26 August 2019

KingCast Applauds Freedom Watch and Laura Loomer Censorship Appellate Ruling and Files Judicial Notice in KingCast v. Facebook 19-CV-1987 N.D. California.

Note: Laura Loomer and I have a lot in common. She too has a Federal lawsuit against a jerk lawyer who assaulted her as well. Now she's a NeoCon white woman so she's going to get all the care and concern over a nigger such as myself, but hey that's life in the Big City.  Take a look.

Last week a Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a victim of Facebook censorship. Time to file another Update to the Court tonight because Pruneyard rides again in the modern era.

4. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged, inter alia

17. According to Senator Ted Cruz, as reported in the New York Times, “if internet companies are not a ‘neutral platform,’ they should not be protected by a law known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which (some claim) gives companies broad legal immunity for what people put on their services.” 1 

18. In the same article, Rep. Kevin McCarthy stated, “Social media platforms are increasingly serving as today’s town squares….But sadly, conservatives are too often finding their voices silenced.” (Same with blacks. Protected class. Insular Minority. We all know the Rules here).

98. Defendants created, operate, and control public platforms that are for public use and public benefit and invite the public to utilize their platforms as a forum for free speech. 

99. Defendants act as quasi-state actors because they regulate their public platforms, thereby regulating free speech within their public forums, Google/YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, Apple, Instagram as well as the other social media companies or entities. The Lower Court incorrectly DISMISSED all of these concerns. 

In rejecting the entire opinion of the Lower Court the Court of Appeals succinctly stated in its per curiam ORDER: “Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the oppositions thereto, and the replies, it is ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be denied. The merits of the parties’ positions are not so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). 

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Appellees be limited to one joint brief, not to exceed 13,000 words. See Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7). (Appendix B). 

Up until this point the First Amendment was tantamount to the Third Rail in bringing a case such as this. It was a guaranteed loser even thought these corporate beasts really are effectively Nation-States, or Public Utilities. Well now a Court is finally showing the Chutzpah to start doing something about it, and not a moment too soon. 

Plaintiff has been resolute throughout this case as he told the Court: “Now is the time to make this right without engaging in unwarranted Judicial Activism.” As time, history and perspective grace the legal landscape on this issue the entire Judiciary and the Free World will soon see that J.P. Dyer, Facebook Amicus Counsel David Lukmire, the Darnaa Court and Plaintiff KingCast were all correct, and everyone else….. was indeed, wrong. The Court should ORDER Plaintiff to file a final Amended Complaint to Countenance a First Amendment Claim as well as a Sherman Act Claim. 

Respectfully submitted,
Christopher King, J.D.

Facebook Google and Twitter... by Christopher King on Scribd

No comments: