יונתן פֿאליק , عطا الله عفلق 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (112) comment rss

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

    יונתן פֿאליק , عطا الله عفلق ( profile ), 07 Oct, 2022 @ 01:58am

    Nash has joined the really stupid club!

    Nasch is a clueless user-loser that does not understand Internet technology. The social medium platform is at both ends of the transfer because the social medium platform supplies the single-page application or mobile app that runs on the user computer device. It is not necessary for the responsible common carrier to be at both the origination point and also the destination point. Common carriage law is so simple that I must believe either a Tech Dirt user-loser white racist-elitist, who supports discrimination by a social medium platform, either is too stupid for words or is feigning not to understand. In the old pre-AT&T breakup days, I received local (but end-to-end) common carriage service (regulated by my state Massachusetts with state common-law common carriage law) to call a telephone subscriber in California from a local RBOC (a Regional Bell Operating Company). The RBOC handed the call off to the AT&T network

    1. which was regulated by federal statutory interstate telecommunications common carriage law and
    2. which used the remote California RBOC, which was regulated by California state common-law common carriage law and public utility law.
    My common carrier was the Massachusetts RBOC,
    1. which I paid for the end-to-end common carriage and
    2. which was completely responsible for the call from my perspective.
    AT&T was common carrier to my local RBOC, and the remote California RBOC was common carrier to AT&T. The Massachusetts common carrier paid AT&T, which paid the California RBOC. Massachusetts General Law c. 159 s. 1 captures these relationships. AT&T and the California RBOC were paid under B-B settlements according to FCC and state regulated tariffing.
    MGL c. 159 (COMMON CARRIERS) s. 1 Every common carrier of merchandise or other property shall receive, transport and forward all property offered for such purposes by other such carriers as promptly, faithfully and impartially, at as low rates of charge, and in a manner and on terms and conditions as favorable to the carrier offering such property, as he on the same day and at the same place receives, forwards and transports, in the ordinary course of business, property of a like description offered by persons other than such carriers. Such carrier shall not discriminate against any particular person or subject him to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. The supreme judicial or superior court shall have jurisdiction in equity to enforce this section.
    I wrote the doubled quoted passage below -- I understand common carriage. Nash, who does not have the brains to understand common carriage, wrote the last quoted passage.
    A social medium platform transfers a message from its backend database server, which holds the message in bailment, by means of message common carriage of digital personal literary property to a user computing device
    Stupid idiot Nasch wrote.
    It transfers packets to its outgoing ISP, and has nothing to do with it from there on. The ISP is the carrier, not the social media platform.
    The ISP is a secondary common carrier, which performs common carriage for the primary common carrier (the social medium platform), which by law performs end-to-end common carriage for the end user, who is the social medium user. Nasch is beyond ignorance and cluelessness.

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

    יונתן פֿאליק , عطا الله عفلق ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2022 @ 06:12pm

    Anonymous Clown like all Techdirt's White Racist/Elitist Supporters of Discrimination by a Social Medium Platform Continues to Show Complete Blithering Legal Ignorance

    I own the property on which the sidewalk outside my house is found. Yet, I cannot tell any member of the public he cannot use it.

    The “right to refuse service” isn’t a constitutional argument, as far as I’m aware. It is an argument based in the concept of private ownership; that is, “You do not have the “right” to be on and/or use my property without my permission.”

  • On the post: Supreme Court Takes Section 230 Cases… Just Not The Ones We Were Expecting

    יונתן פֿאליק , عطا الله عفلق ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2022 @ 07:27am

    Masnick Does Not Understand the Legal Question with Respect to Material Support

    Material support is neither speaking nor publishing. For this reason the common carriage defense is the strongest defense.

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

    יונתן פֿאליק , عطا الله عفلق ( profile ), 05 Oct, 2022 @ 09:07am

    A Social Medium Platform Does Not Display Anything

    A social medium platform transfers a message from its backend database server, which holds the message in bailment, by means of message common carriage of digital personal literary property to a user computing device, which displays the message on the display of the user's computing device. A social medium platform, which is without doubt a message common carrier of digital person literary property, may not deny common carriage to any user.

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

    יונתן פֿאליק , عطا الله عفلق ( profile ), 04 Oct, 2022 @ 09:12am

    Hosting has no legal meaning

    In the context of an obvious common carrier like AT&T, Blogger, Wordpress, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Amazon Whole Foods, A Medium Corp, The Harvard Crimson, The Stanford Daily, etc., the operative legal term is bailment. Because a meathead white racist/elitist genocide-supporting dummy is probably incapable of doing a simple online search, I provide a link: bailment.

    A 'bailment' is defined as a non-ownership transfer of possession. Under English common law, the right to possess a thing is separate and distinct from owning the thing. Interestingly, as a result of this distinction, in some jurisdictions, an owner of an object can steal their own property. In context, an owner who lends someone else an article, then secretly takes it back, can be stealing. When a bailment is created, the article is said to have been 'bailed'. One who delivers the article is the bailor. One who receives a 'bailed' article is the bailee.
    See e.g., Mack v. Davidson 391 N.Y.S.2d 497 (1977). I know it is completely unfair both to an imbecile like Stephen T. Stone and also to a brainless anomaly like Anonymous Clown that after 40+ years of dealing with common carriage issues, I know and understand the basic concepts and terminology of common carriage law. A common carrier has no First Amendment right or any other right
    1. to deny a customer common carriage or
    2. to discriminate against him.
    Common carriage law is the oldest anti-discrimination law on the books. Common carriage law is the root of all anti-discrimination law that comes afterward. When an ignorant clown denies that a social medium platform is a message common carrier of digital personal literary property and claims that the social medium platform has the right to discriminate, he proves himself to be among the lowest and most disgusting vermin on the planet.

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

    יונתן פֿאליק , عطا الله عفلق ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2022 @ 11:20pm

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

    Because the poison of perverted genocidal belief murders the mind, Stephen T. Stone can no longer be considered a sapient being. Netchoice, L.L.C. v. Paxton, No. 21-51178 (5th Cir. 2022), September 16, 2022, is a binding legal precedent on the Fifth Circuit.

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

    יונתן פֿאליק , عطا الله عفلق ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2022 @ 01:02pm

    Ancestral Homeland of Christians

    The following contains a typo.

    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.
    I meant the following.
    It is as silly to call Palestine the ancestral homeland of Jews as it is to call Palestine the ancestral homeland of Christians because Jesus lived there.
    Of course, Palestine is the ancestral homeland of Palestinian Christians and Palestinian Muslims. Unlike modern Jews, who have no Judean ancestry whatsoever, Palestinians descend from the ancient peoples of Greco-Roman Palestine including Judeans, Samarians, and Galileans (like Jesus). There was no Roman Expulsion!!! The Roman Expulsion is a metaphor, myth, or fairy tale that describes the transformation of Judaism from the religion of Judea into a religion that only the descendants of non-Judean converts to Judaism practice. [Rabbinic Judaism is, in fact, a Mesopotamian religion,
    1. which is completely distinct from Biblical Judaism and
    2. which has little connection to Palestine.
    The holy scripture of Rabbinic Judaism is the Babylonian (i.e., Mesopotamian) Talmud. The Hebrew Bible is merely the backstory to the Babylonian Talmud just as the Old Testament is merely the backstory of the New Testament, which is the holy scripture of Christianity. To be honest, the Old Testament is much more important to Christianity than the Hebrew Bible is to Rabbinic Judaism.] It is important to reiterate the following. Every 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 supporter of racial supremacist settler colonialism in stolen Palestine.

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

    יונתן פֿאליק , عطا الله عفلق ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2022 @ 08:55am

    I Wield the Truth Like a Sword

    [So does my wife, but she is much more kind-hearted than I am. She cringes when I assert that I would volunteer to give the jab to a Zio relative, who was sentenced to death for his genocidal crime.] Nazi, Zio, or Confederate are all the same to me. Because a depraved and evil Zio like Stephen T. Stone fears the truth and the law, he supports abridgment of speech by a social medium platform, which as a message common carrier has no first amendment right to refuse common carriage of digital personal literary property. The Zio leadership has realized since Dec 1946 that open discussion of Zio crime would inevitably lead to the arrest and trial of every Zio for the international capital crime of genocide. In the US federal criminal code, genocide is explicitly defined to be a form of terrorism. Material support of either Zio ideology or of the State of Israel constitutes material support to terrorists. Every Zio under US jurisdiction must be arrested

    1. to be tried for genocide or material support to terrorists,
    2. almost certainly to be convicted,
    3. to be sentenced either to a long prison term or to a quick jab in the arm.
    All assets of every Zio individual or organization must be seized. Every Zio under US jurisdiction must die penniless and impoverished. Every Zio works for hegemonic control of American public discourse in order to prevent the operation of US law. There is no discretion in the enforcement of US criminal law. Selective prosecution or selective enforcement of law tears the heart out of the US legal and political system.

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

    יונתן פֿאליק , عطا الله عفلق ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2022 @ 07:49am

    Depraved Zio Scum Finds Genocide Committed by Zios to be Funny!

    It's hard to be more vile and disgusting than a depraved and evil Zio. From Anonymous Genocide-Supporting Clown:

    lmao what
    Was it funny when my wife's relatives were raped and murdered by white racial supremacist Zio colonial settlers from Dec 1947 through 1949? From Dec 1946 through Dec 1947, some of my relatives did the most important logistics planning for the starting phase of the genocide that has never ended. Unlike either a depraved Zio genocide-supporter or a Tech Dirt supporter of discrimination by a social medium platform, I am not ethically challenged. I know evil when I see it!

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

    יונתן פֿאליק , عطا الله عفلق ( profile ), 29 Sep, 2022 @ 03:08pm

    The Zio/Israel Lobby -- the Greatest Threat to Free Speech Worldwide

    A white racist/elitist dummy, who supports discrimination by a social medium platform, never addresses the most serious threat to freedom of speech: The Zio/Israel Lobby -- Arizona lawmakers melt down over movie screening.

  • On the post: Florida Officially Asks Supreme Court To Review Its Social Media Content Moderation Law

    יונתן פֿאליק , عطا الله عفلق ( profile ), 28 Sep, 2022 @ 10:26pm

    A depraved white racist/elitist continues to babble incoherently and stupidly!

    I guess the ignorant vile racist/elitist and moron never heard of mass mailing common carriage or of a mass announcement common carriage. A common carrier has no First Amendment right to deny common carriage, but the nitwit does not permit reality to interfere with his perverted worldview. Hosting in the Internet context means temporary storage in a backend database server. Hosting is completely unrelated to speech. Hosting is like the temporary storage of mail in a postal satchel at a post office facility. It is hard to be more brain-dead than a white racist/elitist supporter of discrimination by a social medium platform. 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. 1684);

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

    יונתן פֿאליק , عطا الله عفلق ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2022 @ 05:59am

    The Comment Jester Continues His Continuous Distribution of Nonsense by Message Common Carriage

    It is amusing to a legal professional when a legal nitwit uses a legal phrase with no comprehension of the meaning. Malicious intent refers to the intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another. It is the intent to harm or do some evil purpose. Suing a racist/elitist social medium platform for clear violation of federal and state law is hardly a wrongful act. Such a lawsuit is an effort to support the law. I have more than just cause to hate, to despise, and to loathe such a depraved and evil social medium platform. Every one should, and only a despicable apologist for racism and for discrimination does not. In the case of Anonymous Clown, complete technological ignorance and idiocy plays an important role in his support of obvious racism and of obvious discrimination.

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

    יונתן פֿאליק , عطا الله عفلق ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2022 @ 03:57am

    Why Are Common Carriage Experts Outraged by Behavior of a Social Medium Platform?

    A social medium platform provides a slightly fancier interface to a technology that differs little from telegraphy or from telex. Suddenly a bunch of depraved white racist/elitist dummies (e.g., the TechDirt nitwits and moronic management) believe the social medium platform no longer has to obey the law.

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

    יונתן פֿאליק , عطا الله عفلق ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2022 @ 12:21pm

    TechDirt's Commenting System is Not Flexible Enough to Explain How to Parse the Statutory Definition of an ICS

    To understand ICS, we have to perform Markman Hearing-style analysis.

    1. First one must analyse the definition of an Access Software Provider: So What was a 1996 § 230 Access Software Provider?
    2. Then one analyzes the usage within the US Code: What is an Interactive Computer Service?.
    3. Then one applies careful transformational grammar analysis to put the definition in a more comprehensible form: What Is an Interactive Computer Service by Careful Grammatical and Syntactic Analysis? .
    An ICS is a 1996 Internet On-Ramp. A 2022 social medium platform does not meet the definition of an ICS. 47 U.S. Code § 230 does not apply to a 2022 social medium platform, but arguendo I am will to pretend that § 230 does apply to a 2022 social medium platform. I never lose in a Markman Hearing. Eric Goldman is a copyright lawyer. A Markman Hearing is an element of patent law. Goldman has no knowledge of technology law, which is associated with Title 35 (patents) or with Title 47 (telecommunications).

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

    יונתן פֿאליק , عطا الله عفلق ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2022 @ 11:53am

    Where's the Beef (the Notice Board), Dummy?

    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 and message common carriage among users. Twitter temporarily stores a message in a backend database system while the message is on the way to an end user by message common carriage. The white racist dummy is confused by the frontend model (a pure concept or abstract idea) that makes it easier for an end user to interact with Twitter's system. In other words,

    1. Twitter's system has no similarity whatsoever to the material notice board and
    2. the white racist dummy has no comprehension of Internet technology whatsoever.
    Duh!

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

    יונתן פֿאליק , عطا الله عفلق ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2022 @ 11:41am

    No Purely Internet-Based Social Medium Platform Seems to Exist before 2003

    AOL like Prodigy or Compuserve was an Internet On-Ramp (Interactive Computer Service or ICS) and represented a different sort of technology. Social medium platform technology has only existed for 19 years, and a question, which specifically relates to this technology is only just now getting to SCOTUS. There are at least 3 lawsuits, which beside mine address the common carrier status of a social medium platform. At present, there is no binding precedent that asserts a social medium platform isn't a common carrier. All the parties to these 4 lawsuits will have their day in Court. Because Martillo v. Twitter is a Title II Civil Rights Act case, it goes to SCOTUS by right of appeal and not by discretionary grant of cert, SCOTUS will answer the question of common carriage status within the next 2 to 3 years

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

    יונתן פֿאליק , عطا الله عفلق ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2022 @ 10:53am

    Another white racist dummy and nitwit chimes in!

    How am I planning to defraud a court with scienter?

    Before Thors [Provoni], only Jhon Smith was stupid enough to openly admit his plans to knowingly defraud courts for money.
    The nitwit should tell me my plan. He will provide comic relief.

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

    יונתן פֿאליק , عطا الله عفلق ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2022 @ 10:48am

    The White Racist Dummy Continues to Babble Incoherently

    Nothing is truly binding until SCOTUS says it is, and even then it is only binding until a later SCOTUS says it's not. That said, here are two authorities:

    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.
    McMahon told me I was obviously correct, but he also observed that an appellate Court does not like to create a circuit split. He believed
    1. that first one or two Courts would state that Twitter and other social medium platforms obviously perform common carriage and
    2. that within 4 to 6 months there would be a flood of Courts of Appeals that would agree.

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

    יונתן פֿאליק , عطا الله عفلق ( profile ), 24 Sep, 2022 @ 11:50pm

    Constitutional Law Includes Common Law Long Established and Not Overruled by the Constitution

    State law is as important a component of the US legal system as federal law is. Yet states' rights ideology is an intrinsic component of US white racism.

    One big aspect we see with this court, currently, is a strong support for the constitution. To be clear I strongly and deeply believe in states’s rights because that level of separation continues down to my own property. Anything (including rights) not set forth in the constitution and not set by law is open to lower regulation and/or interpretation. Right to free speech is codified. Clearly. Forced speech is a violation of free expression because it places a requirement to self-express contrary to intent of will.
    Hosting is not forced speech but is merely temporary storage of product or of merchandise on the way to its final destination by message common carriage of personal digital literary (or multimedia) property. Only a depraved white racist/elitist dummy calls such temporary storage hosting in order to create a pretextual legitimization for violation
    1. of common law,
    2. of statutory civil and criminal law, and
    3. of Constitutional law.
    Not only do I want these state laws before this very court; as I said I’m begging for another Zicari (Black)/XMedia type case to end up there.
    Please provide a correct legal citation of a case. My memory is better than most legal data search systems, but citation of a case by the relatively common last name of a person in "privity" with a defendant is not sufficienty meaningful to me. I believe U.S. v. Extreme Associates, Inc., 431 F.3d 150 (3d Cir. 2005).
    I have nearly no concern these cases would would be judged under the constitution and put an end to both compelled speech AND compelled censorship.
    [U.S. v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 130 S. Ct. 1577, 176 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2010)](U.S. v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 130 S. Ct. 1577, 176 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2010)) describes exceptions to First Amendment protection and rights that Section 230 cannot override. If one believes that a 2022 social medium platform qualifies to be a 1996 ICS, Section 230 asserts that a 2022 social medium platform cannot be charged with publisher libel for 3rd party content. Yet every major social medium platform can and should be charged with massive group distributor libel due to racist moderation of content and unlawful or illegal removal of a user.

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

    יונתן פֿאליק , عطا الله عفلق ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2022 @ 11:13pm

    What a Dummy!

    I wrote the following.

    As Oldham correctly pointed out, there is nothing new about the Internet.
    Dumb white racist responded.
    I mean, there is, but the point is moot because I’m not relying on a distinction between physical and digital.
    Unless one believes the Internet operates by magic as a dumb white racist, who supports abridgment of speech of non-whites, non-Europeans, Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians, seems to believe, everything is physical (i.e, obeys the laws of physics). Telegraph transmission has been a well-understood form of digital transmission since the 1840s. The mind of anyone, who has half a brain, is boggled by the stupidity and ignorance of this dumb white racist.

Next >>