Man Who Sued Apple For Failing To Save Him From Porn Now Suing US Attorney General To Strike Down Section 230
from the [leela-voice]-ohhhh...-stupidER dept
Batshit litigant and armchair legislator Chris Sevier is back! The man who once sued Apple because he could access porn from his laptop (entendre intended) is still vexing courthouses with his attempts to sue his way back into the good graces of social media platforms after being asked to leave because [taps "batshit" in opening sentence].
The man who believes the only way through his addiction to porn is to sue or legislate it into the ground has filed a lawsuit [PDF] in a Florida federal court that's full of the insanity we've come to know and (well, probably not love) expect from a Sevier lawsuit.
It opens with this presumptuous language:
This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief that challenges the sole surviving provisions of the "Communications Decency Act of 1996", 47 U.S.C. § 230 et. seq.,1 (hereinafter referred to as "Section 230") for namely violating the Petition and Access Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as the Free Speech, Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses.
Section 230 violates the First Amendment. What an absolutely tired allegation. I mean, even the former president is making that claim, and we all know how incredibly skilled DJT was at sussing out the facts. But this allegation is different! That's the angle Sevier is taking, hoping the courts will find his assertion credible, rather than just more of the same ridiculousness.
The Plaintiffs attack this issue from a different angle than the Trump Plaintiffs. Congress, not Twitter, Facebook, or Youtube, made Section 230. If a litigant wants to have a court strike down one of Congress's laws, the proper party to sue in most cases is the chief enforcer of Congress's laws, the United States Attorney General. That is what the ACLU did in getting all of the other sections of the Communications Decency Act struck down in Reno American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997). That is what the Plaintiffs have done here.
Well, I guess Sevier should know. After all, he lists himself as a "de facto attorney general" in his lawsuit, placing his name alongside such luminaries as John Gunter (Special Forces of Liberty) and Richard Penosky (Warriors for Christ).
But let's scroll back a single page and enjoy this part of Sevier's first footnote:
Section 230 is vague and not the least restrictive means to fulfill any interests asserted by the government.
I've got some news for you, Chris. Section 230 isn't an imposition. It's an immunity. So, it's not about "fulfilling" the "interests" of the government. It's about protecting online entities from vexatious lawsuits targeting them for the speech of others. I'm no lawyer, but I assume getting everything ass-backwards in the first footnote is generally a bad idea.
As Sevier sees it, there are only two options facing the court he's chosen to sue in: strike down Section 230 of the CDA for "abridging the right to petition the government for redress of grievances" or allow Florida's new, blatantly unconstitutional anti-social media law to bypass any and all legal challenges for its First Amendment violations. Once again, IANAL but I can't tell how being unable to sue Twitter over account moderation is "petitioning the government."
While still not a lawyer, I can't help but wonder if using superheated language is the best approach when you have neither facts nor the law on your side. I know the general tactic is to "bang the table" when you lack facts/law but
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
I mean…
Social media websites injured the Plaintiffs by falsely marketing themselves as a place where the Plaintiffs were free to exchange their political and religious views. After inducing the Plaintiffs to create and invest heavily in their user profiles on social media webistes that marketed themselves as glorified digital bulletin boards that were neutral on religious and political expression, the social media websites arbitrarily shifted their standards and were no longer neutral towards religious and political speech, engaging in self-help reprisal actions. The social media websites changed the deal terms in bad faith after having reached critical mass and having successfully created a monopoly on the digital public square to the shock and awe of users like the Plaintiffs. The bad faith censorship in the wake of arbitrary shifting standards that were designed to elevate the religion of Secular Humanism over non-religion and other religions has economically and emotionally injured the Plaintiffs. Social media websites have been permitted to get away with these consumer protection violations because of a Congressional action in making Section 230.
Lot of swipes at the internet in this paragraph. Almost makes it seem as though Sevier doesn't enjoy being on it. But his lawsuit is all about being allowed to be back on it, which is some supreme sour-graping: the equivalent of "the food was terrible and such small portions."
According to Sevier (who should never be relied on for legal advice, free or otherwise), the Thing To Do would be to say the new Florida law is cool and legal and unassailable.
In determining the trajectory of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the public's interest would likely best be served if the Court goes with the second option presented.
Or, if not, there's always the compelled speech option Sevier touts in footnote 4.
In this case, the Plaintiffs seek a legal path so that social media websites that were never affiliated with a religious institution or political party from their inception will be forced to keep their promises to consumers to remain neutral on political and religious speech.
From there, the lawsuit moves on to discuss Sevier's various bootings (along with those of his co-complainants) as well as the shitload of stupid anti-Section 230/anti-First Amendment laws that have been introduced around the nation -- some of which are straight-up reposts of Sevier's bespoke legislation, the "Stop Social Media Censorship Act." That takes up about five pages and concludes with this:
The Plaintiff, along with hundreds of legislatures, have spent an enormous amount of time, money, and resources working on this issue because it is vital to the strength of our democracy and the welfare of our citizens. The Court could hold that the "cure-all" to the problems presented by this case is the state legislature must be responsive in enacting the Stop Social Media Censorship Act, if they want their constituents to be protected from the deceptive trade practices perpetrated by social media websites.
Dude, you misspelled "wasted." And I doubt Sevier is really out any real amount of money for the anti-First Amendment fanfic he banged out on his presumably non-Apple computer and thrust into the hands of idiot legislators who couldn't be bothered to run a perfunctory Google search on their interloping patron.
Since we know this lawsuit is doomed (DOOMED!), let's just do some WTF-ing at the stuff Sevier has inserted into his litigation for no discernible reason.
After engaging in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, some of the members of De Facto Attorneys General and Special Forces Of Liberty joined groups of former Special Forces and FBI to do extractions in the area of sex trafficking overseas.
I'm sorry, but what? Were they just "in the area" of sex trafficking or did they extract sex trafficked people? I mean, this sounds like they parachuted into "an area" to hang out with Gary Glitter before returning home to file baseless litigation.
"...the concerted efforts of manufacturers and retailers of Internet-enabled devices to distribute prostitution websites and pornographic websites in flagrant disregard of obscenity codes and products liability statutes."
Yes, the major tech companies are very definitely trying to flood everyone with porn and prostititution, especially now that FOSTA is in effect.
Sevier may have given up the porn, but that won't stop him from masturbating.
In 2021, Rep. Sabatini introduced the Stop Social Media Censorship Act (HB33), and subsequently, for unknown reasons, Rep. Sabatini got into some kind of squabble with Speaker Sprowls, as passions do tend to run high in the legislative branch and there are a lot of opportunities for conflict in the legislative branch. This dust-up caused the members of the Florida House to oppose Rep. Sabatini's bills simply because of "who he was" and not because of "the meritorious substance of his bills." In the wake of the Sabatini/Sprowls spat, Governor De Santis got his staff to use the Stop Social Media Censorship Act as a preliminary foundation to draft the monstrosity that became SB7072.
At the risk of sounding snarky, SB7072 - although well-intended - was distorted by ambitions and legal ignorance. Upon information and belief, personal glory might have been prioritized over substance and the rule of law. The judicial branch can help the legislative branch get things right.
To sum up, just completely fucking wrong about everything.
The Plaintiffs challenge every section and every subsection of Section 230, collectively and individually, for having been misconstrued or written to prevent citizens from acquiring relief from the government for the bad faith act of social media websites in violation of the petition and access clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Once again, getting booted from a platform is not government action. Suing social media companies isn't seeking redress for government-caused harms. If Sevier wants to sue the government over its legislation, he can do so. What he can't do is sue to stop platforms from exercising this immunity in cases where it's appropriate. And that includes this case, where Sevier wants Section 230 and the First Amendment ignored because he and his moronic co-conspirators are unhappy about being booted from social media platforms for being their unhinged, bigoted, stupid selves.
Dozens of pages follow this assertion. None of them are worth reading for anything more than comic relief. There's an inexplicable font change on page 132 of the 145-page filing -- one padded by a duplication of the original complaint. And there's reference to "amici," suggesting parties other than the plaintiffs wish to express their views on this litigation, but the "amici" appear to be nothing more than Sevier dumping in some arguments from another lawsuit where he's hoping to be allowed to file an amicus brief.
For no discernible reason, there's this:
WHAT IS THEIR INTEREST
LEGISLATION
ARGUMENT
And this (quoted verbatim):
Our rights come from God. Our rights
Just like on the dollar bill. [Patriotic music swells.]
There are other moments of pure insanity, like this suggestion that preventing people from suing social media companies over moderation decisions violates both the First Amendment and consumer protection laws.
Section 230(b)(l) asserts that "it is the policy of the United States to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media" but that policy must fail if completely blocks aggrieved parties, like the Plaintiffs and the Trump plaintiffs, from having the opportunity to petition the government for redress against social media websites that have engaged in harmful consumer protection violations in view of the FirstAmendment.
And I apologize for quoting this much of a very long footnote, but I don't even know what to make of the first paragraph's take on Section 230. And the second paragraph must be read in its entirety to truly comprehend the extent of Sevier's (and his co-plaintiffs') delusions.
The social media websites shifted their standards in bad faith and censored the Plaintiffs because their Constitutionally protected religious and political speech offended the delicate sensibilities of the employees who happened to work for the social media websites at the time. At the time of each censorship, the Plaintiffs had previously invested a ton of time and money in their user profile accounts. Every time the Plaintiffs have threatened Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube with legal action, the social media websites promise to immunize their deceptive and destructive trade practices by invoking Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This assumption based on the public record that social media websites might have total immunity under Section 230 has given rise to the Plaintiffs cause of action here in which the Constitutional or the parameters of Section 230 are in question.
The Plaintiffs collectively consists primarily of Christ-followers, who served in the United States Military in foreign theaters of war, namely on the rule oflaw mission, which is purposed to better ensure a government's compliance with their highest Constitutional authority. The Plaintiffs have continued that mission state-side in America even though they no longer officially operating under Title 10 jurisdiction on behalf of the Armed Forces. The Plaintiffs routinely file comprehensive lawsuits across the United States on different controversial and complex issues that typically concern the "culture wars" and First Amendment issues that are too "politically hot" for the government-funded Attorneys General to pursue. In bringing such lawsuits, the Plaintiffs - without apology - often end up converting Article III Courts into their own private legislative research commission. Out of the overflow of the litigation pursued by the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs subsequently draft legislation for all 50 states and for the federal government, which is then routinely introduced by a bi-partisan network of sponsors that stretches across the Country before the Article I branch. The legislation authored by the Plaintiffs that gets presented to the members of legislative branch is legally vetted ad nausem and is calculated to survive judicial review, if subsequently challenged once enacted.
Sevier will be laughed out of court again. The clerk won't be expected to transcribe the judge's LOLing. This is stupid stuff done by a stupid man who is apparently incapable of learning from his multitudinous mistakes. Twitter is not the government. THE END. Expecting the First Amendment to be abridged and Section 230 to be struck down just because no platform is willing to host your shitty content is the epitome of entitlement. No one owes you anything, Chris (and cohorts). No one owes you a platform. And, given your general output, it's completely unsurprising no one's willing to give you one.
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: 1st amendment, chris sevier, content moderation, free speech, section 230
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Disbar his attorneies
Taking advantage of a mentally ill client is never ethically okay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disbar his attorneies
He doesn't have any. He's representing himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Disbar his attorneies
"The man who defends himself in court has a fool for a lawyer and a jackass for a client."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disbar his attorneies
I doubt he would even hire one.
This is pure Soverign Citizen territory. I mean, it sure as hell reads like what a Soverign Citizen would put out. I just didn't know the Trump crowd included them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Disbar his attorneies
I mean, is it at all surprising that sovereign citizens and the like would support Trump?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'I have a RIGHT to use your property to be an asshole!'
After inducing the Plaintiffs to create and invest heavily in their user profiles on social media webistes that marketed themselves as glorified digital bulletin boards that were neutral on religious and political expression, the social media websites arbitrarily shifted their standards and were no longer neutral towards religious and political speech, engaging in self-help reprisal actions
Where have I heard that before...
What a shocking surprise, yet another lunatic trying to frame this as 'religious and political' oppression and screeching to the sky that consequences are for other people! rather than facing the fact that most people just don't want them around and the for-profit platforms moderated to keep the majority of people happy by keeping the toxic and/or deranged out.
As with others who use that grossly dishonest tactic the first and only response he should get, and one he should be forced to answer before the conversation will move on is to provide specific examples of what 'religious and political speech' he claims is being 'censored', because I have no doubt whatsoever that it would be yet more cases of assholes and/or bigots trying to escape consequences for their actions by claiming that what they said/did was 'religious/political' and therefore it would be persecution most foul to hold them accountable for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hopefully this gets him hit hard by sanctions of some kind. He may also need some serious psychiatric help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"He may also need some serious psychiatric help."
I honestly can't imagine any sane place where a village idiot would go quite that far towards harming themselves and others without social services and health care professionals becoming involved at some point.
A key warning in my mind is that this particular "religious" zealot is especially keen to assign blame unto others for his own failings. If he will blame Apple for letting him watch porn it's a very small step before blaming a woman for dressing too provocatively or "asking for it".
Add to that the usual entitled bullshit where he feels it's his God-given right to holler abusive language at other people while standing in the living room of those people...honestly, can this man even live without being an asshole? Would it actually kill him to grow the fuck up from being a man-child?
The history of Mr. Sevier indicates it's just a matter of time before he loses what's left of his marbles and walks into some "den of sin" with an AR-15.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ladies and Gentlemen, we found Florida Man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But I thought Florida Man was the governor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I thought Florida Man was orange.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That one is from New Jersey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is a hierarchy of Florida Men, of which the Governor is merely the top.
It is Florida Man all the way down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"rights come from god"? Then suing in wrong jurisdiction, take it up with heavenly courts after death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
post haste.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devils Dictionary"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One of these days I want to see a judge respond to one of these lawsuits like this...
NO!Case is dismissed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's claiming fradulent misrepresentation, not frivolous.
Section 230 is not Kryptonite against losing in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Talk about fraudulent misrepresentation: Section 230 has nothing to do with winning or losing in court.
Care to go again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nice try, John Smith.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"You can't moderate my posts or kick me off your service."
also
"You must ban all porn from the entire internet."
yet
"First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as the Free Speech, Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses." blah blah blah
Right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Free speech is for ME, not you.'
As with many of those gunning for 230 his definition of and love for 'free speech' seems to be limited to 'protecting' his speech and speech he agrees with, to the point of forcing platforms to host it whether they want to or not, while having absolutely no problem seeing content he doesn't agree with driven out entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Free speech is for ME, not you.'
He will be active in that driving out, by being as abusive as possible towards people he disagrees with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, it makes perfect consistent sense from his point of view; He's a religious fanatic and according to his beliefs there is right speak and there is blasphemy.
Most christians left that mindset in the 15th century but the various denominations of american sects and doom cults keep hanging on to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You've got to hand it to the John Smith team. On a good day they might get a few Trumpsucking politicians to toot their horn. On a typical day... they get THIS kind of walking clusterfuck for their attack dog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Technically, the correct term is ``Hungarian Group Entertainment'', sometimes abbreviated HGE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Say it with me:
"The first amendment only applies to the government".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is it that every claim/lie Koby/Chozen/Jhon spin about Section 230 ends up being found almost exclusively in crackhead lawsuits like this one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because grea-, I mean, delusional minds think alike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This would have been funnier without the correction but then I have not been brought up in the U.S.
If you are afraid of misinterpretation, you can add the equivalent of a laugh track, like "Ka-boom-tchhhhh." after a dramatic pause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's my favorite phrase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Why is it that every claim/lie Koby/Chozen/Jhon spin about Section 230 ends up being found almost exclusively in crackhead lawsuits like this one?"
Because opposition against 230 is in fundamental and obvious conflict with free speech, thus making any argument made in support of such opposition (while trying to claim a pro-free speech stance) melt in the face of logic like Giuliani in front of camera lighting?
Now if any of the aforementioned turds you mention had the spine of their spiritual predecessors in the reich, no problem. They would simply state that they're against free speech when it is practiced by non-white people and although we'd have to call them monsters we might not look at them like the contemptible clowns they currently are.
But the alt-right of today are too shit-scared of public condemnation to own up to what they really think, so any time they try to defend their actions their explanation ends up like that of a small child desperate to not cop to pissing himself while his pants loudly start dripping on the floor...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
True, until you get to a certain class of people, many of whom are correctly reviled, and are giving a bad name to the remaining 5% of the class. I refer, of course, to lawyers and attorneys. For them, S230 represents a gargantuan loss of billable hours, and therefore it must be overturned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Be Like Canada...
In Canada, anyone who loses in a civil suit typically must pay the legal bills of the other party. Needless to say, there are a lot less of the nuisance and whack-a-doodle suits like we see in the USA.
(Not to say we don't have our share of abusers of the system - for example, Conrad Black, Lord Black of Sing-Sing, former Canadian and now ex-con, was known for the Trump-like tactic of libel chill, suing even though unlikely to win because he had the cash to do so. )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Document 27 in Trump v. Facebook (1:21-cv-22440 Southern District, Florida) is a filing by Chris Sevier which appears to be a (the?) related Amici petition. It was filed on August 4.
The above complaint is from Sevier et v. Garland (1:21-cv-22577 Southern District, Florida) filed on July 20, almost 2 weeks after Trump sued each of Facebook, Twitter and You Tube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More Chris Sevier
Documents 16-17 in Trump v. Twitter, Inc (1:21-cv-22441 Southern District Florida) show Chris Sevier tried file as Amici in this case on July 16 (before Sevier et v. Garland).
But in an order (Document 20) on July 27, Judge Scola denied the petition and ordered the brief stricken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:Trump v. Twitter
In Trump v. Twitter Document 30 is a motion to allow excess pages for a pending Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. How many excess pages? It doesn't say!
I've gone through the Local Rules the best I can as a non-attorney, and think there is another reason the motion should be denied. LR 7.1(a)(3).
LR 7.1 (a)(3) seems to require a certificate of conference with opposing council except for some cases including ex parte motions. LR 5.3 (d) places certain requirements on the form of ex parte motions (title, statement as to reasons, method of filing) which don't appear.
Conference with opposing counsel? Nope. Twitter hasn't yet made an appearance, and the document coyly indicates they notified all parties who made an appearance.Would that turn this into an ex parte motion? If so, where is the proposed order apparently required by LR 7.1 (a)(2) ?
And LR 7.1 (a)(3) doesn't say to confer with all attorneys who have made an appearance but all parties.
So am I reading this right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trump v. everyone else
Very similar Motions to File Excess Pages for a forthcoming Motion for Preliminary Injunction are also filed in Trump v. YouTube Document 32 and Trump v. Facebook Document 30.
How do lawyers bill for that? Which of the three cases gets the bulk of the drafting fees and which get just 6 minutes of copy and paste?
And why do they need to bog down 3 separate judges with oversize preliminary injections?
Unlikely, as per the text of said First Amendment
Because a private company violating the First Amendment isn't a thing, and claiming that Defendant was acting in concert with the U.S. Government is a problem when the Plaintiff was the unitary executive of the U.S. Government and tried to style himself so after the term expired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trump v. everyone else
Trump v YouTube
Asked for unlimited pages, amended the motion to request 75, got 30.
Trump v Twitter
Asked for unlimited pages, denied.
Who could have predicted this?!
Trump v Facebook
Asked for unlimited pages, amended the motion to request 75, motion still pending.
But that's not how Judge Scola reads LR 7.1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not 100% copy-paste but...
Both purported amici briefs are rather idiosyncratic documents which share a lot of text.
Is it a typo in the brief or a typo in the domain registration that liberty is misspelled on the first page of both in a prominent location?
Both filings are certain that June 30 order to grant a preliminary injunction in Netchoice LLC v. Moody (4:21-cv-00220 Southern District Florida, Docket 113) somehow puts Federal law (Section 230) at risk or creates a duty for the Florida legislature to pass Sevier's preferred law. That's not how any of this works.
The Netchoice LLC v. Moody injunction preserves the status quo and is currently under appea — which has not been briefed yetl. The Florida law has not yet been invalidated by final order. It is hard for me to see that Netchoice LLC v. Moody is cause for action yet other than the clear writing of the filings and orders (and the writing on the wall).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More Chris Sevier
In Trump v. Facebook:
August 4 (Document 27) Sevier says he wants to talk about his proposed law and Section 230.
August 17 (Document 32) Judge Williams allows 30 page motion for preliminary injunction, but not 75.
August 18 (Document 33) Trump's attorneys to Chris Sevier: "No thank you."
Someone may be paraphrasing these last seven words back to them in the future ...
August 18 (Document 34) Judge Williams hand Trump (or, perhaps sanity) a win:
Meanwhile, in Trump v. YouTube an amended motion for excess pages fared no better with Judge Moore and they still have 30 pages for preliminary injunction, not 75. Is that a success of 50% (from the default limit of 20) or a failure of 60%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IANAL, nor a Constitutional scholar, but I feel reasonably comfortable saying "...no, that's what separation of powers is all about"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]