Proper anti-SLAPP laws are as close as you currently get to that.
Actual "cost-free" would require access to Justice in general to be free/subsidized in a way that actual merit (and not level of funding) will allow anyone to win without wasting his time.
And that should be true for both plaintiff and defendant alike: you shouldn't need unlimited funding to win (and survive) a case that someone brought against you without merit; but you should also be able to sue anyone with merit even if you're way poorer than the one who did you wrong. (eg. companies or government branches)
The current system is only fair (then again, only to an extent) when plaintiff and defendant are on roughly equal financial grounds. In any other cases, some measure of extra force is needed to level the scales. (For example, making your case famous and sympathetic to the masses.)
So, spend years learning that vigilantism and personal revenge is bad. Trust the justice system. Then, learn that all the moral lessons you've learned about real life don't apply on the Internet, because... reasons?
Given PayPal's reaction here, you just need to act yourself: send one dollar to each senator and MP you know. That will flag both your and their accounts, so they can't receive any new contribution. (Use burner accounts yourself.)
The political reaction will surely be pretty quick.
The reason people call you troll is because you come back everytime with the same flawed logic and downright fallacies that were pointed out over and over again. And each time it's denounced, your reaction is to repeat your flawed arguments, as if repetition would turn them valid somehow, or obnoxiously tell others that they are wrong because you're so "obviously" right.
Most of us here enjoy proper debate. At least when it's based on logic and proof, not on faith.
Ah! I forgot that one, also a very common strawman you fail to get right.
Nobody here said that all regulations are good. TD is a site where bad laws are criticized and guys laws are praised, everyday, all year long, regardless of which party pushed it forward.
In the end, nobody said getting it right is easy. There is a balance to reach and there is much resistance.
You're acting pretty much like Trump is: pretending there is an easy way to complex problems, and people other than you - enlightened one - are just blind to the truth. I'm not sure if that's what you truly believe (learn more) or a role your playing (stop trolling), but you really look obnoxious in both cases.
And you, sir, sure are delusional. You quote big historical figures, but don't seem to learn from history.
First, you (and maybe a few others, hard to say with you AC bunch) often argue in favor of absolute free market. When pointing out that a true "free market" always tends towards monopoly (or at best oligopoly) you fall on the sophism of "no true Scotsman": we just need antitrust rules. There goes your "absolute free market".
Next is the simple fact that you basically argue for anarchy, but deny it when confronted. You pretend to be in favor of democracy or capitalism in their purest form, but fail to admit that none of these systems is as absolute as you pretend they are, or that such "pure" systems are not realistic. Reality needs balance and compromise because of human nature. A chaotic mix of greed, altruism, apathy, fanatism (not just the religious kind) and much, much more.
(I'll pass on pointing out the number of strawman arguments and other sophistry you use abundantly.)
I do like contradicting viewpoints when properly argued. Just don't barge in the conversation with misplaced quotes and bad logic and expect to be taken seriously.
Someone here should read the whole article. It starts with publicly available information. In theory, it should stop there until an actual investigation is opened. In practice, it goes way beyond just public information.
The problem is somewhere else. By unlocking the phone, you unlock it's content. As long as it's encrypted, the police doesn't know what's in there. Therefore, unlocking is providing the data. So the "testimony" you're offering is not that you can unlock the phone, but the content itself.
You don't need GPS to late someone's mobile phone to an already accurate degree. Cell towers can estimate the distance to the phone, then you can triangulate actual position from three towers or more. Not quite as accurate as GPS, but good enough for most needs. That's why the only way not to be located is to completely turn it off.
Seeing Trump's definition of a "blind trust", I think it's obvious he has trouble with the English language. Case in point here: "draining the swamp".
Hint: this is not done by adding alligators and industrial waste in the water.
I don't think even Verizon, Comcast et al even try to explain that "net neutrality" is promoting your own content over others. They're just trying to say either that doing so isn't a violation of net neutrality, or that net neutrality is just an absolutist way of thinking and that we shouldn't pay that concept any attention.
However, there are different definition circulating amongst politicians.
A strawman version is that "net neutrality" means that everyone must have the exact same access to Internet, forbidding price differentiation based on bandwidth or quality.
Another is that anyone must be allowed to do anything, like a "free speech" law on steroids, preventing enforcement of real-life laws.
Finally, the most crazy one I've heard is that net neutrality is giving edge providers free access to internet and customers. (That's purposefully ignoring that those services pay for their own infrastructure, including access to Internet, but no sophistry is below them.)
Of course, given those kind of definition, most people will disagree with net neutrality or, at the very least, agree that it's too extreme. The fact that nobody actually advocating for net neutrality ever asked for anything close to those is what makes them "strawman" definitions.