Man Sues Facebook For Moderating His Bigoted Posts, Wants Section 230 Declared Unconstitutional
from the asshole-seeks-open-platform-for-assholes dept
Eric Goldman has come across an amazing pro se lawsuit [PDF] being brought by Nicholas C. Georgalis, an aggrieved social media user who believes he's owed an open platform in perpetuity, no matter what awful things he dumps onto service providers' pages. Oh, and he wants Section 230 immunity declared unconstitutional.
Georgalis -- who sidelines as a "professional training professionals" when not filing stupid lawsuits -- is suing Facebook for periodically placing him in social media purgatory after removing posts of his. The lawsuit is heady stuff. And by "heady stuff," I mean we're going to be dealing with a lot of arguments about "sovereign rights" and "common law" and other related asshattery.
Here's the opening. And it only gets better/worse from there:
Now comes Plaintiff in suit in a court of law holding Facebook, Inc, Defendant, liable for willfully and with malice aforethought abrogating the priceless, God given, and thus inalienable right to free Speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and the inalienable right to due process as guaranteed under the First and Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution respectively…
[...]
Plaintiff has standing through Defendant's repeated, prolonged, and unconstitutional blocking, and otherwise restricting with great aplomb, Plaintiff's ability to post his public comments which include, but are not limited to political opinions, philosophical observations, cultural observations, religious and scientific observations, and ideas on Defendant's publicly offered and universally available electronic platform. Such ideas and opinions are the private property of Plaintiff and not to be taken without due process by anyone including Defendant.
This is the first time I've seen it argued that a private corporation's moderation decisions are a Fifth Amendment violation. Nonetheless, that's what we're dealing with. Georgalis has been temp-banned repeatedly and had posts removed. Well, let's take a look at the value Georgalis is adding to the Facebook platform.
[O.J.] simpson - more proof that you can take a darkie out of the jungle but you can't take the jungle out of the darkie.
[...]
The Negroid evolved from lower animals while God created the Caucasoid and the Mongoloid evolved from the the Caucasoid. This find merely proves that the modern human visited Africa after the Creation.
[...]
I agree with the fact that this proposed union will taint the blood of the Royal Family. Miscegenation of this sort is akin to bestiality and thus an affront to God and to man. It is a threat to the survival of mankind. It must not stand.
That's just a taste of the stuff that's still live. The lawsuit provides no detail on the posts Facebook has found offensive enough to remove. Georgalis is a Trump fan (he often refers to Trump as a capital-K "King") and an obvious bigot. That he receives a lot of direct moderation from Facebook isn't surprising. But Georgalis somehow believes deep in his sovereign, bigoted heart that Facebook should never take action against his account or Facebook posts.
Here's how he explains it:
Defendant has repeatedly denied and thus silenced Plaintiff ability to express his opinion on Defendant's publicly and universally available electronic forums which said opinions or comments Defendant disagrees or finds otherwise objectionable. Indeed Defendant has had the audacity to remove content posted by Plaintiff that Defendant did not like and thus erasing his written words, which are his property, from the sight and memory of man and the eyes of posterity. In so doing Defendant promotes his political, cultural, religious, philosophical, and economic opinions and ideas above all others and at the expense of Plaintiff's before the voting public…
Good lord.
Georgalis' Section 230 argument is just as bad as everything proceeding it. To sum up (because direct quoting would eat up pages of text and valuable real estate in readers' brains), Georgalis argues the immunity provided to service providers by Section 230 means they should never have to practice moderation. If they're immune from civil liability for end users' posts and actions, they shouldn't take action ever against third-party content. Georgalis targets Section 230 (2)(A) specifically -- the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts. In Georgalis' eyes, this elevates Facebook, et al into proxy censors of unpopular speech and somehow confers sovereign status to social media platforms. Georgalis' twisted legal argument comes to the conclusion that Section 230 is a violation of the "separation of powers enshrined in the enumerated powers of the US Constitution." Therefore: unconstitutional.
And then the lawsuit goes on for another dozen pages, which deploy even more ridiculous arguments in an attempt to talk the court into viewing social media companies as extensions of the government. This becomes even more cognitively dissonant when Georgalis' favored political leader and party are running the country. His "king" is somehow using Section 230 to shut down opinions the government doesn't like, even if his opinions are probably of the sort the current government does like. Go figure.
Total damages requested are $1 billion. Because you can't put a price tag on free speech. But if you do have to come up with an estimate, be insanely ridiculous about it. This damage award is buttressed by arguments that government taxation and liberal social policies have stifled the US economy so much Georgalis would be almost 80 times as wealthy as he currently is. Or something.
The punitive damages are also supported by the fact that the statist and stoic philosophy and ideology and Keynesian economics promulgated by the Defendant as earnestly implemented by the US governance, education and other institutions since 1930 has led to tremendous economic losses. Exhibit 1 presents an analysis of the extent of the damage done to the US economy by the statist and stoic ideology espoused by Defendant wherein the 2016 GDP would have been almost 80 times larger in constant dollars.
To add the final inadvertent lol to Georgalis' stupid lawsuit, he's appended a copyright notice to every page of the filing claiming no one can copy or reproduce it without his written permission. You'll note the lawsuit is linked above and embedded below. It's also quoted as extensively as I could stomach. So... ball's in your common law court, Nick.
This suit won't go anywhere and it will add to the number of times the state has beaten Georgalis at his own game. Georgalis -- after losing a defamation lawsuit where he admitted the "libelous" statements made about him were factually true -- tried to have an Ohio court rule that summary judgment rulings were unconstitutional. Check this out:
Ohio Civil Rule 56, Summary Judgment is unconstitutional because it deprives litigants, in the instant case Plaintiffs/Appellants, the constitutional right to trial by jury. Accordingly it violates Article 1.05 of the Ohio Constitution which plainly and unequivocally states that "The right of trial by jury shall be inviolate... " Ohio Civil Rule 56 endows powers upon the court that were never intended by the authors of the Ohio Constitution and the people of the State of Ohio who ratified the constitution. Summary judgment usurps the constitutional power of the jury to decide the facts in a case and instead unconstitutionally endows the judge with these powers, powers that the judge was never intended to have.
Georgalis appears to believe he's continually being deprived of due process, even when he's engaged in civil litigation. The Fifth Amendment only covers criminal cases. He also believes the state should waste more money paying jurors, judges, and lawyers to ensure every ridiculous lawsuit gets presented to a jury. I can't see how he squares this with his small government assertions. (This filing probably has more to do with him being on the hook for appellate fees from his failed defamation lawsuit than any pure notion of constitutionality.)
Then there's Georgalis' multiple battles with public entities over the release of certain information. It appears Georgalis has asked several states to hand over info on registered engineers, including their email addresses. His appeal to the state of Delaware was denied by the attorney general, who pointed out Georgalis hardly has the public interest in mind when demanding info on licensed engineers.
Here, DAPE (Delaware Association of Professional Engineers) does not dispute that the right to privacy may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure. Rather, DAPE argues that your request is a clear attempt to further your private commercial interest and in no way contributes to the public understanding of the activities of the government. DAPE notes that you are a developer and instructor of training courses, which you make available to professional engineers for a fee, and argues that you are using FOIA to obtain the email addresses of private citizens who meet the target audience of your product for sale.
This suit will be tossed and undoubtedly Georgalis will mark this up to the government protecting its own -- even if the current government is the government he desires and "its own" is a private corporation that provides a social media service it can moderate however it wants without troubling the Constitution.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cda 230, free speech, nicholas georgalis, section 230
Companies: facebook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Georgalis v. Zeno, et al.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"pro se lawsuit"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I can understand his aggrievement regarding the company's moderation policy - but he wants to remove the one thing that keeps moderation from being *mandatory*?
And come on editing software - I'm pretty sure aggrievement is a real word.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm confused
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
CDA 230 means that Facebook can moderate his comments without assuming liability.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
He wants to remove the part of sec 230 which states that voluntary moderation on the part of the provider does not make them liable for content. Removing just that part while leaving the rest intact would make the provider liable if, and only if they performed any level of moderation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sigh
quote from article "The Fifth Amendment only covers criminal cases."
Last part of 5th Amendment: nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
First clause is both civil and criminal. Second almost exclusively civil.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Sigh
When did facebook become public property? Public use here is referring to things controlled by the government, like parks and such. Not private companies. As such, it's still just covering criminal cases.
Regarding the first part, I could see where you could make the argument that it covers both criminal and civil, but context is everything and you left out the first part of that quote:
I think that pretty clearly makes it cover criminal, not civil cases.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Sigh
> government
You'd think, wouldn't you? But no, ever since Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), the government can take private property, hand it over to other private/non-public entities and call it a "public use" and that's cool under the 5th Amendment.
Quite possibly the worst Supreme Court decision in the last 20 years.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Sigh
The actions are being done by the government, not the private entities, so it still counts as criminal, not civil.
That court case and the results are not related and a whole other ball of wax.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'm confused
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Take a bow
And the Fractally Wrong Award for February goes to... Nicholas C. Georgalis!
Congrats for being wrong at every possible level, from your laughable legal arguments to your horrifically bigoted position on race! It takes real effort to be that wrong, but you can now bask in the attention you've garnered from making the contents of your terrible, terrible mind public for all to see.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lots of 'em
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
Let's not forget to mention that an apparently egregious test case like this could always be a "false flag" made up out of the blue by someone who wants precedent set exactly so that globalist mega-corporations can control speech of "natural" persons (that means YOU too): a boot stomping on your best posts forever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
This is 100% false, and you, as always, have no idea what common law is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So he wants his "proerty" rights respected by forcing them to be displayed on Facebook's "property"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&am
**I went paragraph by paragraph and got ALL in, so don't tell me there's some "filter".*
Techdirt has another length limit on. -- Except subject line is still long!
Okay, Techdirt: you wasted my time finding that out, and to what end? I still got ALL in as first written!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
If you cannot cite the case setting the precedence, you are using common law you mean what you think the law should be, which is not valid law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
Well, 'splain it me, then! I do my best, but I will learn from your expert advice, so DISH.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I'm confused
FTFY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I'm confused
Nah...everyone knows Apple is the government, Google is the Internet and Facebook is the media.
:s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
Well, who says I "can't"? Am I going to more effort for here? HA.
You claim to know, so CITE.
By the way, Washington and Jefferson didn't have precedent to cite, either, yet kicked out British serfs enforcing illegal-under-common-law commands of a KING. Try that on for how powerful common law is.
Anyway, YOU CITE NOW.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&am
Keep on being a great example of why, on most other sites, you would already have been banned.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
Exactly! ... Er, or did you mean that in some contradictory way?
You are not explaining to just me, snowflake. You now have the broadcasting power of mighty Techdirt to reach... uh, 27 Bangladeshi a day for sure, unknown beyond that.
So, anyway, DISH for benefit of the rabble... Or looks like you can't, that you were just making stuff up, as an AC.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
Lol, lol! There, twice back, and properly punctuated. TOP THAT if you can, "AC".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
I suppress things all the time on the various newsgroups, mailing lists, and web sites that I have my fingers in. Sometimes I do it because it's against announced policies. Sometimes I do it because it's so egregious that I never thought to have a policy covering it. Sometimes I do it because I feel like it.
I don't care if you like it. I don't care if the users like it. I don't care. My stuff: my rules.
Don't like my rules? Build your own.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
Show me the part of the law that says moderation must be done with “objectivity”.
…ah, never mind, you have no idea what you are talking about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted
Again, WHAT "filter"? I GOT ALL IN PIECES!
> Keep on being a great example of why, on most other sites, you would already have been banned.
What do you mean "would already have"? Techdirt HAS indeed blocked my home IP address at least THRICE, no doubt about, so I have to use The TOR Browser now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
Lunch-counter principle: every person to be served unless good reason in common law not to (that can include lack of shirt and shoes and so on, IF there's a sign stating reserve that right, but it's still common law).
Now, snowflake, suppose you walk into a business wanting, say, a gay wedding cake -- which are at least two current actual cases; are YOU ready to just shrug and walk out, or (at least support) those making a fuss about not being "accommodated"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
You made the claim that “a ‘platform’ can’t decide on its own what to suppress but must do so impartially and equally”. The burden of proof lies upon you to prove your claim, not on anyone else to disprove it. If you cannot cite anything to back up the claim you made, your claim is bullshit. Cite now or back off—make your choice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
A principle is not a law. Cite an actual law or court ruling, not some “common law” SovCit hogwash, that backs up your claim.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
Are actually part of common law.
The rest you get away with merely because users don't know their rights or don't considier it worth costs to enforce merely to prattle on some tiny little site run by an ogre who's set himself up as King.
But one of these cases almost necessarily MUST be decided along my notions, unless Supreme Court fabricates out of whole cloth the rights of corporations to control the speech of "natural" persons.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
Indeed, even this has been explained to you before.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"MY property rights are important! Yours are only important to the extent they impact mine!"
Yeah, among the other reasons that it's impossible to take him serious the fact that his position is so grossly hypocritical is definitely at the top.
Demands respect for his 'property', shows nothing but contempt for the property of others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was po
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
The principle is in whatever decision that was.
Evidently you're one of those who advocate "separate but equal", meaning schools, and are still ranting about Eisenhower sending in the National Guard to see that black children were let into same schools as whites. Not me: I support the rights of Americans of all kinds -- but those here illegally are not "Americans".
YOU are wanting case law, so YOU can cite it all you want. Again, Founding Fathers didn't have case law...
Now, think I'm done here, unless you have another howler.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for wha
Uh huh, uh huh.
I note you're up to two syllables, capitalized and punctuated that time. You're learning.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If Georgalis is talking does that mean that he's repressing my freedom of speech?
Can I get a restraining order for that?
(Also I'll leave the minor issue of how to keep him from both being silent, and thus engaging in speech, and speaking, and thus murdering other peoples silence, to the courts, they should be able to easily resolve it).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."
No, NOTHING replaces common law.
YOU are saying then that everything the Nazis did to peasants across Europe, Jews in particular as they like to point out, was LEGAL BY STATUTE and there's no objection to be made. YOU are supporting Nazi-ism, whether know it or not, by this ignorance or lying about the primacy of common law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
A principle alone is not a law. I have principles of my own, but those do not override local/state/federal law.
You made a claim that goes against well-understood federal law and legal precedent. The burden of proof for that claim falls upon you. Cite the law or court ruling that backs up your claim or your claim is bullshit.
If we were living in the time of the Founding Fathers, that might mean something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
https://xkcd.com/1357/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."
Read the entire post.
That's how it worked before 1996's CDA 230. Any moderation - say, because you wanted a family-friendly site - meant that you assumed liability.
CDA 230 means that it's safe to moderate without assuming liability.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&qu
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."
Sure wish I'd mentioned what I posted....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&qu
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
We hold these truths to be self-evident..." IS THE LAW OF AMERICA, KID.
Learn it. Live it. LOVE it.
Unless you're okay with blacks being "two-thirds" of a person and enslaved, AS WAS CORRECTED BY BLOODY WAR BETWEEN THE STATES. So, deny that racism intrinsic to your disparaging common law, Mr South-shall-rise-again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was li
WELL? Cite case law and explain: I CAN learn and IF accurate will use in future.
How am I ever to learn unless you netwits turn loose of more than a few syllables at once?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&am
Thanks! I modestly style myself an expert.
And I just "owned you", huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
And yet somehow caselaw gets made. Now he may be trying for 1st blush but they want ya calling that out right off the bat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."
Oh, right, because you're the ONLY person in the world with that name. -- As I recall, he was kicked off Twitter and is suing. Try a little tool I call "The Google".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have failed to cite any law or court ruling to back your original claim. I therefore deem your claim to be bullshit. Game over.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."
Read MY entire answer to that:
"the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
Techdirt always forgets that KEY part, that a "platform" can't decide on its own what to suppress but must do so impartially and equally by common law, yes. It's a hurdle for Facebook.
I think the plaintiff will be able to establish that Facebook is deliberately targeting speech which no matter how much you or I dislike it, is still okay in common law.
In any event: Facebook is not the arbiter of what's acceptable: only a jury of our peers is, so even with a modicum of "good faith", this is fine to try the case. YOU may be surprised to find what The Law actually is!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
No.
I believe you are citing the break up note. And that isn't law. I believe between the break up note and the present Constitution there were 2 sets of law in force that have been scrapped. Certainly one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&qu
Common law evolves. New laws are made all the time. Old laws get updated or replaced all the time.
And it branches off and evolves differently in different jurisdictions. There are significant differences between the laws of US states. There are significant differences between common law in Britain, Canada and the US even though they were once the same.
As for the rest, grow up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&qu
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I'm confused
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I note you don't deny the views I impute to you on black persons, though.
Anyhoo: Great! We agree that you won. -- Now, don't ruin it by going on!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
YOU BELIEVE? Not familiar with our founding documents like Declaration Of Independence, eh?
I assure you, then, now that you've stated inability to refute, that IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.
In any case, it concisely states common law, there's NO separation with ANY common law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it wa
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
Sheesh. That is law which any court in the US of A is bound to recognize, even if you ACs don't.
YOU having hit a low by mangling OUR founding documents, I know enough to stop arguing.
Enjoy your corporatized serfdom, then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&qu
Your legal fallacies are now drifting into logical fallacies.
Something being legal in 1935 does not, in and of itself, mean it is legal in 2017. Meth was perfectly legal in 1935. Meth is clearly not legal now. Gay marriage was illegal in 1935. Gay marriage is clearly not illegal now.
Stating that an act was perfectly legal in 1935 does not, in and of itself, mean that the person stating that fact supports that act. Segregation was perfectly legal in 1935. That doesn't mean that I support it, or think it should be legal again.
And it is a sad display of logical deficiency to claim that by stating "a court ruling over 20 years ago relied on laws that are no longer in effect due to newer legislation", someone is supporting the mass murder of millions of people. I don't even know if there are names for all the fallacies required to make that connection.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."
Maybe you would be surprised to find what The Law actully is?
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
That’s your best one liner yet blue balls. Look at this thread alone. You have at least four different arguements you are losing right now. Arguements you lost yesterday, and the day before that, ad nausium.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&am
Errr, that CAN be a hill to try and die on. But in the 1920's in an attempt to obtain legal uniformity the move was away from common law to statutes.
Good luck in getting a modern court to decide that clearly written statutes (and caselaw) beat common law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."
It's like you hear/read something and then start repeating it with no comprehension whatsoever. Like a parrot taught to repeat "common law!" over and over.
:D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted.&am
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."
Apparently that would be me. Those were my words, and he's citing me.
Seems I'm somehow also the citation for his "The Roger Strong case" and "Pepper and Spice case" above.
It's nice to feel needed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
I could see where the Declaration could be used to help interpret the intent behind the Constitution, but it can't be used to enforce law as it contains none and is not recognized as a law in the USA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
You know, if I did such an unspeakably horrible job at what I do, then they would have long since all banded together, set up their own, and abandoned my operation. It's not hard -- well, it would be hard for YOU, but for people who understand the Internet and have at least middling technical competence, its not hard.
That hasn't happened. Ever. And there's no sign of it happening now.
That's because in addition to being autocratic and ruthless, I'm also very VERY good at what I do. Apparently the users value my high level of competence over the chaos that would result if I sat on my hands and did nothing.
By the way, I'm not a king, I'm a dictator. Please make a note of this for future reference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh
Rather, and to simplify quite a lot, it depends on whether a person commits a criminal offense against the government (not that the government has to be the victim, but just that’s how it’s treated), as opposed to whether one person is harmed by another and personally seeks redress of their injury.
When the government takes your land through eminent domain, it’s not because you’ve committed a crime. It’s because it needs it for at least some notionally public purpose. It brings the suit, since it needs the court to order that the condemnation occurs, but the role of the private defendant is unusual in that he or she isn’t arguing that they didn’t do anything writing, but just that they haven’t been paid enough or that the taking doesn’t fall within the scope of what ought to be allowed.
There’s all manner of tell-tales, including that it all goes through civil courts, not criminal ones.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
The statute is 47 USC 230. (Note that because there is a statute, it overrides common law, which only exists in the absence of legislation; were this not the case, the judiciary would be superior to the legislature, rather than equal.)
The relevant bits read:
(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
...
(e) Effect on other laws
(3) State law
... No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
Thus it does not need to be impartial or equal. All that’s required is that the action be an attempt made in good faith (that is, the attempt need not succeed and may have unanticipated side effects) to remove anything the user or provider deems — ie a subjective standard — objectionable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
Yes they did. They had loads of it. For example, one case that any lawyer among the founding fathers would’ve known was the Duke of Norfolk’s Case, which established the Rule Against Perpetuities. For this reason, the case is sill taught to first year law students today in property law classes. A classic if much hated — because the rule is a bit tricky to apply — example of common law jurisprudence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Of course, the censoring, I mean "hiding" of my comments above does not at all support the plaintiff!
Again, sites get away with it only because it's not worth suing them over, NOT because they've any "Right" to control the speech of we "natural" persons.
But even little Techdirt might get into a case that sets precedent: I've set it up, patiently complaining without being answered by the site -- except that once, when Masnick slipped and admitted that Geigner wasn't acting on "his own behalf". That's why Masnick never states anything: any facts he admits favor the dissent.
[In fine point, Techdirt / Masnick DODGE responsibility for the censoring, claiming there's NO "Moderator" here, though silent on whether an administrator approves the "hiding". -- It's same thing, legally, Masnick. You should stop being such a chicken, and you could IF WERE JUSTIFIED AND SUPPORTED IN LAW AS CLAIMED.]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So when can Facebook change / remove an account? Here's the answer:
"McArthur, who is charged with five counts of murder and is alleged to have hidden some victims' remains in planters around Toronto, served as Santa Claus at Agincourt Mall in the Scarborough neighborhood of the city."
http://ktla.com/2018/02/12/toronto-serial-killer-suspect-had-served-as-a-mall-santa-clau s/
Murder is sufficient level of offense required for cause under common law: "The suspect's Facebook account was deactivated shortly thereafter."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm confused
I think he thinks Facebook is the Deep State.
FTFTFY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
And platforms reserve the right to moderate speech.
Also:
you can be thrown out from the lunch-counter if you speech is annoying other customers there, or the staff for that matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm confused
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So when can Facebook change / remove an account? Here's the answer:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MAKe your own site..
Show him how to create his own site...
He can post anything he wishes and we dont have to pay attention..
OR, he can DEAL lwith those that would contend with him and SCREAM BACK at him,,, and watch him EDIT IT ALL..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who hated the process of due
Each film that he'd paid
Was DMCAed
And shoved up his ass with a screw
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Of course, the censoring, I mean "hiding" of my comments above does not at all support the plaintiff!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One question.
Were you an intern at Prenda Law?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: One question.
sigh. I was just playing a modified version of the game in the mouse over text here: https://www.xkcd.com/301/ Silly me, I should have read the hint.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Of course, the censoring, I mean "hiding" of my comments above does not at all support the plaintiff!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Guilty pleasures
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Guilty pleasures
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "the part that states ISPs will not be held liable for voluntary moderation efforts." -- includes a requirement of "in good faith".
He is, but obviously you are not.
Uh, no. The Constitution is the law of the land. As he said, the Declaration was just the break up note. A 'declaration' of intent if you will.
It states nothing of the sort.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Guilty pleasures
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How's that saying go?
'It is difficult to get a man/woman to understand something, when admitting that they have been shown to be wrong so many times that you'd need a mathematician to count it out would undermine, if ever so slightly, their ability to rant incoherently on the subject.'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted
I'd say there are 2 different words because they are 2 different things.
If the argument is 'nothing replaces the common law' and there is no caselaw then statute has replaced the common law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Guilty pleasures
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was po
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Guilty pleasures
Is he an idiot of some type of genius to keep getting so many responses over and over.
Indeed, and they're the same damn ones!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted."
Can we explore how to also get him to skip all the other days?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trump a King?
...and he apparently likes Trump, who is (as far as anyone can tell) white...
...but he calls Trump a King?
Doesn't he realize that the King family is clearly black?
I wonder if the MLK estate could find something to sue over in that...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'm confused
The identity of the entity violating the principle doesn't alter the principle. It also doesn't matter what part of the network stack you're talking about.
The people that wrote our Bill of Rights equally despised the British East India Company.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I'm confused
If there's a whole "contingent" of people saying that, I'm sure you can produce some examples.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Say, if Facebook is a sovereign state like he claims, would it be protected by sovereign immunity anyway? This goes beyond fractal wrongness; it’s also fractally contradictory.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
In 1943, a Jehovah's Witness, was arrested for distributing Watchtower magazines in a private company town, built and owned by Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the company town could not exclude 1st Amendment-protected religious expression.
In 1968, the Supreme Court held in Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza that union members had a right to picket a non-union store where the shoppers picked up groceries, even though the store was private property.
In 1979, the California Supreme Court held in Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center that high school students had a constitutional right to collect petition signatures at a privately-owned mall. The mall's owner appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and argued that the ruling was essentially to a governmental "taking" of private land under the 5th Amendment. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held unanimously that states could use their state constitutions to provide free-speech rights on private property if they chose to do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Missed His Calling
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just today this is up: "In 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy went the other way. Prodigy moderated its forums, wanting a family-friendly environment. And so the court ruled that it was liable for what was posted
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Renaissance Idiot
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Author of this article is an ignorant dolt
The author of this article criticizing and mocking my law suit has no clue about what he is talking about. His blind prejudices get in the way of his reason and of the truth. My law suit argues in essence that the USC 230 is unconstitutional because it is self contradictory. It allows Facebook to act as a platform and as a publisher at the some time. As a platform it is not liable for content but as a publisher it is. Facebook cannot be and not be at the same time. There in is the unconstitutionality. It also argues that Facebook is a public utility because it utilizes facilities, i.e. communication facilities that are placed under laws of eminent domain. And it is regulated under USC 230. As such it must serve the public and just like the phone company it cannot censor communications as it is doing. So the author of this article misrepresents my case to stroke his own little ego.
[ link to this | view in thread ]