Featured Post

QAnon: The Q-Sort Personality Profile Builder

Gettin Billy with It QAnon is based on Q-Sort: A psychological technique of which there are many variations, resulting in 50 descript...

Saturday, September 8, 2018

TOS: The Alex Jones Case for Determining Designatory Virtual Space

We're Untouchable
I don't know who their shady lawyers are, but this coordinated "de-platforming" invalidates every Terms of Service "contract" across the boards: 

They have proven beyond any Reasonable Doubt that they believe -- they feel -- their TOS overrides the Constitution, and local laws, and they are not bound by any conventional legalities (which, interestingly, also invalidates any contractual agreements, since they can't be held-up in an "unrecognized" Court of Law).  You do not have a "right" to refuse service to anyone -- that's what anti-discrimination laws are all about, that's what the very people you claim to represent, to be protecting, fought and died for!

You absolutely cannot discriminate against people based on their political affiliation, religious faith, sexual orientation, or the color of their skin, et. al., in accordance with Federal Law -- nor can you decide that you just don't like the way they look, or the things they say.  That's literally what the First Amendment says!  According to Constitutional Law, you absolutely cannot Censor someone -- period.  According to your own TOS, you are in violation -- an egregious Breach of Contract.

And don't you Goddamn dare give me this "private" designation argument; don't be fucking wiseguys with me.  You're clever enough to manufacture all these machinations, so I know you're smart enough not to be Argumentative with Intent.  And that you absolutely know what you are doing, and can tell Right from Wrong -- there's nothing wrong with your intellectual capacity insofar as your judgment goes.

As to your Emotional Intelligence, you've been deemed Predatory... I truly believe you suffer from Psychosis, but you're too clever for me to prove that.  Lucky you.  Do you seriously expect to argue that I am responsible for my words and actions on a service which alleges it owns said words and actions that are technically in the "public space" when it suits their purposes?

We're not sorting through your "designatory spaces" hopscotch again -- you own the gun, but not the bullets.  You fucking wiseguys.  "You own the rights to the communities and content we provide, but while you aren't responsible for it, you can terminate access to it at will without due process..."  No.

No, you do not own shit -- you don't even own the corporations you represent, so we're Filing Motion of Discovery for information on your shareholders, as well as your donations to political organizations.  (As an aside, it's illegal to charge us for filing legal actions, including -- but not limited to --  FOIA requests.)

You're also using War Time legalities -- don't think we haven't noticed -- you're just too cowardly and deceitful to "Legally" Declare War on the very citizens whose Rights you are violating (because it is blatantly Illegal, and you know that -- to Intellectual Capacity).  Why though, I have no idea -- the worst that can happen to any of them is that they'll be granted Immunity and rake in that GoFundMe dough.

Invoking the Espionage Act -- that's called "Flipping the Script" -- constitutes a "soft Declaration" of War.

The illegal imprisonment and Federal gangstalking of Julian Assange and his supporters constitutes Acts of War in violation of every treaty, as well as numerous domestic statutes in both America and the UK.  These are War Crimes amounting to Sedition, if not High Treason.

These TOS contracts are barely more than porn contracts: You cannot legally enter into an illegal contract; they are not binding in a Court of Law, by these entities' own admission.   These illegal, and ever-changing, contracts are being used as Pretext to deprive individuals of our Constitutional Rights.

Furthermore, you cannot unilaterally redefine the terms of an agreed-upon contract afterward -- which is what they have done countless times over the years, specifically the last three, almost uniformly when leading-up to an Election!

This is further evidence of their government/political affiliations, and clear proof of Election Meddling by these Media companies.  Which we really don't need, given that they all hold contracts with governmental entities, and have freely Confessed to sharing personal and private information they illegally collected -- against the terms of their own TOS -- with legal and political officials, and third-party entities operating in such capacity.

They have also failed to protect that personal information -- which they shouldn't have had to begin with -- leading to an ongoing crisis of "data breaches," Identity Theft, targeted harassment, and worse.

Forcing me to enter a unilaterally modified contract to access my personal information and (generally Intellectual) property -- much of which was supposed to be private, and/or never collected to begin with (another invalidating concern, as these companies clearly violated their contracts' terms first) -- is Coercion.  We have been forced to agree to TOS under duress, just to access information on accounts we've held for years -- in many cases, before companies like Alphabet/Google purchased them (as with Blogger).  Besides, we had no Legal Counsel at the time of signing, which reinforces the charge of Coercion.

Finally, holding my content hostage -- and removing it without my permission, or notice, including specific violations of TOS or the Law that prompted this action -- constitutes a Necessity: That is to say, we were Coerced into entering an illegal contract under duress out of Necessity.  I have personal records you have prevented me from accessing -- medical records, financial records, receipts, et.al. -- and these were understood to be private.

They again violated their own TOS when they tracked our "habits" off-site, even when we opted-out.  They also hid the fact that they were doing so, and intentionally obfuscated the opt-out process.  This invalidates those contracts, as well, since we were disallowed the opportunity to make an informed decision, and could lead to criminal charges of Wire Fraud, Denial of Service, and Illegal Access.

I know you moved your hardware to foreign countries specifically to violate the Law: They did this to allow surveillance under the FISA act.  Yet none of these corporations are registered as foreign agencies (FARA), invalidating their attempts to circumvent the Law.

To that point, you absolutely cannot cherry-pick the First Amendment.  Jeff Sessions' religious junta, and Chuck Schumer's Press Corps, Constitutionally amount to standing militiae with Occupational Intent based on Pretext.  Not to mention the existing, militarized police force -- which is playing judge, jury, and executioner in an ongoing Occupational capacity, also against the Law.

All of this -- all of it -- constitutes Sedition, and your "Anonymous" Confessional is admissible, just as you intended (since the source cannot be held liable, The New York Times Editorial Board can -- no one needs to know the source, as these Media companies have proven that they control the content).  Your coordinated efforts also designate you as governmental Utilities, functioning as a War force (under the NDAA) -- and you are not registered as foreign agencies, which constitutes Espionage.  High Treason.

We are absolutely not anti-government; we are anti- Organized Crime.  And the current Senate, Congress, and all officials -- on both sides of the aisle -- are Guilty of Sedition, along with all of their co-conspirators.  They have infiltrated our government, our police forces, our media, our country, and systematically deprived us of our Rights incrementally, and/or denied us those Rights outright -- as in the cases of both Julian Assange and Alex Jones.

Government officials absolutely cannot dictate, and cherry-pick or change, the Law to suit their whims; they are managerial positions for the purposes of ensuring our taxpayer money goes to the right people and places, as determined largely by terms set forth prior to their appointment -- they're basically "curators," for the sake of simplicity.  Private sector "individuals" cannot take it upon themselves to act as legal enforcers -- that's Vigilantism -- except in certain circumstances and situations.

To make this point absolutely crystal clear: These mafiosi have assumed control of the US Federal government, in addition to any number of state and local districts, the Media, and numerous non-governmental organizations operating domestically and abroad, in an act of Sedition -- a coup d'etat -- a "soft" coup.  They are unqualified for their positions, and did not attain them Legally within the scope of the Law.

I've never heard so much about Alex Jones, nor so little about Julian Assange, in my life.  I highly suggest both file Criminal charges, though I cannot guarantee they will be argued in any corrupt "Court of Law," which has clearly been thrown out in favor of "private interests."

You took it upon yourselves to designate these virtual areas "public spaces" when it suits your purposes; you took it upon yourselves to designate them Legally binding when it suits your purposes; and by your own twisted machinations, we have found you Guilty.

How's this for bi-partisanship: You're ALL Guilty.

If you intend to set Precedent or Appeal, you will file a formal complaint as a foreign agency -- no Arbitration.  I am not legally bound to disclose where to file this Motion; it is on you to do due diligence.  You can make Notice of your Intention to File Motion for Discovery on your fucking Twitter account.

Which we don't follow, because our account was terminated without notice.

Good luck!  Fucking wiseguys.


FWIW, no one mentions Alex Jones unless they mention "disinformation," or the like.  David Icke is held in higher regard, and we don't want them going after him (or anyone else) next.  The point is that they are making an example of InfoWars to engender a Chilling Effect.  

You can record someone in a public space, but their conversations are still private -- doing so surreptitiously, that is without their consent or knowledge of the fact, can still be considered wiretapping, stalking, and/or surveillance.  You are Legally, and Constitutionally, allowed to have a Private conversation in a Public space.  You don't have to be a lawyer to know the Law, and know your Rights.

There are already Laws in-place that address these issues; they are just trying to "legislate" Censorship on the WWW to circumvent the existing Laws, and they are not fit to do so -- also, it's Illegal.  I actually hope they Set Precedent with the 25th so we can throw them all the fuck out.

© Copyright 2018, The Cyberculturalist

No comments: