Lich Lord of GamerGate ID: 08f85d Net Neutrality Aftermath - OP Chickasaw Dec. 14, 2017, 5:26 p.m. No.331436   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1437 >>1438

Net Neutrality is dead, but technically it's always been with us:

https://archive.is/yAryk

>In 1946, the Supreme Court decided the case of Marsh v. Alabama, in which a Jehovah’s Witness was arrested for trespassing because she was distributing religious literature in Chickasaw, Alabama, a town that was wholly owned by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation. Marsh argued that because the town’s roads and sidewalks were the only means by which she could exercise her freedom of speech—and because the town of Chickasaw had been open to public use in all other respects—the trespassing arrest violated her rights under the First Amendment.

>In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Marsh’s favor. Justice Hugo Black decreed that private entities do not have the right to ban speech on their property if they happen to own a monopoly on the means by which speech can take place. Black also argued that the more that private entities open their property up to public use, the fewer rights they have to control or ban what people do on that property.

>Given that Google, Twitter, Apple, Facebook, and other edge providers are publicly-accessible entities that have deliberately pushed for monopoly control over the Internet, it’s clear that Marsh v. Alabama prohibits them from censoring right-wingers. The statute also applies to ISPs, since they wield a monopoly over Internet access. All it would take to shut down online censorship is a halfway-decent lawyer arguing that these left-wing Big Tech companies are literally violating the Constitution.

Big Tech Companies are already violating the Constitution, and ISPs would too if they throttle!

 

< Spreading the word

Using a tweet as an example (baring in mind you can also use GAB or Minds):

twitter.com/MockNDrole/status/941464844196352000

> Don't be clickbait, briefly explain why Net Neutrality was unnecessary by one of the points mentioned in the archive- in fact, include it as well.

> Tailor to your audience. Most of your followers Right Wing? Tell them how Google and Twitter are already breaking the constitution for silencing conservatives. Most of Your Audience like Net Neutrality? Explain how it's already in the Constitution!

> If you focus on one point- include a screencap where in the post it says it- and highlight it in the archive. This gives you a new URL that'll highlight the same area and scroll down for whoever clicks on it, like so: https://archive.is/yAryk#selection-615.0-637.42 - include the original URL as well (https://archive.is/yAryk)

> Include #NetNeutrality because it's trending,and those into it will see it when searching as well.

> Post your tweet here to spread the info quicker via old-fashioned SignalBooster tactics.

You can also write to your senator! (Literally search "How do I contact my senator" or "How do I contact the senator of [state] and you'll find it.)

 

< TL;DR (more posts below but summarized here)

> Make Tweets, Infographs and the like to spread on social media.

> Write to your senator.

> Repackage the archive to manipulate leftists.

> Keep pushing.

Lich Lord of GamerGate ID: 08f85d Dec. 14, 2017, 5:27 p.m. No.331437   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1438

>>331436

< Similar Cases

Similar cases to Marsh Vs Alabama have happened:

Lloyd Corp. V. Tanner https://archive.is/nPTjs (it went the other way)

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins https://archive.is/RRpwv

>Marsh v. Alabama ruled in favor of Marsh, since the entirety of the town was owned by the same company, effectively making it a monopoly

>Lloyd Corp. V. Tanner ruled in favor of Lloyd Corp., since they only owned the mall, and not the surrounding area, thus Tanner still has the right to protest in other publicly-accessible areas

>For Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, it was decided that state laws can expand upon federal free speech laws, but cannot infringe upon them

>On December 27, 2012, the Supreme Court of California reaffirmed Pruneyard but narrowed its applicability to the facts of the original case.[16] The entire court concurred in Associate Justice Joyce Kennard's holding that Pruneyard applies only to "common areas" of shopping centers that are designed and furnished to encourage shoppers to linger, congregate, relax, or converse at leisure, but does not apply to any other open portions of shopping centers merely intended to facilitate the efficient movement of shoppers in and out of tenants, including concrete aprons and sidewalks which shoppers simply walk across as they move between parking lots and big-box stores. In other words, the court effectively immunized most (but not all) strip malls and shopping centers from Pruneyard, except for those with areas analogous to public gathering areas such as plazas, atriums, or food courts.

> I'm guessing this would make applying such laws to the Internet that much more complex. But I'm no expert in law.

So the law may not be as clear cut as it appears. A new precedent could be argued for if it was taken to court however.

Even if Google and Twitter don't get fucked on Monopoly laws- it can still be argued as the biggest video provider and social media provider- they have to respect free speech laws more.

If it does go to court they'll just empty their warchests and possibly get off scott free (before Trump it would be guaranteed).

The goal is to get people to demand the internet is treated under free speech as a Net Neutrality substitute.

People demanding free speech will scare the shit out of Google/Twitter/(((many))) so it increases people turning against them or them fucking up.

Lets use the people who want Net Neutrality to demand that part of the constitution is enforced… and fuck over Google/Twitter in the process. In theory, it could make it unconstitutional for any website to censor it's users opinions. Holy shit- imagine living in a world like that.

You'll get banned if you call someone a cocksucker- but if you calmly make your argument, you can't be touched under US law on a US forum or internet service. Hot damn.

 

< Unlikely allies

I'd recommend remaking that archived post in a blog or similar, and rephrase it for leftists.

The language of the original post is very heavily biased towards stamping out a leftist bias. If we want to use people on the left- we need to repackage the info to be more palatable. Explain how big-bad Trump wouldn't be able to force Twitter or Google to censor stuff he didn't like, since it'd be against the constitution.

I recommend this only be undertaken by someone who already has a good normalfag or left-leaning appearing blog or website, and who knows how to write emotionally to appeal to them.

Lich Lord of GamerGate ID: 08f85d Dec. 15, 2017, 12:36 p.m. No.331442   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Also (if true) Net neutrality may have given the Clinton's unfettered reign to shut down any website deemed "propaganda".

If she had won.