Ciao. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b59ae682787b4108e74da2a5ad1d5f24215b8c24df3a9e0513670433078e1909.png

Here’s a excerpt from my Rule 59 Motion for a New Trial:
https://howtosuefacebook.blogspot.com/2019/12/kingcast-v-facebook-n-cal-dist-19-cv.html
https://www.scribd.com/document/392343705/KingCast-v-Facebook-Censorship-Rule-59-Motion-for-New-Trial

Platform Access is a Civil Right.
A reflection on Lyndon Baines Johnson and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
By Will Chamberlain
On May 3, 2019

“It’s tough enough to get all the way from Washington to Texas. We drive for
hours and hours. We get hungry. But there’s no place on the road we can stop and
go in and eat. We drive some more. It gets pretty hot. We want to wash up. But
the only bathroom we’re allowed in is usually miles off the main highway. We
keep goin’ ‘til night comes – ‘til we get so tired we can’t stay awake anymore.
We’re ready to pull in. But it takes another hour or so to find a place to sleep.
“You see, what I’m saying is that a colored man’s got enough trouble getting
across the South on his own, without having a dog along.”

In Johnson’s telling, hearing this story was jarring enough to permanently
convince him of the necessity of protecting his employees – and every other
African-American – from discrimination.
And it should change the view of any holdout radical libertarian who still thinks
that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unjust.

Because you know what? Private property rights are great. But that does not mean
that we, as a society, had to let private restaurant owners and private hotel
managers turn away customers because they were black. We didn’t have to accept
a world in which black people had to defecate on the side of the road because they
weren’t allowed to use a privately-owned restroom.

We, as a society, do not have to allow private companies to violate Americans’
civil rights. (Appendix A).

This is precisely what Plaintiff was saying thorough analysis of the old Pruneyard
Law as well as burgeoning Federal law and developments supported by the District of
Columbia as highly-esteemed Counsel from the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Righs
under Law and the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs
noted below in the United States District Court of Appeals (DC Cir. ) Freedom
Watch/Laura Loomer v. Google, Facebook et al., No. 19-7030. (Appendix B).

III. Conclusion.

The writing is on the wall folks. The District of Columbia lawyers know it.
Plaintiff knows it. Defendant and Counsel for Defendant know it. This Court knows it.
As Bob Dylan would (and did) say:

1. The Times they are A-Changing.
2. I Ain’t Working on Maggie’s Farm no more.

The Eric Goldmans and other CDA absolutists be dammed. These white men of
privilege and their silicon valley brothers (and a few sisters) own and control the means
of social discourse not only in this Country but throughout the World. Should this Court
continue to allow Facebook’s wanton abuses of privilege then that is on the Court’s
conscience, but it will never be on Plaintiff’s:

He is going to continue fighting this War
until is it won, and it most assuredly will be won. This Court has a unique opportunity to
stand for what is right… or it can provide negative reinforcement for all that is wrong.

Respectfully submitted,
Christopher King, J.D.

When a private actor has control over online communications and online forums, these private actors are analogous to a governmental actor.

In his opinion for the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy elaborated that the expansion of social media has contributed to a “revolution of historic proportions.” Id. at 1736. In other words, social media networking sites have become the modern- day equivalent of traditional public forums like public parks and public streets.

This societal development and change in communications capacities require that the antiquated state action doctrine be modified lest the law become ossified. The time has come to recognize that the reach of the First Amendment be expanded….

Ryan Hagemann, an IBM government and regulatory affairs technology policy executive, said in a blog post that internet companies shouldn’t automatically have legal protection for what third parties post on their platforms. Instead, their liability exemption — part of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — should be based on the condition they take action to curb harmful uses of their services, he said. “A measure designed nearly a quarter-century ago to foster an infant internet needs to keep pace with the enormous social, economic, and even political power that the online world today commands,” Hagemann wrote.

The comments from IBM add an industry voice to a growing list of advocates and lawmakers in Washington who support paring back the legal exemption for tech companies struggling to curb the proliferation of fake content, hate speech and election meddling on their platforms.

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/935c0ce4a3e75c46e5c47f822a93b6eb319993323b3610a1b549c286eb8ff9a4.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c685bfbb50f72c7ca007d6fe728e745e7886dd5492516959744c3f481e0472c0.jpg

Dear Court and Counsel:

I am a Seattle-based scientist working on noninvasive molecular diagnostics for cancer. I have been following the 2019 case of King v. Facebook — number 1987 — and am writing to express my opinion, as it seems very timely and important.

As I understand it, unlike a majority of companies in America, Facebook is currently empowered to violate its own contracts and terms of service with its users at its sole discretion, while enjoying significant immunity from law suits intended to seek redress. In 2019, Facebook is one of the largest and most powerful companies ever to exist, and its capacity to wield influence is enormous. Allowing it to continue to receive the special protections that were granted in the 1990’s by the Communications Decency Act (CDA) when the internet was a fledgling industry, in the face of arguments like that of Mr. King, seems to be an indefensible position. That Mr. King’s postings on the Facebook platform have been selectively removed only when titled “How to Sue Facebook,” however tasteful or not, resembles retaliation, seems like censorship of his First Amendment rights, and is not supported by Facebook’s own terms of service.

…..Actually Counselor, you are wrong and the Devil is in the Details brother. From today’s journal entry:

Eric Goldman Shows up as a CDA 47 USC §230 Absolutist Once Again, Omitting Key Facts in his Coverage of KingCast v. Face https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/75caa8f87120b977faa0cc2d41ebcdaa10d7d805c6da201d3f0b1a5c4dac22c7.png book 2019-CV-1987.

First of all, that case was all just about content. My case involves other issues such as Facebook refusing to review my requests for review in timely fashion.

It involves the fact that Facebook stopped letting me self-refer as nigger i.e. “I was treated like a nigger” after I started protesting agains them when white people are allowed to call themselves “cracker trash.”

It also involves them turning around and banning content from Chris King’s First Amendment Page the minute I started How to Sue Facebook Blog, then hastily reversing such decision when I pointed out that the content was identical and asked how could Chris King’s First Amendment Page suddenly be “in violation of Community Standards” when it was not for 10+ YEARS.

Moreover there was discussion about how people tried to like certain of my posts that were NOT banned but could not. And there was discussion about why Facebook never even answered my question to them posed by a moderator in the UK who noted that he could not see my posts on a Civil Rights page when my content was NOT banned.

These are facts that you conveniently omitted so I have put back in, to promote the interests of honest and full Journalism, Counselor. The Court was most interested in them however, and you can tell if you listen to the transcript. I’ll take the liberty of posting a link to it for you:

https://howtosuefacebook.blogspot.com/2019/09/facebook-slammed-on-censorship.html

You are a §230 absolutist. One way or another Babylon a go fall dude. It’s just a matter of time.
Ciao.