom loves my wife at least an order of magnitude more than my mom hated my two previous ווּזְווּז wives. My wife is a true Judean אֵשֶׁת חַיִל. No female Zio can be such. A female Zio is a true אשת חרא. A Zio colonial settler in stolen Palestine is a murderous genocidal invader, interloper, thief, and impostor. According to Constitutional law, a social medium platform, which is without doubt a message common carrier, has no First Amendment right to abridge the freedom of speech of anyone. Only a white racist/elitist ignoramus or dummy like a Tech Dirt supporter of discrimination by a social medium platform claims otherwise. 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). Gentiles need to read and to hear what a genuine Jew thinks of a Zio colonial settler. The entire human race has an ethical and legal obligation to hate, to scorn, and to loathe every Zio on the planet. Genocide is a capital crime without statute of limitations both in international law and also in the US federal criminal code. Every Zio must be hunted down:

  1. to be arrested,
  2. to be tried,
  3. almost certainly to be convicted, and
  4. to be sentenced either to a long prison term or to a quick jab in the arm.

• On the post: Appeals Court Bizarrely Redacts Qualified Immunity Decision To Hide How Compliant The Plaintiff Was

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2022 @ 12:44am

  Who Is the Most Relentless Supreme Court Critic of Qualified Immunity?

  Justice Thomas, of course. He refers to the same civil rights statutes to which I refer when I argue that a racist/elitist social medium platform must be nailed for discrimination

  1. in civil rights,
  2. in public accommodation, and
  3. in common carriage.

  Unlike Thomas' depraved white racist Techdirt critics, Thomas is nothing if not consistent.

• On the post: Conservatives Loved Expanding The 1st Amendment To Corporations… Until Last Year. Wonder Why?

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2022 @ 12:26am

  Does a White Racist/Elitist Dummy Every Bother to Read a Legal Opinion?

  The controversy in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colo. Civil Rights Comm'n, 138 S. Ct. 1719, 201 L. Ed. 2d 35, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 289, 86 U.S.L.W. 4335 (2018) has no connection to any issue in Netchoice, L.L.C. v. Paxton, No. 21-51178 (5th Cir. 2022), September 16, 2022. Here is a good summary of Masterpiece.

  A law also may violate the Free Exercise Clause if it is not applied neutrally. In Masterpiece Cakeshop, LLC v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 1719, 201 L.Ed.2d 35 (2018) (" Masterpiece Cakeshop"), a baker, citing his religious beliefs, refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple's wedding, defying a Colorado anti-discrimination statute. See 138 S. Ct. at 1723-25. He was cited for violating the Colorado statute, and in arguing his case before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, one commissioner stated:

  Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the [H]olocaust ...--we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to -- to use their religion to hurt others.

  138 S. Ct. at 1729. The Supreme Court did not ultimately decide whether anti-discrimination laws that conflict with religious beliefs violate the First Amendment. Instead, the Supreme Court concluded that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's treatment of the baker's appeal violated the First Amendment's command that government may not "base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint." 138 S. Ct. at 1731. Justice Kagan summarized in a concurring opinion:

  "[I]t is a general rule that [religious and philosophical] objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law." But in upholding that principle, state actors cannot show hostility to religious views; rather, they must give those views neutral and respectful consideration.

  Legacy Church, Inc. v. Kunkel, 472 F. Supp. 3d 926, 1015-16 (D.N.M. 2020).

• On the post: Conservatives Loved Expanding The 1st Amendment To Corporations… Until Last Year. Wonder Why?

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 26 Sep, 2022 @ 11:33pm

  The Whole Arguiment of a Depraved White Racist Dummy: Get Fucked!

  One must suspect that he either suffers third-stage syphilis or human spongiform encephalopathy (Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease). The legal equivalency of (a) message common carriage of digital personal literary property by telegraph, by telex, or by PSPDN with (b) message common carriage of digital personal literary property by a social medium platform over the Internet is obvious to anyone

  1. that has half a brain,
  2. that is not a white racist/elitist dummy, and
  3. that understands the technology -- something of which a complete nitwit like Stephen T. Stone is incapable.

  The first two opinions will start a flood to wipe out the current racist/elitist management of every social medium platform as it comes under the authority of the US trustee.

  1. Netchoice, L.L.C. v. Paxton, No. 21-51178 (5th Cir. 2022), September 16, 2022.
  2. Ohio ex rel Yost v. Google LLC, Case No. 21-CV-H-06-0274 (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas), Opinion and Order, May 24, 2022.

  The depraved racist/elitist management of every discriminatory social medium platform is walking dead that will metaphorically bite the dust within approximately three years. The temporary storage of digital literary property in a backend database is not speech! It is a pretextual and obvious ridiculous attempt to justify massive legal violations to assert that such temporary storage is speech.

• On the post: Conservatives Loved Expanding The 1st Amendment To Corporations… Until Last Year. Wonder Why?

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 26 Sep, 2022 @ 04:42pm

  The White Racist/Elitist Dummies Are Congratulating Themselves on Their Self-Avowed but Utterly Bogus Magnanimity!

  Judge Oldham is Correct About Common Carriage Judge Oldham is correct with respect to the history of message common carriage after message common carriage began in the 1840s to include message common carriage of digital personal literary property by telegraph. When Judge Oldham tries to argue that the First Amendment does not include a right to censorship, he is not as persuasive as he could be. Neither a blog host nor a provider of a mass announcement system (e.g, AT&T MANS) has ever considered written or audio narrative,

  1. which was available in a hosted blog or
  2. which was hosted by a mass announcement system,

  to be the speech either of the blog host or of the provider of the mass announcement system until now. This First Amendment claim is purely a pretextual justification for discrimination against some classes of people because white racists or white elitists

  1. want to deny non-whites, non-Europeans, or conservatives full use of an open forum, which has been established in a government-supported government-designated public forum (the Internet), or
  2. want to deny non-whites, non-Europeans, or conservatives access to a place of public accommodation for exhibition or for entertainment.

  For 40 years I have been writing documents to be filed in the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit or in the Supreme Court of the United States (i.e, since Judge Oldham was a toddler). I have learned that a lot of Judges and Justices on these two courts really seem to enjoy identifying pretextual efforts to legitimize inequitable or unlawful behavior. AT&T Mass Announcement Network Service (MANS) I helped develop the AT&T Mass Announcement Network Service (MANS), which Dial-A-Porn used. See "Dial-A-Porn" from Pornography Research Advances and Policy Considerations. No one ever confused the Dial-A-Porn messages, which AT&T hosted, with AT&T's own speech. Hosting, which is a term used today in the context of a blog or in the context of a social medium platform, was considered then to be the temporary storage of a customer's merchandise or property on its way to the destination. Calling such temporary storage hosting does not make it possible for a common carrier to escape its common carriage obligations. Read the whole discussion of Dial-A-Porn. The FCC eventually fined Dial-A-Porn. Because AT&T was and is a common carrier, no one ever considered fining AT&T on account of the Dial-A-Porn messages, which were hosted in the AT&T network via the Network Services Complex (NSC), which was connected to a 4ESS (National Electronic Switching System). MANS was an extremely lucrative service, which AT&T offered at least through the early 90s when pornographers realized that the Internet was a much better medium for pornography. A Social Medium Platform has no First Amendment right to deny common carriage Judge Oldham's opinion provides evidence that indicates he understands the history of message common carriage of digital personal literary property as well as the history of associated common carriage law. Yet, Oldham seems out of his depth with respect to the technology of a social medium platform. If I were to meet him today, I would pose the following question to him. In what speech is a social medium platform engaging (forced or otherwise) as it temporarily stores (hosts) content in a database on a backend server while the social medium platform prepares to deliver the content to an end user's display by message common carriage? Judge Oldham and his critics are clueless with respect to Internet technology The following question is typical of the technological idiocy in the debate. 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. [Please note that the terminology of this area 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.] A 2020 social medium platform has no First Amendment right to deny message common carriage, but the social medium platform will have the legal obligation to pay 100s of billions of dollars of penalties for its criminal and civil violations. Note † Abstract idea in this context has some similarities to the abstract idea exception to patent eligibility.

• On the post: 5th Circuit Rewrites A Century Of 1st Amendment Law To Argue Internet Companies Have No Right To Moderate

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2022 @ 04:57pm

  More Ignorant Nonsense from Anonymous Clown

  Unlike a social medium platform or Amazon, I don't hold out common carriage to anyone. The basic concepts of common carriage seem too complex for a depraved evil racist dummy like Anonymous Clown, who has murdered his mind with the poison of his racial supremacist belief.

• On the post: 5th Circuit Rewrites A Century Of 1st Amendment Law To Argue Internet Companies Have No Right To Moderate

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2022 @ 04:53pm

  I was going to quit for the evening --

  Then the white racist/elitist dummy showed his true disgusting vile racial supremacist nature.

  Three things. 1. [citation needed] 2. Justice Thomas forgets that if the Founding Fathers’ views still actually ruled this country (like he thinks they should), he’d be considerd a piece of property to buy and sell under the laws of their time, so I don’t really give a fuck what he thinks. 3. Until SCOTUS puts that shit in writing as part of a ruling that becomes binding legal precedent across the entire country, what those judges may believe isn’t binding legal precedent.

  In other words, the uppity n*** should shut up and heed the sage words of a depraved white racist/elitist dummy like Stephen T. Stone.

  I can help my Counsel persuade Kavanaugh.

  You must first reach the Supreme Court. They said “fuck off” in legalese when you last tried to get there.

  In the dreams of the depraved white racist/elitist dummy. SCOTUS appreciated the effort but considered the petition not yet ripe for review. In the next round, the case will be adjudicated by a three-judge district court panel, and whatever the result, the litigation will go directly to SCOTUS by right of appeal and not by a discretionary grant of cert. Of course, the white racist/elitist dummy does not have a clue about the procedures of the US federal judiciary.

• On the post: 5th Circuit Rewrites A Century Of 1st Amendment Law To Argue Internet Companies Have No Right To Moderate

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2022 @ 03:49pm

  I Should Have Been More Specific

  I meant a user that purchases goods or avails himself of Amazon common carriage service. Such a user represents the vast majority of Amazon users. My meaning would have been obvious to anyone with half a brain, but Stephen T. Stone long ago murdered his mind with the poison of his racism and his elitism. Every user,

  1. who was suspended or
  2. whose content was removed,

  was making use of a service other than the purchase of goods, common carriage of merchandise, or message common carriage. The white racist/elitist is so desperate to score points in his quest to bring back Jim Crow that he blathers any ridiculous nonsense.

• On the post: 5th Circuit Rewrites A Century Of 1st Amendment Law To Argue Internet Companies Have No Right To Moderate

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2022 @ 03:42pm

  The Present State of the Law

  In the present state of law, a social medium platform is not not-a-common-carrier. Justices Thomas believes a social medium platform is, and possibly three other Justices already agree with him. There was a reason for Twitter and for Medium to barge into the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit even though neither had received a summons. I have a lot of experience with the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. I can help my Counsel persuade Kavanaugh. At least two of the 6 named Defendants understood the implications of Martillo v. Twitter. Two did not have the money to participate while Facebook and LinkedIn believe themselves untouchable. They may have a rude surprise. A white racist/elitist dummy like Stephen T. Stone will bawl his eyes out when every discriminatory social medium platform loses hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars in Court. The hope for a new Jim Crow will be utterly dashed.

• On the post: 5th Circuit Rewrites A Century Of 1st Amendment Law To Argue Internet Companies Have No Right To Moderate

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2022 @ 02:16pm

  Anonymous Clown Continues to Show Himself to Be a Depraved Racist and Complete Idiot

  Excuse me -- some clarification, please! I use Amazon Whole Foods for online shopping and delivery. I just paid $224.16 of which $14.95 was a common carriage service fee for the goods. Amazon software

  1. runs on my browser (or in an app on my mobile device) and
  2. forwards a message by message common carriage of a digital text message from its single-page browser application (or from its app on my mobile device) to an Amazon backend server.

  Thus Amazon does message common carriage of a digital text message as well as common carriage of grocery goods. Amazon is not stupid like Twitter. Amazon is always careful to dot every 'i' and to cross every 't' with respect to Massachusetts common carriage law. Amazon never removes an Amazon user from its service. As far as I know, Amazon never removes user content even if the user content is a bad review. The Amazon legal department obviously knows how nasty Massachusetts law is in punishing a common carrier that denies common carriage -- either message common carriage or common carriage of goods.

• On the post: 5th Circuit Rewrites A Century Of 1st Amendment Law To Argue Internet Companies Have No Right To Moderate

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2022 @ 10:07am

  A Matter of Law

  An entity offers common carriage if it holds out carriage (1) to the public (2) under uniform terms (3) for a fee. Terms may include one tier of service or a plurality thereof. A fee can comprise money, work, or barter.

• On the post: 5th Circuit Rewrites A Century Of 1st Amendment Law To Argue Internet Companies Have No Right To Moderate

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2022 @ 10:01am

  The Tech Nitwit Babbles Incoherently

  I described exactly how the technology works. I have written several backends and often work as a full-stack developer or as a tech lead in a full-stack development group. A social medium platform temporarily stores (hosts) content in a database on a backend server while the social medium platform prepares to deliver the content to an end user’s display by message common carriage. Denial of common carriage is a self-evidencing violation, and Twitter's ToS is a legal admission of intent to deny common carriage. Twitter probably owes hundreds of billions of dollars of fines in most US states for denial of common carriage.

• On the post: 5th Circuit Rewrites A Century Of 1st Amendment Law To Argue Internet Companies Have No Right To Moderate

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2022 @ 09:52am

  A Common Carrier and Hazardous Material

  A common carrier has a limited right to refuse carriage when a customer requests carriage of hazardous material. A tweet may fit into this category, and § 230 (c)(2)(A) is consistent in some situations with putting such a tweet in the hazardous material category.

• On the post: 5th Circuit Rewrites A Century Of 1st Amendment Law To Argue Internet Companies Have No Right To Moderate

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2022 @ 09:42am

  Can the White Racist Dummy Read?

  Only a complete nitwit babbles incoherently about cyberspace. The Internet is a real physical government-created, government-supported public facility. Has the white racist dummy read 47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material? SCOTUS rarely pays attention to a declaratory prologue to a statute, but it will in this situation. [In clauses (f)(2) and (f)(4), § 230 defines Interactive Computer Service to be an Internet On-Ramp, which is an obsolete 1996 technology.]

  47 U.S. Code § 230 (a) FindingsThe Congress finds the following: (1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans [members of the public] represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources [creates a public forum] to our citizens [the public]. (2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops. (3) The Internet and other interactive computer services [Internet On-Ramps] offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity. [Statement of Public Forum] (4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans [the Public], with a minimum of government regulation. (5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services. (b) Policy It is the policy of the United States— (1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services [Internet On-Ramps] and other interactive media; (2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services [Internet On-Ramps], unfettered by Federal or State regulation; (3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control [not control by private hi-tech mega corporations] over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services [Internet On-Ramps]; (4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and (5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.

  Partial privatization of a public forum does not change its public forum status. A US park can contain a private restaurant, a private hotel, or a private shop and remain a public forum. The Internet has only been partially privatized, and even if it had been fully privatized, there would still be a question of purchase for value. A plurality (maybe a majority) of Internet technology within the US consists of government (or government-supported) networks, end hosts, links, servers, and other miscellaneous devices. A lot of the ISPs in the US are run by the government while the government runs or foots the bill for most of the IAPs and NSPs. If the government withdrew all of its technology and support for the Internet from the Internet, the US Internet would consist of a bunch of disconnected networks. In addition, it’s a serious issue that a social medium platform does not own the entire network infrastructure down to the Customer Premises Equipment (CPE). What right does a social medium platform have to discriminate against groups of the public in a network infrastructure that the social medium does not own? In the pre-breakup days, AT&T was always careful to own its whole network down to every piece of CPE precisely so that it did not run afoul of such an issue. Stephen T. Stone is a depraved evil hate-filled white racist/elitist dummy, who is desperate to bring back Jim Crow days. He deserves absolute scorn, hatred, and loathing from every decent human being.

• On the post: 5th Circuit Rewrites A Century Of 1st Amendment Law To Argue Internet Companies Have No Right To Moderate

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2022 @ 09:11am

  I wonder whether Anonymous Clown Drools Uncontrollably As He Types

  The clueless white racist/elitist dummy still does not get it. A social medium platform is not a store. A social medium platform provides message common carriage and violates the law when it refuses to provide message common carriage on the basis of message content.

• On the post: 5th Circuit Rewrites A Century Of 1st Amendment Law To Argue Internet Companies Have No Right To Moderate

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2022 @ 08:48am

  Everyone Overstates, and No One Really Cares About Admiralty Law

  The US tends to go along with most of the Law of the Sea. The Wiki article is correct when it states the following.

  The U.S. Congress has given courts power to formulate common law rules in areas such as admiralty law, antitrust, bankruptcy law, interstate commerce, and civil rights. Congress often lays down broad mandates with vague standards, which are then left to the courts to interpret, and these interpretations eventually give rise to complex understandings of the original intent of Congress, informed by the courts' understanding of what is just and reasonable.

  [These complex understandings form a sort of common law, but there is a reluctance due to Constitutional reasons for legal professionals to call such understandings common law.]

  Furthermore, in the 1943 case of Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States,[4] the Court recognized that federal courts could still create federal common law, albeit in limited circumstances where federal or Constitutional interests were at stake, Congress had inadequately addressed the situation sub judice, and the application of individual state laws in various jurisdictions would create unacceptable levels of diversity or uncertainty. When fashioning new federal common law, the Court may either adopt a reasonable state law, look to its own precedent, or create new law.

  The absence of federal common law is more of a wish or a goal than a fact. Congress has neglected its legislative obligation in many ways.

• On the post: 5th Circuit Rewrites A Century Of 1st Amendment Law To Argue Internet Companies Have No Right To Moderate

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2022 @ 08:34am

  The White Racist Dummy Continues to Show His Total Ignorance of Law and of Technolovgy

  It's important to show the world exactly how stupid and ignorant a white racist/elitist dummy is that supports discrimination by a social medium platform.

  No it’s not, and no amount of repetition on your part will make it so. First, the Internet is not wholly contained within the US, so the US literally doesn’t have the power to designate the entire Internet as a public forum, even if it wanted to.

  If opposing counsel made such a stupid argument, the judge would roll his eyes in disbelief -- I've seen it happen. A public park can span a plurality of countries, e.g., Peace Arch Historical State Park. The part of the park in the USA is a public forum. I discuss the history of the Internet in my filings to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and for the Supreme Court of the United States. In my petition to SCOTUS for writ of certiorari before judgment of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, I was discussing the history of the Internet from the standpoint of arguing that the Internet was a place of public accommodation for entertainment and for exhibition, but the government's Advanced Research Projects Administration told us -- I was an early developer -- that the ARPANET (later Internet) was intended to be a public forum for public discussion. Section 230, which the white racist dummy has probably never read, confirms this designation. See footnote 9 on page 22 in the Petition.

  In 1969 the ARPANET connected four independent network nodes located in the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), in the Stanford Research Institute (SRI), in the University of California-Santa Barbara (UCSB), and in the University of Utah. The ARPANET was a place of accommodation that one entered at each of these four locations. The Internet, into which the ARPANET expanded, hardly ceases to be a place [of accommodation] because it has become larger and open to the public.

  When the ARPANET/Internet was opened to the public, ARPA announced that this national network was a new (government-designated) public forum. The ignorant white racist/elitist dummy continues with his analysis, which does not reach the level of moronic.

  Second, most of the physical infrastructure of the Internet is owned by private companies. If the government withdrew from and/or shut down every part of the Internet that it did support, would the average user even notice? I doubt it.

  A plurality (maybe a majority) of Internet technology within the US consists of government (or government-supported) networks, end hosts, links, servers, and other miscellaneous devices. A lot of the ISPs in the US are run by the government while the government runs or foots the bill for most of the IAPs and NSPs. If the government withdrew all of its technology and support for the Internet from the Internet, the US Internet would consist of a bunch of disconnected networks. In addition, it's a serious issue that a social medium platform does not own the entire network infrastructure down to the Customer Premises Equipment (CPE). What right does a social medium platform have to discriminate against groups of the public in a network infrastructure that the social medium does not own? In the pre-breakup days, AT&T was always careful to own its whole network down to every piece of CPE precisely so that it did not run afoul of such an issue. Anonymous Clown is a depraved evil hate-filled white racist/elitist dummy, who is desperate to bring back Jim Crow days. He deserves absolute scorn, hatred, and loathing from every decent human being.

Next >>