12 January 2019

KingCast Says Cyntoia Brown's Clemency Speaks to Marginalization of Young Women, Misogyny and Racism.


This is a great feature on it. You know damn well she got maxed out too because the "victim" was a male, white. Do I feel sorry for him? Marginally. I believe the dude knew she was a 16 year-old. 

Come on man (and all you other users of high-school aged girls), grow the fuck up will ya?  Ugh.


PS: My family is from Tennessee. I've been there many a time and one of my sisters lives there now. I say "Go Governor.... you Did the Right Thing!"

Grindr Case Highlights Other Flaws in DCA §230.



I had never heard of Grindr until yesterday.  But now I see that Matthew Herrick, his lawyers and I have a common foe: Bogus overbroad interpretation of 47 U.S.C. §230. Herrick v. Grindr highlights yet another flaw in 47 U.S.C. §230: My understanding is that a known spoofer ran amok and caused this guy all kinds of holy hell (fake sexual request) but Courts are still laboring under the false interpretation that these ICP's have absolute immunity in every circumstance. 

Mark my words: Those days are drawing to a close, and KingCast v. Facebook is all part of that mix as well. I'm nobody's media darling but my deal is real and legal scholars concur even if they're not chomping at the bit to file Amicus briefs in my case.


As I tweeted yesterday: 
Why #Facebook is not Immune from Suit on DCA §230 or Limitation of Liability 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy94UcmlHBE 

Legal docs and blog site are linked in the video. It's a different legal theory than #Grndr but either way §230 has got to stop.


My legal theory as seen below is along these lines:


Darnaa v. Google: Plaintiff's claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, however, is not precluded by § 230(c)(1) because it seeks to hold defendants liable for breach of defendants' good faith contractual obligation to plaintiff, rather than defendants' publisher status. Even though the claim is based on the same factual allegations as plaintiff's intentional interference claim, the source of defendants' alleged liability is different. 

Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support its claim that defendants did not act in good faith, which is a requirement under § 230(c)(2) immunity. As acknowledged by defendants, "[r]emovals must still be 'in good faith,' so the provider must actually believe that the material is objectionable for the reasons it gives." Dkt. 34 at 13 n.4. 
********

And See David Lukmire's excellent piece, Can the Courts Tame the Communications Decency Act? The Reverberations of Zeran v. America Online. Attorney Lukmire has written Amici Briefs alongside and in support of Facebook and Microsoft: He is an Industry expert: 

 Second, before deciding whether an online entity is immune because of the type of entity it is or the type of role it played in disseminating illegal content, courts should consider whether section 230 should apply based on the theory of liability advanced by the plaintiff. The case for restricting the subject matter of section 230 immunity is equally strong...... 

One thing is for certain: unless courts narrow their interpretations of section 230, deserving plaintiffs will be without redress. As discussed, the statute should be interpreted in light of its language, which clearly sounds in defamation law. Allowing certain claims that are close to textbook defamation will help clear up whether the plaintiff has artfully pleaded garden variety tort claims in order to evade the proper boundaries of section 230. Courts should almost never dismiss other claims, such as allegations under civil rights laws or breach of contract claims, on section 230 grounds, for they are much too far removed from the tort of defamation. 


Carrie Goldberg cracks me up. I called her office yesterday after reading her twitter summary: F*ck your overbroad reading of CDA §230.  That calls for a toast and a ride on Bella. Sorry Pepper, no sidecar.

10 January 2019

Why Facebook is not Immune from Suit on DCA §230 or Limitation of Liability.


Samantha Bee just nailed it. Mark Zuckerberg has been a thieving POS all of his life.




My email to everyone involved follows:

Good Day to All. 


I had promised my opposing Counsel Attorney Selig a video this week (he makes a cameo) with a working title of "Denigrate the Negro: The Facebook Way." Well in the end that is the subtext but the larger text is indeed the final title of "Why Facebook is not Immune to suit under section 230 or limitation of liability." 


In this video I promote the high-powered lawyers who agree with me that Facebook does not enjoy unfettered or absolute immunity from suit under several different theories of Law. David K. LukmireRyan J.P. Dyer from Seattle. They both wrote Learned Treatises on it. Mark S. Luckie, the former VP of Diversity for Facebook whose statements alone provide enough evidence to get past Summary Judgment against Facebook for defrauding and disfranchising its black employees and users. The Color of Change. The NAACP. The Center for Media Justice


All of these individuals and associations, and the 79 other ones who signed on the CMJ to DEMAND a Facebook Audit all completely agree with me, and a Jury is entitled to see that and make its own determination. 


To my supporters: Sit down, turn everything else off and just watch this video for 15 minutes to understand the depth of what is going on here and what can be done with corporate behemoths who have too much power and control over our speech. So visit the website, watch the video and drop a little sumpthin' in the GoFundMe when I set it up later today. 


To my detractors: Do whatever you gotta' do. I'll still be here. 

********** 
I did avoid saying nigger in any fashion in the video though -- even though Facebook claims that it is permissible in my situation -- lest they find another reason to put me back in jail or down-throttle me in some fashion.

Funny thing is, at least Facebook is consistent. They continue to stick it to black folks even after a Civil Rights Audit was foisted upon them. I am consistent too. I still keep winning public access and information lawsuits and one of my cars is the exact same BMW model I drove twenty years ago when I won cases then. So be it.


The plate got flashed out. It reads CIVL RTS.

Facebook Faces Lawsuit on C... by on Scribd

07 January 2019

Former Facebook Diversity VP Mark S. Luckie Describes Black Facebook Engagement; KingCast Files a Motion to Compel Reply and Opposes 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss.

Note: Appendix A of the filing (Memo in Opp to 12b6 Motion to Dismiss) shows how their very first move was to try to attack my past cases, when most of those cases involved someone white in America trying to say that I was in some ways a Dangerous Black Man. 

Facebook has the same hateful corporate ethos. Mark Luckie wrote about it and got his post taken down. Now Facebook lawyers (Byrnes Keller Cromwell's Partner Josh Selig) have attempted to carry out The Plan in my case. I am going to shove it right back down their collective throats at Oral Argument with a black fist raised in the air. That narrative is tired. Oh-so-tired.

Black people on Facebook 
Black people are one of the most engaged demographics on Facebook… 

Black people are far outpacing other groups on the platform in a slew of engagement metrics. African Americans are more likely to use Facebook to communicate with family and friends daily, according to research commissioned by Facebook. 63% use Facebook to communicate with family, and 60% use Facebook to communicate with friends at least once a day, compared to 53% and 54% of the total population, respectively. 70% of black U.S. adults use Facebook and 43% use Instagram, according to the Pew Research Center. 55% of black millennials report spending at least one hour a day on social networking sites, 6% higher than all millennials, while 29% say they spend at least three hours a day, 9% higher than all millennials, Nielsen surveys found. 


Black people are driving the kind of meaningful social interactions Facebook is striving to facilitate. Black people are finding that their attempts to create "safe spaces" on Facebook for conversation among themselves are being derailed by the platform itself. Non-black people are reporting what are meant to be positive efforts as hate speech, despite them often not violating Facebook’s terms of service. Their content is removed without notice. Accounts are suspended indefinitely. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-s-luckie/facebook-is-failing-its-black-employees-and-its-black-users/1931075116975013/ 


KingCast says: Thus, the group of people who disproportionately drive the Facebook bus still sit on the back of the bus; nothing has changed since Rosa Parks.

06 January 2019

Facebook Selection of Venue Clause: Out of the Frying Pan, Into the Fire.

Because the allegedly inflated view count associated with "Luv ya" is not "otherwise objectionable" within the meaning of Section 230(c)(2), YouTube is not entitled to immunity from Plaintiffs' contract or tortious interference claims…… Song fi Inc. v. Google, Inc.

Plaintiff's claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, however, is not precluded by § 230(c)(1) because it seeks to hold defendants liable for breach of defendants' good faith contractual obligation to plaintiff….Darnaa, LLC v. Google.  

......These Plaintiffs lost their cases but NOT BASED ON IMMUNITY. And they lost on Summary Judgment so for Facebook to try a Motion to Dismiss is arguably Rule 11 Material. I just may go there. Stay tuned. 
********
Whatever guys.  Here is the Canada case I reference in the letter. Drouez v. Facebook.

On the second step, the majority9 held that the plaintiff did in fact establish strong reasons not to enforce the forum selection clause. Those reasons include: 


*Facebook's terms of use constitute a contract of adhesion that is the result of unequal bargaining power between a global corporation and an individual consumer10 


*freedom to contract should not effectively deprive consumers of a remedy when claims arise;11 


*the claim seeks to enforce quasi-constitutional privacy rights of British Columbians:12


B.C. courts are in a better position to adjudicate claims based on a B.C. statute;


Facebook offered no evidence that a California court would actually hear the claim; and it would be more convenient for Facebook to make its records available for inspection in British Columbia than it would be for the plaintiff to travel to California.14

Facebook Faces Lawsuit on C... by on Scribd


30 December 2018

KingCast, Mortgage Movies and How to Sue Facebook Say "Happy Anniversary Pepper!"

Pepper Underfoot the Australian Cattle Dog came into my life on 30 December 2016 the day after our baby Livi the Wonderdog was murdered by an idiot at what we discovered to be an illegal kennel. We fled our East Coast vacation and flew back to Seattle and, on a lark, decided to check NOAH for a suitable dog to join our family of Elisa, Fang Weatherwax and me at the time.

Life after Livi still remains painful at times. There's no two ways about it, litigation and other results notwithstanding. But Baby Pepper is such a joy to have around each and every day that I just can't love her enough. On a good day she gives me the same LOL.

You had Big Paws to fill Pepper, and you do it with class and distinction each and every day. I know Livi loves you honey.

-Dad.
 
 







29 December 2018

KingCast, Daarna, LLC v. Google, Seattle Law and Hastings Law Journal Argue: Congress Must Reign in the Expansive Section 230 Immunity.


BOOM!  Down Goes Facebook, Down Goes Facebook!
See Daarna, LLC v. Google §230 is not a bar to ToS lawsuit. 
Muuuahhhhh..... (subsequently she lost but it's a different set of operative facts)

Story Link: The Onion.... gotta love 'em.

Few people know that Facebook had to be forced to conduct a Civil Rights Audit by a wide consortium of Civil Rights and media groups, 79 to be exact. We are going to get there in just a minute but first you must know this from the David K. Lukmire Learned Treatise Can the Courts Tame the Communications Decency Act? (Lukmire = Counsel for Brennan Center for Justice/EFF Amicus in Microsoft v. United States + Facebook v. New York County District Attorney) So yah, I think he kinda sorta knows WTF he's talking about, right? Right. He's one of the most highly-regarded securities and Internet litigators in the entire Country, right. Right. And he and I agree, right. Right. Let's keep shit simple here.
The case for restricting the subject matter of section 230 immunity is equally strong...... One thing is for certain: unless courts narrow their interpretations of section 230, deserving plaintiffs will be without redress. 
As discussed, the statute should be interpreted in light of its language, which clearly sounds in defamation law. Allowing certain claims that are close to textbook defamation will help clear up whether the plaintiff has artfully pleaded garden variety tort claims in order to evade the proper boundaries of section 230. Courts should almost never dismiss other claims, such as allegations under civil rights laws or breach of contract claims, on section 230 grounds, for they are much too far removed from the tort of defamation. If those claims are meritless, they should be dismissed on the merits instead of by application of the statute. See also The Overexpansion of the Communications Decency Act Safe Harbor Hastings Note Vol 35 #3, January 1, 2013 by Joey Ou..... 
Accord Darnaa, LLC v. Google, Inc. Case No. 15-cv-03221-RMW If Plaintiff needs to clarify the contractual elements to his Complaint, or to add in all of the information gleaned since he filed his Complaint, the Ninth Circuit provides A "district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts." Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) 

Plaintiff's claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, however, is not precluded by § 230(c)(1) because it seeks to hold defendants liable for breach of defendants' good faith contractual obligation to plaintiff, rather than defendants' publisher status. Even though the claim is based on the same factual allegations as plaintiff's intentional interference claim, the source of defendants' alleged liability is different. The Terms of Service contain, as do all contracts, a covenant of good faith and fair dealing that defendants would not do anything to unfairly interfere with plaintiff's right to recover the benefits of the contract. Therefore, the court denies defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's implied covenant claim on the basis of § 230(c)(1). This court does not, however, need to reach the question of whether deliberately inflated view counts are "objectionable." Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support its claim that defendants did not act in good faith, which is a requirement under § 230(c)(2) immunity. As acknowledged by defendants, "[r]emovals must still be 'in good faith,' so the provider must actually believe that the material is objectionable for the reasons it gives." Dkt. 34 at 13 n.4.
Now then where were we..... 
Sign-on letter #1 
We the undersigned 79 organizations are deeply concerned with the recent cases of Facebook censoring human rights documentation, particularly content that depicts police violence. This includes but is not limited to: the deactivation of Korryn Gaines' account, the removal of iconic photographs, reports of suppression of indigenous resistance, continued reports of Black activists’ content being removed, and the disabling of Palestinian journalists’ accounts following your meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister. It is critical that Facebook be a platform that supports the protection of human rights above all else and does not discriminately apply its policies on the basis of race, creed, national origin, gender, and/or sexual orientation. When the most vulnerable members of society turn to your platform to document and share experiences of injustice, Facebook is morally obligated to protect that speech.

Letter #2 18 January 2017 
This pattern of censorship represents a double standard, one that seems to be addressed only through direct activist intervention or significant media attention. We believe more can be done to ensure every Facebook user has the ability to engage on the platform without harassment or undue censorship.

Letter #3 18 December 2018. Equally troubling are your claims over the years that problems with the platform or the company’s approach have been inadvertent, and that, per a statement quoted in the article, “our entire management team has been focused on tackling the issues we face.” What is now clear, however, is direct evidence of malicious and calculated campaigns to undermine Facebook’s critics.

May the Record reflect that Plaintiff is definitely a Facebook critic, and when he last complained about Facebook "gunning down niggers because we are dropping like flies" Defendant put me in Facebook Jail on 13 December 2018 failed to follow up on his purported "Appeal" from 15 - 27 December (and onward) as clearly seen in the large thumbnail from my 24 December 2018 entry. That is unprecedented, unmitigated Bad Faith as contemplated by the Statute and this Honorable Court has full authority to address it, right here and right now. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel must be GRANTED and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss must be summarily DENIED.


*******
Something's gotta give. 
Congress did not intend to give protections to companies who invite and condone racism, then deny the victims the right to speak on it. This is a case of First Impression because no other §203 case involves widespread credible accusations of Bad Faith, supported by a black former VP of Diversity.

My point is to consider the basic principles of statutory construction: 

Legislators do not intend for an absurd result to occur.  The Trial Court has full authority to rule in Plaintiff's favor on this specific case given the floodgates of hate mail that Facebook continues to receive from scores of legitimate Civil Rights and social groups alleging Bad Faith, including the Center for Media Justice and all of its allies. Read letters to Facebook here. Read more on this issue in David Lukmire's excellent piece, "Can the Courts Tame the Communications Decent Act? The Reverberations of Zeran v. America Online. The Note calls for careful situational Bad Faith analysis based on the Defendant's (mis)conduct, a reasonable approach or else the Good Faith clause in the Statue means nothing.



From right here in SeattleThe Communication Decency Act Gone Wild: A Case for Renewing the Presumption Against Preemption (2014 Seattle University JD Candidate Ryan JP Dyer).

The first courts to apply section 230 inferred an exaggerated statutory meaning and intent to the statute’s immunity-granting provision, rarely reexamining the basis of those findings. Several early courts have crafted various frameworks to exempt section 230 immunity; however, they have done so through a more limited analytical framework, focusing on section 230’s mechanics and definitions.73 Courts have yet to delve deeper into an analysis of the preemptive intent Congress envisioned for section 230. This is especially troubling given the increasing frequency that section 230 immunity is invoked in non-defamation contexts and the preemptive effect that necessarily follows other state civil and criminal laws...... On its face, section 230’s entire focus is on immunizing good faith publishing functions. 117 Nevertheless, courts’ overly broad application of section 230(c) consistently ignores the inherent distinction between publishing and distribution and instead applies blanket immunity to a broad range of claims. 118 [KingCast Says: BINGO]

********

As such, we have to question whether CDA 47 U.S.C. §230 Good Samaritan protections should apply in a context where an entity like Facebook can remove posts that are clearly not hate speech and otherwise disparately treat an identifiable class of people -- blacks. Former FB Diversity VP Mark S. Luckie was correct when he stated that Facebook has a black people problem inside and out. And they are definitely going to have a problem with me in this Court, and up through the highest State Court and the U.S. Supreme Court on this case if necessary. This is war.  From the very prescient 2013 Hastings Note.

X. Conclusion 

In 1997, the United States Supreme Court realized that the Internet has become "a unique and wholly new medium of worldwide human communication."127 Twenty-five years later, we are still dealing with the repercussions of their decision to leave section 230 immunity intact.'28 


The idea that the Ilnternet will organically self regulate has past. As the ninth circuit held in Batzel v. Smith, "there is no reason inherent in the technological features of cyberspace why First Amendment and defamation law should apply differently in cyberspace than in the brick and mortar world."'29 Congress must reign in the expansive section 230 immunity. 


When Zeran was decided, the Ilnternet was at its infancy, now with twenty-five years of experience, it must be overturned. ISPs and websites must be held as distributors and cannot violate the FHA. In order not to hinder growth or innovation, such designations can be limited to those websites that garner financial benefits from thirdparty content. However, action must be taken.


Christopher King JD ‏ @kingcastcamera 

#Facebook lawsuit proves bad faith #censorship. No §230 protection for Bad Faith Censorship @markzuckkchs16 

Brandeis Brief 

https://tinyurl.com/y7yft4bo 
blog 
https://howtosuefacebook.blogspot.com/ 
Roku TV show 
https://tinyurl.com/y896use4