As I said last night (and AWS's lawyers aver below), there is no duty, contractual or otherwise, for AWS to allow the raw sewage of sedition to be pushed through its very efficient servers' pipes. And it is not a restraint of trade, when there are literally hundreds of other ways to get hosted on the big wide internet. And several of those don't care about complying with the laws of host countries -- so Parler will fit right in.
And those making such statements will find themselves in a conversation with FBI or Homeland Security (since Parler requires picture IDs -- many will be subject to arrest, after FBI warrants are served on the existing Parler archived copies at AWS). Do read all 16 pages -- but this is the executive summary of it all:
. . .This case is not about suppressing speech or stifling viewpoints. It is not about a conspiracy to restrain trade. Instead, this case is about Parler’s demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services (“AWS”) content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens. There is no legal basis in AWS’s customer agreements or otherwise to compel AWS to host content of this nature. AWS notified Parler repeatedly that its content violated the parties’ agreement, requested removal, and reviewed Parler’s plan to address the problem, only to determine that Parler was both unwilling and unable to do so. AWS suspended Parler’s account as a last resort to prevent further access to such content, including plans for violence to disrupt the impending Presidential transition.
Despite Parler’s rhetoric, its lawsuit is no more than a meritless claim for breach of contract. But the facts are unequivocal: If there is any breach, it is Parler’s demonstrated failure and inability to identify and remove such content. AWS was well within its rights to suspend Parler immediately for those failures. Parler also cannot hold AWS liable in tort for enforcing the agreement’s express terms. And there is no antitrust claim where, as here, Parler cannot plausibly plead an agreement to cause it harm and the complained-of conduct is undeniably compatible with a legitimate purpose.
Compelling AWS to host content that plans, encourages, and incites violence would be unprecedented. Parler has no likelihood of prevailing on the merits, and the balance of equities and public interest strongly tip against an injunction. The motion for a temporary restraining order should be denied. . . .
Many, many now self-proclaimed US seditionists who posted on Parler, previously should be prepared to apologize if they weren't present in DC, and/or provide alibis if they were -- explaining exactly where they were, and when they were standing "somewhere else" -- while 60 or more officers were injured in and around the Rotunda, in the violent insurrection of the 6th. Finally -- those inside the Rotunda may all be properly charged with felony murder. That's up to a life sentence. But would certainly earn at least twenty years, if the rioter was near where the officer was beaten to death.
Trump has perhaps a plausibly real chance of jail, along with Rudy G., for inciting sedition as well. And that jail time is before we talk about tax fraud in New York, or bank fraud at Deutsche Bank. And, before theft of honest services fraud at all his clubs -- by forcing our tax dollars to pay inflated prices for hotel nights in Scotland, and Florida and New Jersey. And on and on. It will all be. . . depressing, but critically vital work -- bringing him and his crime family to justice.
With that, let's spin the Nina Simone cut -- anew. I am optimistic about America's new day:
And. . . from my older brother:
Updated: Midnight, Eastern. . . You Tube will prevent Baby-T's account from uploading content for seven days. That's almost enough to get us past the Inaugural. End update. नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment