Saad Noah was a pro se plaintiff, who had little understanding of either the technology or the law relevant to his case.

The District Court wrote an apparently authoritative memorandum opinion that also shows little understanding of the technology — something that is mostly the fault of plaintiff Noah, but the Judge shares some of the blame because he believes himself to be an engineer, who understands the technology.

While I am also a pro se plaintiff and probably not the best person to litigate Martillo v. Twitter, I am a patent agent, who understands Internet technology, and the legal staff of AT&T taught me about Title 47 so that I could help with filings for the FCC and for the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

I am trying to give both the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Martillo v. Twitter, 21-1921) and also SCOTUS (Martillo v. Twitter, 21-6916) an opportunity both (a) to revisit whether the Internet/WWW is a public accommodation according to Title II of the CRA of 1964 and also (b) to overturn Zeran v. America Online, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), which uses the logical fallacy called denial of the antecedent to come to its ruling.

(a) The Internet/WWW is:
▪ a public facility for resource sharing,
▪ a state-supported physical, real, (mostly) material structure, and
▪ an establishment, which has premises with grounds or appurtenances.
I argue that each of the six defendants of Martillo v. Twitter is a public accommodation that provides a place of exhibition or of entertainment within the Internet/WWW, which is itself a place of public accommodation.

(b) I demonstrate the logical problem with Zeran. If Zeran is allowed to stand, it is a violation of the US Constitution Article I Section 1. If a Court is allowed to use a logical fallacy to decide a case, the US legal system can no longer guarantee fair and predictable treatment of the parties to a legal dispute.