Tag: law

Gab belatedly files suit

It would appear the additional discussions that delayed yesterday’s expected filing were not fruitful.

Free speech social media site Gab AI, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Google for violations of the Clayton Act and Sherman Act. The lawsuit stems from Google removing Gab from its Google Play Android app store on spurious grounds of “hate speech” arising from posts by users.

Google did not accuse Gab of hate speech, but used third party content as a pretext to justify its own business ends. Gab, a startup, aims to bring “folks together of all races, religions, and creeds who share in the common ideals of Western values, individual liberty and the free exchange and flow of information.”

According to Gab’s attorney, Marc Randazza, Google’s conduct is a straightforward violation of the antitrust laws “Google Play and Android have monopoly power in the app store market, and Google’s apps YouTube and Google+ compete directly against Gab. Google’s intimate partnership with Twitter, which also competes against Gab, makes Google’s control of all Android apps available through the Play Store a serious restraint of trade issue.”

Randazza noted, “regardless of Google’s pretextual justification for removing Gab, the effect is that they used their monopoly power in the app store to block an upstart competitor it in the social media app market, to the detriment of millions of consumers who value free speech.”

The monopoly issue may work for Gab. But I don’t like their chances for two reasons. First, Google’s resources. Second, the Gab team really seems to be flying blind on the moderation issue. Now, I obviously disagree with their position, which is why I have filed a petition against them. And considering that I had to do so due to their complete refusal to moderate their posts, I don’t see that they have any ability to claim they are abiding by Google’s terms of service. Which, of course, means they have handed Google a perfect excuse to stonewall them.

Oh, the irony…. This is mildly amusing.

Well, we’ve collected a whole lot of examples of defamation and defamation per se, but I don’t think Andrew is going to find them very useful to his case. The point is not that the other social networks don’t moderate effectively, the point is that Gab openly refuses to moderate at all. It is not up to Gab, or even the court, to define what Google considers to be “a sufficient level of moderation” when all Google has to do is demonstrate that Gab does not provide ANY moderation, even upon request.

UPDATE: Andrew Torba claims that Gab does moderate posts. That is likely true, to a very limited extent. The question is, is whatever level of moderation they presently provide sufficient when Gab’s management openly brags that they do not moderate for defamation or defamation per se as defined by their registrar, or by Texas law and the Texas courts, and that they will harass users who pursue legal means of redress.

Andrew TorbaPRO · @a
If our registrar requires us to remove something again we will publish it here and let everyone know that you whined to them because someone hurt your feelings with mean words on the internet.

Andrew TorbaPRO · @a
Note that these are recorded. Keep going. Please this will be fun. I am more alpha than you will ever be. Try me.

Andrew TorbaPRO · @a
Vox I’ll publish every email you ever sent us and phone calls which have been recorded, Please try me. You can destroy your personal brand all you want, but you’re not going to drag down Gab with it. Mark my words.

It seems to me that he’s doing an efficient job of dragging down Gab without any help from me. Here is a partial list of the posts being sent to Asia Registry for review by the LLoE. It demonstrates, rather conclusively, that Gab simply does not moderate to the standard set by Facebook and Twitter, and, more importantly, Google.

  • https://gab.ai/tdawg911/posts/12090691
  • https://gab.ai/FreeinTX/posts/12065490
  • https://gab.ai/FreeinTX/posts/12065748
  • https://gab.ai/FreeinTX/posts/12107799
  • https://gab.ai/FreeinTX/posts/12125780
  • https://gab.ai/FreeinTX/posts/12126457
  • https://gab.ai/FreeinTX/posts/12127469
  • https://gab.ai/FreeinTX/posts/12127738
  • https://gab.ai/FreeinTX/posts/12128833
  • https://gab.ai/FreeinTX/posts/12129102
  • https://gab.ai/FreeinTX/posts/12130342
  • https://gab.ai/FreeinTX/posts/12128833
  • https://gab.ai/FreeinTX/posts/12129450
  • https://gab.ai/FreeinTX/posts/12186103
  • https://gab.ai/Fashdaddey/posts/11862161
  • https://gab.ai/Fashdaddey/posts/11839913
  • https://gab.ai/roonyroo/posts/12180125
  • https://gab.ai/Valaranumenoriano/posts/12160268
  • https://gab.ai/Deacon_Jim/posts/12156043
  • https://gab.ai/GTKRWN/posts/12147100
  • https://gab.ai/gaystapo/posts/12112801
  • https://gab.ai/WilhelmL/posts/12090962
  • https://gab.ai/Ungern/posts/12086315
  • https://gab.ai/Pepe_Memes/posts/12077259
  • https://gab.ai/MorbiousStone/posts/12076537
  • https://gab.ai/Whiteknight007/posts/12071038
  • https://gab.ai/Pepe_Memes/posts/12067941
  • https://gab.ai/GTKRWN/posts/12067637
  • https://gab.ai/h4rdm0us/posts/12063396
  • https://gab.ai/h4rdm0us/posts/12062548
  • https://gab.ai/Pepe_Memes/posts/12061817
  • https://gab.ai/Pepe_Memes/posts/12060233
  • https://gab.ai/Pepe_Memes/posts/12046728
  • https://gab.ai/Pepe_Memes/posts/12041396
Regardless, to quote John Derbyshire’s recent column, fiat justitia ruat cælum.

Defiance will be answered

The Trump administration cancels visas from countries attempting to nullify deportation of their nationals:

The Trump administration announced Wednesday it has ordered the State Department to limit certain visas for Cambodia, Eritrea, Guinea, and Sierra Leone because those countries have refused to accept the return of its nationals who are deported from the United States.

“International law obligates each country to accept the return of its nationals ordered removed from the United States,” Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke said in a statement. “Cambodia, Eritrea, Guinea, and Sierra Leone have failed in that responsibility. The United States itself routinely cooperates with foreign governments in documenting and accepting its citizens when asked, as do the majority of countries in the world. However, these countries have failed to do so, and that one-way street ends with these sanctions.”

“American citizens have been harmed because foreign governments refuse to take back their citizens. These sanctions will ensure that the problem these countries pose will get no worse as ICE continues its work to remove dangerous criminals from the United States,” said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Acting Director Thomas Homan.

And if that’s not enough, up the ante and start taxing their corporations active in the USA. That is the one thing that terrifies every country; being blocked from access to the US market. This is smart. No foreign country should be permitted a veto over US domestic policy.

Justice’s casino

This is why it is a fool’s game to assume that any legal case is a certainty of any kind, no matter what the law says, and no matter how much legal precedent you can cite.

Recently retired federal appeals court Judge Richard Posner said he rarely looked to legal rules when deciding cases and often sought to skirt Supreme Court precedent.

“I pay very little attention to legal rules, statutes, constitutional provisions,” Posner told the New York Times in an interview published Monday. “A case is just a dispute. The first thing you do is ask yourself — forget about the law — what is a sensible resolution of this dispute?”

When confronting a case with some form of legal obstacle in the way, the former 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge said he would look to circumvent whatever prevented him from reaching his desired result.

Any good lawyer will tell you that the law is whatever the presiding judge tells you it is. I was once the only witness in a civil case in which the documentary evidence precisely supported my testimony. It was as black-and-white, as open-and-shut, as a case could be. There was simply no way around the obvious conclusion. None at all.

But instead of simply deciding for the plaintiff, the judge offered a settlement of a coin toss. Heads and the plaintiff won the total amount sought. Tails and he only won half. Knowing that he had no case, the defendant’s attorney accepted the settlement and won the coin toss. The plaintiff received only half of what he was rightfully owed.

And that is why I have never had one single iota of confidence in the U.S. legal system ever since. Nothing that I have seen happen in it ever since has surprised me. Literally anything can happen; justice has nothing to do with it. The Italians call the legal system “un casino” and I think they are entirely right to do so.

Catalonia’s case for independence

A summary of the conclusion of European legal experts on Catalonia’s case for independence:

As   a   result   of   their   research   and reflections,   the   authors   come   to   the  following conclusions and recommendations on the Right to Decide and the Catalan Government’s call for an independence referendum in October the 1st:

1. The   evolution   of   the   negotiating   process   between   the   Catalan   and   Spanish governments since the re-establishment of democracy in 1977 through time has allowed us to   identify   key   moments   of   a   deteriorating   political   relationship   where   the Spanish government has  gradually  renounced  the  accommodation  of  Catalan  territorial  demands. The evolution of this relationship sheds a new light on the tortuous path towards the legally binding referendum on political independence to be held on the 1st October 2017.

2. The upsurge  in territorial  demands  towards  political independencewas  put on the political  agenda  by  organized  Catalan  civil  society  immediately after  the  passing  of  the Constitutional  Tribunal  ruling  in  2010. Additionally,  there  has  been  a  clear  shift  in  popularterritorial  preferences, moving  from  preferences  asking  for  the  maintenance  of  the  current “status quo” to demands of “political independence,” irrespective of people’s age.

3. Catalan popular demand for a referendum on political independence has been largely justified by the democratic “Right  to  Decide”, which has evolved from the more traditional and  long-standing legal framework to the “national right to self-determination”. In other words, demands   for   political   independence   have   been   legitimized   by   a   democratic principle invested in the Catalan people, reinforced by the repeated denial to accommodate Catalonia’s demands by the Spanish government.

4. From   an   international   law   perspective,   it   appears   clearly that   there   is   no international legal prohibition barring a sub-state entity from deciding its political destiny by assessing the will of its people. Both case law and state practice support this conclusion. State  practice  demonstrates  that  numerous  geographically  diverse  sub-state  entities  have expressed  the  will  of  their  people  regarding  independence.  The  practice  occurs  both  with and  without  the  consent  of  the  national  state.  Many  sub-state  entities  have  achieved independence  after  assessing  the  political  will  of  their  people. EU  member  states  have recognized  many  former  sub-state entities that assessed their people’s political will and decided to pursue independence.

5. As  regards European  Law,  in  the  absence of  specific  Treaty provision  on the right  of Self-determination for a European people without a Statein the territory of the EU, EU law does  not  forbid  the  exercise  of  its  Right  to  Decide  for  a  European  people  within  the  EU. There  are  even  numerous  Treaty  provisions  that  indicate  that  if  such  Right  were  to  be exercised,  EU  and  its  member  States  would  react  positively  to  a  new  European  State candidacy  to  join  the  EU.  Recent  and  consistent  practice  clearly  points  that  way.  Further, both  as  a  collectively  exercised  human  right  and  as  a  fundamental  norm  of  international Law, EU recognizes the Right to Decide.

6. As  regard  the  constitutionality  of  the  claim  for  the  Right  to  Decide, it  is  necessaryfrom  an  empirical  viewpoint,  and  fruitful  from  a  normative  one, togive  up  the  quest  for  a supreme  constitutional  interpreter. What  is  crucialin  a  constitutional  state that  is  faithful to the ambitions of constitutionalism isthe ongoing dialogue about, and engagement with, constitutional values and principles. Only this will make the constitution a living document, infused by the competing interpretations of values and principles that, by their very nature, admit various readings and conceptions. The quest for the final word is useless, illusory and possibly lethal from the political viewpoint of a healthy deliberative community.

7. In  that  respect,  the  debate  is  much  more open  than  what  one  might  think  at  first sight   by   examining   too   rapidly   the   basic   features   of   contemporary   constitutionalism, especially as it is illustrated by the Spanish constitutional system. Far from being disruptive of  the  constitutional  project  that was  adopted  in  1978,  the  Catalan  claim  to  the  Right  to Decide  on  its  political  future  precisely  testifies  to  a  genuine  commitment  to  the  ongoing constitutional dialogue that is legitimate in an open society.That is why simply dismissing this claim as “unconstitutional” cannot be an attitude that lives up to the high standard of political morality that is imposed by the ideal of constitutionalism.

8. Democratic  legitimacy  at  Catalan  and  Spanish  levels  may  both  be  legitimate,  even though  the  principle  of  external  preference  limits  the  capacity  of  Spain  to  permanently oppose the democratic choice of Catalonia. However, when conflicting political legitimacies compete,  there  is  a  duty  for  democratic  authorities  to  negotiate.  This  is  confirmed  by  the observation  ofinternational  practice  that  in  almost  all  instances,  the  sub-state  entity  and national state negotiate the contours of the assessment of political will.

9. Further,  in  a  genuine  liberal  democracy,  rule  of  law  may  not  trump  democratic legitimacy, nor the other way around; therefore, in a modern democratic State, rule of law and  democratic  legitimacy  need  to  be  reconciled and  cannot  in  the  long  term  remain opposed.  In  the  context  of  a  vote  of  self-determination,  as  is  the  case,  the  national framework  will  inevitably  be  inappropriate  because  the  existing  democratic  processes  to address the issue did not allow for a solution or a process to emerge. A change of scale thus appears necessary by justifying either locally or internationally(or both)the organization of a  referendum. If  Spanish  national  Authorities  deny  the  right  to  Catalonia  to  negotiate  its Right  to  Decide  within  the  Spanish  political  framework,  then  the  only  path  left  for Catalonia’s Authorities is the call for a self-determination referendum.

10.Thus, whatever the conflicting claims of legitimacy put forward by the political actors, international   practice   and   transconstitutional   jurisprudence   show   that   successful   self-determination  processes  always  rely  at  some  point  on  a  negotiation  procedure.  In  that perspective, the experts recommend the exploration of an earned sovereignty negotiating process  within  the  framework  of  the  EU.  This  would  imply  involvement  by  EU  institutions; we consider it possible in the perspective of a negotiation within the EU, fully implying Spain in seeking for Catalonia a constrained sovereignty solution, as a full member of the EU.

It’s a strong point to say that a democratic State cannot simultaneously declare its legitimacy is based on democracy while attempting to deny democratic self-determination to a secession-minded part of its populace. Post-Brexit, the EU is much more likely to support this political fragmentation on the part of its member-states, since smaller microstates are far less likely to believe they can survive without being subject to the EU.

Good morning, said Gab

Gab@getongab
Good morning to everyone except Google.

If you’re not sure what this means, perhaps today’s DailyMemeWars might help you understand.

Now, obviously, I don’t agree with Gab’s position on moderation. I don’t agree with it in theory and I don’t agree with it in practice. But that doesn’t mean that I think it is either right or fair for Gab to be locked out of the App Store and the Play Store. As to whether it is legal for them to be blackballed in this way, I have no idea. I simply don’t know what most of the relevant laws are, or how they apply to the situation. Unlike most of the critics of my current petition, I try to avoid opining in ignorance.

It is a daunting task to take on a tech giant with the resources that Google has at its disposal. It’s certainly a courageous move. As to whether it is a clever move or a completely crazy one, we shall have to wait and see what comes of it. But, as we know, giants can be slain.

Tomorrow

Andrew Torba promises a lawsuit:

GAB.AI, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

———–

While I hate to disappoint those who are hoping that Gab will strike back at me, I’m afraid you’re going to have to… think different.

Legal Legion update

There have been a number of developments on the defamation front. First, a member of the Legal Legion of Evil has filed the petition in Travis County and the county clerk has approved the filing. Today a hearing will be scheduled, at which we will seek to be provided with the identity of 14 individuals presently identified only by username, and ask to depose a representative of Gab concerning matters related to the identity of said individuals.

According to other members of the Legal Legion who have been reviewing activity at Gab, there have been a considerable number of additional defamatory attacks, directed at me as well as at others, and we will be amending the petition accordingly to add additional examples and usernames until the hearing actually takes place.

Now that we have actually gone through the process, it is evident that Gab’s recommended path of “get a court order” is simply not viable for the average individual who doesn’t have lawyers and paralegals at his immediate disposal. The process is simply too expensive for most people; the court filing alone is over $300.

As one individual has already discovered, it is much easier and more cost-effective to simply contact the Australian registrar, Asia Registry, at abuse@asiaregistry.com. Unfortunately, rather than address the individual’s concerns, news that the abuse on his site was being reported led Andrew Torba to publicly threaten a campaign of harassment of the gentleman concerned.

Andrew TorbaPRO · @a
If our registrar requires us to remove something again we will publish it here and let everyone know that you whined to them because someone hurt your feelings with mean words on the internet.

However, in Australia, defamation is both a civil and a criminal offense, and Asia Registry’s terms of service say a website owner must ensure that the website, “is not comprised or is not used for any unlawful purpose or activity.”

So, if you have reason to believe you have been defamed on Gab, you can send me the link to the defamatory Gab post along with your real name and the username of the offender with the subject LL-ASIA. I will pass your email along to a member of the Legal Legion of Evil, who will review it and decide if it rises to the level of defamation, defamation per se, or criminal defamation according to Australian standards. If, in his opinion, it does, you will then be provided with an appropriate template that can be sent to the woman responsible for handling abuse-related complaints along with her email address.

Again, I will point out that it is not my intent to harm Gab. We are not requesting any damages from Gab and we do not anticipate any further legal action against them once we obtain the requested information about the parties responsible. As a number of VFM and Dread Ilk have noted, I am handling Gab with kid gloves, in part because they are young and inexperienced and they do not appear be receiving appropriate legal counsel. But I have made it very, very clear that the defamatory attacks on me are going to be removed, one way or another, and as always, I am not bluffing.

At this point, it should be clear to everyone that the Legal Legion of Evil is real. As it happens, the LLoE has over 200 years of collective experience practicing the law in various states in a surprisingly wide range of specialties. Including defamation.

I understand that not everyone is happy with my actions, and I understand that a few of my supporters are extremely unhappy with them. To them, I would merely point out that this is a problem Gab was always going to face. I first warned Andrew of Gab’s need for some form of moderation back in early November 2016. And contra the opinions of the free speech purists, extortion, treason, fraud, defamation, and death threats are not free speech, as the court process should suffice to make abundantly clear.

I am not at all unfamiliar with the way in which some individuals simply refuse to take the easy and obvious way out. I once spent three years to resolve a situation that could have been resolved, at vastly less expense, by sending me a simple one-paragraph letter. I hope it won’t take three years to resolve this one, but if it does, that possibility doesn’t bother me at all. I’ve been through it before, and if I have to, I will go through it again.

The ideas, they percolate

An article on PJ media about a distressed young liberal woman who keeps finding out that the men to whom she is attracted turn out to be Trump voters.

No woman wants a man she can push around, walk all over, or beat in an arm-wrestling match. Politics be damned. That’s not how biology works. (Now, I realize I may be talking to biology deniers, but you asked “why can’t I stop?” and this is why. Biology.) Women are naturally attracted to alpha males and not that gamma guy in a onesie with fragile wrists. The left has emasculated their men to the point of putting them in dresses and sending them into the ladies’ room. It’s no wonder you need to shop outside your herd. Why the heck wouldn’t you?

The reality you’re facing is that your guys are the ones getting a wedgie and ours are the ones you want to go home with. I don’t blame you.

People often think that influence is somehow related to everyone knowing your name. That’s not influence. That’s fame.

On a related note, I’ve been hearing for the last week or two that the various kerfluffles with the two Andrews, Anglin and Torba, are “bad PR” and bad for my brand.

The objective measures:

  • Twitter followers declined from 33,000 to 32,800
  • Five Infogalactic Burn Unit members canceled their subscriptions. All five have already been replaced.
  • Daily average site traffic increased 5 percent
  • Daily average book sales increased 225 percent
  • 7 8 new Legal Legion of Evil volunteers.
It would appear there is a sound basis for the Fake Right theory that Mike Cernovich became a successful shekel-grubbing book salesman on the basis of metaphorically punching Clown Nazis. That wasn’t my intention, but if this is what “destroying my brand” looks like, I think I can live with it. Although perhaps the more apt term would be “thrive” on it.

By the way, there is going to be a BIG surprise awaiting the self-appointed experts on defamation presently expressing their legal theories on Gab. I have to admit, I was genuinely shocked myself to discover what is actually considered defamation per se in the relevant jurisdiction. I mean, there is not a single non-lawyer, on either side of the issue, who had a clear grasp of the actual legal situation at hand.

Legal update

First, as I pointed out in tonight’s Darkstream, I am not suing Gab. I repeat, I am not suing Gab and there is no reason to do so. That being said, Gab has already gone into lockdown mode, as evidenced by Andrew Torba’s recent “bring it on” video and Utsav’s recent post asking me not to call him.

In other words, they are not acceding to my request for the personal information of the three users responsible for the defamation, which means that we will have to force their compliance through the legal process. The Legal Legion of Evil is already aware of this and will begin the process next week.

I respect Gab’s right to run their business as they see fit. But there is no way that any responsible parent will permit such baseless and reprehensible accusations to stand uncontested, and so the Legal Legion and I will be pursuing this matter until the defamation is removed and the @dantheman10, @GTKRWN, and @Fabian_Nazism are forced to answer for their defamatory actions.

If you don’t understand why I’m doing this, these three examples might help you understand.

  • https://gab.ai/Fabian_Nazism/posts/11749651
  • https://gab.ai/GTKRWN/posts/11748825
  • https://gab.ai/dantheman10/posts/11773072

In the meantime, if you follow me on social media, you can do so on Twitter, as I will not be using Gab until the defamation is removed and policies are instituted that can be reasonably expected to prevent similar incidents in the future.

And if you’re a lawyer who is interested in joining the Legal Legion, shoot me an email. We still have 40 states that require coverage. If you think I am overreacting, I suggest you consider the recent examples set by Milo Yiannopoulos and Julian Assange.

This is compounded by my level-headed analyses of the alt-right, which has led media organization after media organization to brand me a “white nationalist”—almost always followed by a groveling apology to me and a public retraction after my lawyers get in touch.
– Milo Yiannopoulos, Dangerous

As violence broke out, Arreguin returned to Twitter to half-heartedly proclaim, “Violence and destruction is not the answer.” The following morning he put out a statement condemning the violence, while also condemning me as a white nationalist. My lawyers forced him to retract and apologize.
– Milo Yiannopoulos, Dangerous

An analyst on our air earlier today asserted that Julian Assange was a pedophile, and regrets saying it. In fact, CNN has no evidence to support that assertion… We regret the error.
– CNN

Irony: social media edition

Tariq Nasheed@tariqnasheed
There is a new social media app for white supremacists called GAB, & they have an East Indian spokesperson so they can hide their racism

Gab@getongab
This is utterly disgusting and defamatory. How is this possibly not “hate speech” @jack? Our co-founder is a Muslim Turkish Kurd you moron.

Supreme Dark Lord‏ @voxday
Yeah, about that whole defamatory thing.

What if they called your co-founder “a pedophile”?

What if they did it on Gab?

Repeatedly?

UPDATE: I spoke to Gab this morning. Although the libel situation is getting worse there, they appear to have a good grasp on the relevant issues and will be refining their policies accordingly. I was also pleased to welcome a new volunteer to the Legal Legion of Evil, bringing the total to seven.

UPDATE: Andrew TorbaPRO · @a
Over the next several weeks we will be improving our flagging system to make it easier for you to report and label content that you believe may break our guidelines. Our guidelines are fair and common sense. Please review them.