Jason Fyk@JasonFyk
🚨For the past 5 years we argued that 230(c)(1) has been applied wrong! Almost all of the past precedent is flawed in one way or another.
Despite two trips to SCOTUS, not one court allowed me so much as an oral argument despite being correct (now proven).
The DOJ, Cruz and Paxton submitted Amicus briefs which said exactly what we said from the beginning - that 230(c)(1) was applied wrong.
The 4th Circuit came to a similar conclusion that 230 was not applied as written. The 4th Cir relied heavily on a treatise from a guy who (of course) read all our prior legal briefs.
We argued, in its current application, there is a conflict in the law. If 230(c)(1) protects all of the platform's own publication decisions (i.e., to allow, edit, or remove content), that would include restricting "otherwise objectionable" materials, which is the purpose of 230(c)(2).
In other words, 230(c)(1) swallowed 230(c)(2) and became super immunity - i.e., 230(c)(1) rendered 230(c)(2) entirely superfluous / surplusage.
We literally articulted such in the intro to our Supreme Court petition - [230(c)(1) renders 230(c)(2) superfluous / surplusage], front and center (See screenshot).
Every single court gave us some illogical response and never addressed the real problem. The courts simply wouldn't fix 230 no matter what we said.
I'm fact, I was denied so many time that the courts (i.e., the State -not Facebook) denied me of "all remedy for a legal right" - they denied me of my due process and first amendment rights.
So, we filed a Rule 5.1 Constitutional Challenge which is catch 22 the court can't dismiss - its "not forfeitable." (See pinned post)
Basically, the 5.1 says, if the court is somehow correct that 230(c)(1) protects "all publication decisions" (which is what most court believe - thats wrong) AND the "Good Samaritan" legislative guidance / intelligible principle DOESN'T APPLY to 230(c)(1) (which the courts determined on our second run to SCOTUS) then the statute is unconstitutional. 💥🤯
OR, the court is simply wrong that 230(c)(1) protects any publishing conduct at all.
So, either the court is right in its application of 230(c)(1) and its unconstitutional or its wrong. Either way they are wrong.
We proved 230(c)(1) is unconstitutional, but we just found a case that proves the court is just WRONG and we were right all along. It's the holy grail.
Yesterday, we found an obscure case that Facebook attempted to SEAL, no doubt because a highly respected senior judge in the Northern District of California (a judge in the same court as mine) FINALLY GOT IT RIGHT! 💪
230(c)(1) cannot be a "backdoor" to protect content moderation decisions because that is the entire pupose of 230(c)(2) - it renders 230(c)(2) useless.
Facebook should have brought a 230(c)(2) defense but instead relied on 230(c)(1) immunity which just blew up in their face and we found it.
This case proves my decision was wrong, and given that we have an active motion 60(b) (a motion to overturn a mistaken decision), and a concurrent 5.1 Constitutional Challenge, it puts the courts in a situation where one court is wrong (mine), one court is right (this other case). One case is unconstitutional (mine) and the other is not.
230(c)(1) can never be applied as blanket immunity again.
The courts are finally going to have to standardize the CORRECT application of Section 230, which will change the world. It will change the Internet as we know it.
Big Tech is now open to liability for damn near everything they've done to promote winners and restrict losers in the social media game.
But better yet, Facebook argued that the courts would open the flood gate if the court fixes it. But this HONORABLE JUDGE essentially said: "oh well you should have designed your algorithm so it wasn't illegal."
Neutral platform, here we come! 🥳
For 5 years I was ridiculed, and dismissed. In reality, I was so far ahead of the world that what seemed crazy then, is actually genius now.
