I am hardly the only one to notice that Zeran is completely broken.

[Zeran = Zeran v. AOL, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997)]

It is mind-boggling that the Zeran Appellate Court can create a precedent based on the logical inverse fallacy.

The Zeran Appellate Court asserts the following.

p (ICS is accused of defamation or similar act) => q (ICS is not a publisher = ICS has no liability)
~p (ICS is not accused of defamation or similar act)
——-
~q (ICS is a publisher = has unfettered editorial discretion)

The legal system ceases to function if an appellate court is allowed to use a logical fallacy to interpret a statute.

I wonder why no appellant made this argument to overturn Zeran. Now that I am appealing, I can make the argument to overturn Zeran. From the standpoint of logic, Zeran may be the worst decision in the history of the Anglo-American legal system. A court is usually careful to make sure its decision is consistent with basic logic.

Because I am arguing a common carriage violation, I can also base my complaint on:
1. 42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law and
2. 42 U.S. Code § 1982 – Property rights of citizens.

A federal civil rights violation (antisemitism) does not require a public accommodation, but for the record I consider Noah ridiculous and vicariously embarrassing to read.

[Noah = Noah v. AOL Time Warner, Inc., 261 F. Supp. 2d 532 (E.D. Va. 2003)]

BTW, I am waging this legal battle not only because I oppose Zionism, which I consider irredeemably antisemitic, but
1. because I consider it dangerous to democracy for a private social medium firm to have the power to exclude a major political figure from open public political discussion and
2. because I believe that the Zionist movement is creating a hegemonic discourse to prevent US criminal anti-genocide and anti-terrorism statutes from being enforced against a Zionist under US jurisdiction.

The statutes in question are:
1. 18 U.S. Code § 1091 – Genocide and
2. 18 U.S. Code § 2339A – Providing material support to terrorists.

§ 2339A defines genocide to be a form of terrorism.

The US DOJ has no discretion in the enforcement of criminal statutes, and selective enforcement or prosecution of a criminal statute tears the heart out of the legal system.