ThorsProvoni 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (697)

• 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 @ 04:52am

  Putting Down a Social Medium Platform Hard and Permanently!

  Prevailing over a social medium platform and bankrupting it for

  1. its violations,
  2. its unlawful actions,
  3. its regulatory transgressions,
  4. its unconstitutional acts, and
  5. its crimes

  will provide a most interesting example of the interplay of

  1. state common, civil, and criminal law;
  2. federal statutory civil and criminal law (there is no federal common law);
  3. state and federal constitutional law; and
  4. state and federal regulatory law.

  The dumb white racists/elitists,

  1. who support discrimination by a social medium platform against non-whites, non-Europeans, Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians or against Conservatives and
  2. who are complete tech nitwits,

  provide comic relief. If I hire ClearChannel to put up billboards all over the country to tell the American public

  1. that every president from GHW Bush onward has aided, abetted, and perpetrated genocide according to 18 U.S. Code § 1091 - Genocide, and
  2. that every said president must be arrested, tried, almost certainly convicted, and sentenced to a lengthy prison term or to a quick jab in the arm,

  I am publicizing my legally correct opinion. [Although all the living ex-presidents with the possible exception of Carter are vile and disgusting, Biden is the worst, most depraved, and most evil of the bunch. He was the lead Senate sponsor of § 1091. He is a lawyer. He should understand this criminal statute, in whose enforcement the DOJ has no discretion. A president is not above the law. Harris can run the government while Biden is under arrest or on trial for a heinous capital crime (25th Amendment Section 3 or 4). Justice Thomas loathes Biden. If he were given the opportunity, Thomas would probably volunteer to give Biden the jab.] 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?

• 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 @ 01:25am

  Garbled Hyperlink

  I meant: U.S. v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 130 S. Ct. 1577, 176 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2010).

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

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2022 @ 04:14pm

  Making the First Amendment a Pretextual Legitimization for Discrimination

  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 excuse 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, 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 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.

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

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2022 @ 02:45pm

  Yes, Internet Exceptionalism Voids Practically All Antidiscrimination LAW!

  I made this point in my petition to SCOTUS for writ of certiorari before judgment of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Here's the petition: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Here's the complete document, which I filed in SCOTUS and in the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Petition for Writ of Certiorari + Appendix Look at the Questions Presented on pp 2-3.

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

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2022 @ 01:52pm

  More Properly Poetic Justice than a Humorous Event

  The rape of a pedophile in prison seems more like poetic justice.

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

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2022 @ 08:56am

  Romeo and Juliet and a Rape Joke

  Romeo and Juliet starts with a rape joke. See Romeo and Juliet, Act 1, Scene 1. This joke is not the only rape joke in this play.

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

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2022 @ 04:54am

  Read 47 U.S. Code § 230

  The US government designated the Internet a public forum long before 1996, but § 230 codifies this status. (a) Findings The Congress finds the following: (1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens. (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 offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity. (4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation. (5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services. White racists try to exclude non-whites, Muslims, Arabs, and Palestine -- my wife belongs to all four categories -- from full use of the government-supported government-designated public forum, which is the Internet. When a private actor, which operates wholly within the Internet, abridges the 1st Amendment rights of the public in this forum, the private actor is so inextricably intertwined with the government, such action constitutes unlawful, illegal, and unconstitutional state action. A social medium platform has no right to censor to exclude a member of the public from a facility of the social medium platform within the Internet -- just like Eagle Coffee Shoppe of Burton. A white racist social medium platform is toast. A plaintiff (like me) need only make the correct argument, which will resonate with SCOTUS.

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

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2022 @ 10:33pm

  Once Again Anonymous Clown Shows How His White Racism Has Murdered His Mind

  As much as a depraved perverted racist nitwit tries to argue that Twitter is a private club, membership in Twitter is a public admissions ticket like a ticket to enter a movie theater, which provides a place of public accommodation for exhibition and for entertainment. The dumb white racist continues to try to achieve greater ignorance and stupidity with each successive comment. Practically every comment this dumb white racist makes can be mapped to a dumb losing argument that a white racist made in court during the 60s or 70s.

  What is the difference between a public country club and a private country club? How you join. Both forms of club require a membership fee and dues, in exchange for privledges. A public club, a prospective member just shows up, requests an application, fills it out, pays the fees and then, voila (barring exceptional action by the clubs board to deny/expel them), they are a member, with privledges. A private club chooses who they wish to invite to join. A prospective member must establish a relationship with a member, and hope that member has the ability to get them invited to join.

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

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2022 @ 12:48pm

  Title II Protected Groups Include a Religious Group

  A person can change religion, but religious discrimination is illegal. Racist incitement against a Palestinian, an Arab, a Muslim, an Oriental, or a Black is the normal for a major social medium platform, and the white racist is hardly ever banned from the platform. I described how white racist European colonial settlers treated my mother's Jewish Berber family in stolen Palestine, and I was banned from the comments section of the Harvard Crimson. I also factually pointed out that the treatment my Mom's family was better than that of my wife's Palestinian family, whose members were expelled, raped, or murdered by the genocidal white racial supremacist European colonial settlers. I was honest. I mentioned that members of my father's family were and are leaders of the white racial supremacist European colonial settlers and since the 2nd Aliya have taken part in the planning of the genocide to which my wife's family has been subject since Dec 1947.

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

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2022 @ 12:32pm

  Twitter's Signup is a Public Admission Ticket

  The US federal courts know all about the whites-only public admission tickets that white racists created for movie theaters and intrastate rail lines. Twitter holds out to the public a forum for discussion within the state-supported and state-designated Internet public forum. Twitter's racist discrimination qualifies as Constitutionally forbidden state action because Twitter is inextricably intertwined with state and federal governments. The racist Twitter management is going to be slapped down hard as it deserves.

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

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2022 @ 11:03am

  A Stronger Argument than Oldham's Argument Against Censorship

  I knew I could start with Oldham's opinion and come up with a better argument against the white racism of discrimination by a social medium platform.

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

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2022 @ 11:01am

  The White Racism of Community Standards

  A claim of community standards was a standard excuse for not serving a Black in a restaurant or for not renting a room to a Black in a hotel. I know. I can pass, but my mom suffered that crap all the time in the 50s and 60s. A white racist of the 50s, 60s, and 70s has morphed into a 2020s white racist supporter of discrimination by a social medium platform.

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

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2022 @ 10:59am

  Sleazy White Racist Top Management

  White racist top management of a major social medium platform is just making a sleazy excuse for discrimination against non-whites, Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians.

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

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2022 @ 10:45am

  The Potential Recipient of an AT&T MANS Narrative was every telephone subscriber on the planet

  MANS means Mass Announcement Network Service. From our standpoint, at AT&T we delivered the equivalent of a cassette recording, which the destination telephone subscriber played at his own convenience. A Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, or Medium blog differs in no way legally from the AT&T MANS service. A white racist social medium platform has no First Amendment legal basis to censor the content of any user. I have to thank Chozen and all the white racist supporters of discrimination by a social medium platform for helping me to formulate this argument.

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

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2022 @ 09:07am

  A Blog = Merchandise or Property of the Blog Owner, Not Speech

  Blogger and WordPress have never considered a hosted blog to be its speech (compelled or otherwise). The blog is merchandise or property of the blog owner.

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

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2022 @ 09:05am

  Is Hosting Speech?

  AT&T never considered the hosting of such a voice narrative to be its own speech. The hosting was temporary storage of merchandise and property on its way to its destination by common carriage. I know. I helped write the tariff filings for the FCC.

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

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2022 @ 08:57am

  Yeah, Right! Transient Relationship to Voice!

  Anonymous Coward has finally completely murdered his mind with his depraved and perverted white racism. In Yiddish we assert the following. .זײַן מוח איז טאַקע אַ שטיקל פֿלײש מיט צװײ אױגן His brain really is a piece of meat with two eyes. What is this transient relationship to voice nonsense? AT&T and the RBOCs offered voice messaging answering services since the 80s.

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

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 20 Sep, 2022 @ 06:39pm

  A Civil Rights Violation May Constitute a US Federal Crime

  Just take a look at 18 U.S. Code Chapter 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS. Chozen correctly points out the legal exposure of a racist supporter of civil rights discrimination by a social medium platform.

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

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 20 Sep, 2022 @ 06:34pm

  The Depraved and Perverted White Racist Sets Up a Bogus Straw Man

  Despite the assertion below from the depraved and perverted white racist nitwit, it is easy to escape violation

  1. of the 1st Amendment (by state action),
  2. of common carriage obligation,
  3. of public accommodation law, and
  4. of civil rights law.

  A social medium platform need only organize itself as a private club and not hold its service out to the public.

  What other people consider “association” isn’t the issue; being compelled to host speech that one doesn’t want to host is the issue. By pushing for the right to free reach, you and your compatriots have essentially argued that any website hosted in the United States should be forced by law to carry any legally protected speech. The First Amendment and associated legal precedent frowns upon that idea in meatspace; I see no reason why those rules shouldn’t apply to cyberspace. The U.S. government doesn’t have the right to make Walmart carry a given book for sale⁠—for what reason should the government have the right to make Twitter carry racial slurs, homophobic propaganda, and spirited defenses of The Rise of Skywalker?

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

  

  ThorsProvoni ( profile ), 20 Sep, 2022 @ 06:21pm

  A Message Common Carrier Must Carry a Message without Regard to the Message

  This common carrier obligation was long established at the time of the framing of the US Constitution, and the First Amendment did not explicitly end this obligation. Every social medium platform is a common carrier and must carry a message without regard to the content of that message no matter how much a depraved and perverted white racist like a TechDirt supporter of discrimination by a social medium platform objects to this obligation.

Next >>