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?
www.specialforcesoflibety.com
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).
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.
... the proposed amicus brief does little to help the Court determine issues raised in this action. For example, although the motion represents that the amici will aid the Court in determining whether the Plaintiffs’ have standing to bring this action (ECF No. 16 at 1), the proposed amicus brief is silent as to that point. Further, the proposed amicus brief is silent as to the constitutionality of Section 230, going as far as calling it “generally good law.” (ECF No. 17 at 6.) The brief is exclusively dedicated to advocating for the passage of the Stop Social Media Censorship Act, a proposed bill in Florida. Notably, the Plaintiffs in this action have not alleged any facts related to that bill.
Lastly, the amici argue that disposition of this action may affect a forthcoming action against the Attorney General of the United States. While the motion does not identify that case, it appears that the amici refer to Sevier et al. v. Garland et al., 21-22577-Civ, pending before Judge Darrin P. Gayles, which the amici filed in this district on July 20, 2021. Even though that case questions the constitutionality of Section 230, the proposed amicus brief here does not address that issue and is thus helpful to neither the Court nor the parties in this case.
(emphasis added)
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.
I disagree. It is not "thrust" that is demonstrated but a signal from an apparatus which is designed to measure "thrust" if it exists. However, the questions not well explored in the paper is what else might contribute to this signal, and how the signal varies as a function of frequency, power and atmospheric pressure.
Francis Bacon: Knowledge is power. Ben Parker: With great power comes great responsibility. Carl Sagan: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
It seems we have the extraordinary claims and a paucity of extraordinary evidence. The paper doesn't even come with error bars.
On the post: Man Who Sued Apple For Failing To Save Him From Porn Now Suing US Attorney General To Strike Down Section 230
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).
On the post: Man Who Sued Apple For Failing To Save Him From Porn Now Suing US Attorney General To Strike Down Section 230
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.
On the post: Man Who Sued Apple For Failing To Save Him From Porn Now Suing US Attorney General To Strike Down Section 230
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.
On the post: DailyDirt: I'm Givin' Her All She's Got, Captain...
Re: Re: EmDrive Not Proven Yet?
Francis Bacon: Knowledge is power.
Ben Parker: With great power comes great responsibility.
Carl Sagan: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
It seems we have the extraordinary claims and a paucity of extraordinary evidence. The paper doesn't even come with error bars.
Next >>