“Free speech stands no differently
than freedom from vaccination.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice
SCARBOROUGH vs. FACEBOOK
Yes, free speech is no different than freedom from vaccination. We have the right to live vaccine free and we have the right to live censorship free. Our lawsuit challenges corporate censorship of what should be lawfully protected speech activities. In this article, we examine the case of Scarborough vs. Facebook, [L.A. County, BC 714084]. Buckle-up! It’s gonna be a bumpy ride!
Note: there is a media blackout on this lawsuit. Why?–because the pharmaceutical industrial complex opposes free speech — and they outspend everybody with commercials and advertisements — so they control the media. Pharma now employs hundreds of online trolls to spread misinformation and disinformation about our free speech lawsuit, which tends to show that our lawsuit has merit.
CONTROLLED vs. UN-CONTROLLED
Generally speaking, corporations oppose free speech. And this is because corporations view free speech as “un-controlled,” which they hate. Corporations instead prefer “controlled” speech — from paid actors parroting rehearsed scripts. Our lawsuit will (hopefully) set the legal boundaries for speech that corporations may lawfully control — and uphold free speech rights that lay beyond corporate control.
PROVERBIAL TOWN SQUARE
No one can deny that Facebook has become the proverbial town square. And all Americans have the fundamental right to visit that town square, stand-up on a soapbox, and deposit into the forum of public opinion their various comments and criticisms. Facebook has no right to decide who shall speak and who shall be censored.
F R E Q U E N T L Y M A D E C O M M E N T S
“B-b-but the First Amendment applies to the government!”
Yes, the First Amendment applies to the government, but our lawsuit does not rely on the First Amendment! It instead relies on the California Constitution, which gives greater free speech rights than does the First Amendment! The California Constitution allows all persons to “freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects,” [Calif. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 2]. While the First Amendment restrains the government, the California Constitution empowers the people — to freely speak and publish their sentiments on all subjects!
“B-b-but Facebook is a private company!”
Yes, Facebook is a private company — with private owners — and private profits — but nevertheless, their internet website is a “place of public accommodations.” Facebook opens its doors to the general public, and therefore, they must abide by public law.
“B-b-but she agreed to Facebook terms and conditions!”
No, Scarborough never gave “consent,” and therefore, she is not legally bound. No binding agreement exists unless both parties consent, [Civil Code Sec. 1550]. To form a binding agreement, all parties must agree upon the same thing, [Civil Code Sec. 1580]. But here, the parties agreed on nothing, which means no contract exists, which means Scarborough cannot be held to Facebook terms ‘n conditions.
“B-b-but she knowingly uses Facebook services!”
Note: Facebook is free — users pay no money to use Facebook — which means there is no paid “consideration” to justify the existence of a contract in the first place. Remember, on Facebook, you are not the customer — rather, you’re the thing being sold! #TruthHits
I N T E R N E T L A W
Arguably, Federal law allows ISPs, (internet service providers), like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, to remove from their websites certain types of objectionable content, (e.g., obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, or harassing). However, in order to lawfully remove such content, ISPs must act in “good faith,” [47 U.S.C. § 230].
SHORTCOMING of GOOD FAITH
Scarborough argues that — in removing what it believes is objectionable content — Facebook demonstrates a shortcoming of “good faith.” And here’s why:
- Facebook uses robots — instead of humans — to determine which posts will be censored, and this shows “bad faith” because robots cannot understand subtle free speech issues.
- Facebook robots communicate only with boilerplate responses, i.e., they never provide specific responses to specific questions, and this shows “bad faith” because Facebook consumers have no way to meaningfully communicate with Facebook robots concerning disputed posts.
- Apparently, Facebook deletes posts based on the number of complaints received — and if this is true — then it shows “bad faith” because Facebook reduces free speech to a popularity contest.
- When Facebook deletes posts, Facebook never explains how or why a given post violates community standards.
- When Facebook deletes posts, Facebook never identifies the specific community standard that was supposedly violated — instead, Facebook states only that community standards, on the whole, were violated.
- In many instances, when Facebook deletes posts, Facebook never identifies the offending post, (and the Facebook user never learns the identity of the mystery post that landed him or her in Facebook Jail!).
- Facebook community standards are unenforceable because they are “vague and ambiguous,” i.e., nobody really knows what they mean, (vague), and they may mean more than one thing, (ambiguous).
- What do terms like bullying and harassment really mean? When does criticism become hate speech? And what’s the difference between satire and fake news? Facebook acts in “bad faith” by deleting posts that require subtle interpretation of subtle free speech issues.
- Could it be that Facebook is over-anxious to delete posts? After all, they know it causes users to open second Facebook accounts — which allows Facebook to brag to investors about “new customer” accounts and artificial “growth” rates! If this is the case, then it shows “bad faith” — and exposes Facebook to punitive damages — because it means that Facebook suppresses free speech — just to make a buck!
- Facebook acts in “bad faith” because it punishes users with “Facebook Jail,” for which there is no legal justification. When it comes to speech-related activities, Facebook refuses to accept that community standards must take a backseat to well-established constitutional principles!
F A C E B O O K J A I L
To recap, federal law arguably allows ISPs to remove objectionable content, but only where ISPs act in “good faith.” Fine. However, (and this is a huge “however”), no federal law allows ISPs, after removing objectionable content, to punish its own users with a 30-day timeout! Congress never contemplated something so outrageous! Simply put, no law allows Facebook to punish its own users — by suspending their ability to post — with a 30-day sentence in “Facebook Jail.”
ARMIES of TROLLS
Facebook attempts to sanitize the debate to suit the palates of its most squeamish users, however, as it turns out, the most squeamish users are too often paid to be squeamish! Nowadays, corporations hire armies of trolls to be on Facebook — to shape the content of public debate — by complaining about competitors’ posts — with the hope that Facebook will punish the competitors with “Facebook Jail” — thus silencing the competition.
STOP CORPORATE CENSORSHIP!
The purpose of our lawsuit is to prevent corporatized troll armies from trying to control public debate. Free speech must be governed by constitutional principles, not by mob rule. Know your human right. Be what you come here for.
~~T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.
Produced and Directed by TMP’s Midnight Minions
in association with Chapter Eleven Productions,
Fly-By-Night Management Services, and
Neurotica Entertainment Group
“Freedom means nothing
if you can’t keep the government out of your body.”
T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.