Against Discrimination by a Social Medium Platform

In one fell swoop, this federal district court litigation can stop all social medium discrimination either against a pro-Palestine user or against any other social medium user and his content.

I need a Palestinian American Muslim representative co-plaintiff for the Final Class Action Complaint to be filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Summary of Allegations from the Draft Complaint

Allegation I: Trespass in the US Government-Designated Public Forum of the Internet

19. The Internet is a US government-designated public forum. Each Common Carrier Defendant is inextricably intertwined with the US federal government in this forum and either trespasses on the federal government or proxies for the US federal government in the government-designated public forum of the Internet.

Allegation II: No Equivalence of a 2023 Social Medium Platform with a 1996 ICS

20. A 2023 social medium platform is not a 1996 Interactive Computer Service (ICS). None of the liability shields, which 47 U.S. Code § 230 confers on a 1996 ICS, apply to a 2023 Social Medium Platform. A social medium platform has no editorial discretion to deny a user the carriage or the conveyance of the user’s unpublished digital personal literary property. Any such denial is a violation that is perpetrated in bad faith.

Allegation III: Violation of Federal Public Accommodation Law

21. The Internet is a place of public accommodation according to 42 U.S. Code § 2000a. Because each Common Carrier Defendant operates within the Internet, each said Defendant is subject to 42 U.S. Code § 2000a.

Allegation IV: Violation of 42 U.S. Code § 1981

22. Use of community standards to determine breach of Terms of Service (TOS) is ipso facto discriminatory and is a legal admission of violation of 42 U.S. Code § 1981.

Allegation V: Violation of 42 U.S. Code § 1982

23. A tweet, a post, a comment, a response, a reply, or a question, which a 2023 social medium platform carries by digital transmission, is an unpublished literary property just as an unpublished news report is an unpublished literary property that a reporter files by telegraph, telex, or email with a newspaper so that the newspaper can publish a timely article. Each Common Carrier Defendant routinely refuses to convey unpublished digital personal literary property in shameless violation of 42 U.S. Code § 1982.

Allegation VI: Violation of M.G.L. Chapter 159 § 1

24. A social medium platform is a common carrier of messages and routinely denies the Plaintiff common carriage in malicious violation of M.G.L. Chapter 159 § 1. Because definition of common carrier in 47 USC § 153(11) seems to be more general than telecommunications common carrier, a social medium platform may also deny the Plaintiff message common carriage in malicious violation of 47 U.S. Code § 202 - Discriminations and preferences. Because § 202 does not define a cause for which the Plaintiff may seek relief, these two federal statutes, which imply that a discriminatory social medium platform commits gross violations, will not be further addressed.

Allegation VII: Violation of the Ninth Amendment

25. Hosting is bailment1 by a social medium platform and not speech of a social medium platform. Each Common Carrier Defendant asserts a First Amendment right, which it does not have, to deny the Plaintiff’s freedom of speech and violates the Plaintiff’s Ninth Amendment right to non-discriminatory common carriage.

Allegation VIII: Violations by Proxying for the Federal or State Government

26. Because a government account, which a government agency sets up on a social medium platform (a) to communicate with the public, (b) to give notice of requests for comments, or (c) to post jobs, etc. proxies for a government website, the social medium platform becomes inextricably intertwined with the government agency in a government facility, which is the governments own network within the Internet. Thus, each Common Carrier Defendant proxies both for the US federal government and also for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. According to State Action Doctrine (a Fourteenth Amendment Doctrine that is extended to the federal government by the Fifth Amendment) this proxying implicates both the Federal government and also the Commonwealth government in violation both of the Fifth Amendment and also of the Fourteenth Amendment. This proxying creates causes of action according to 28 U.S. Code § 1346(a)(2) against the US federal government and according to 42 U.S. Code § 1983 against a state government like the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

[Here are the claims of the Plaintiff. If Joachim is the sole plaintiff, the compensation for the torts, which Joachim has suffered, is stratospheric. In the form of a class action lawsuit, the compensation becomes astronomical. Because of dubious allegations that assert this complaint would harm American industry and dislocate thousands, we must overcome the lies of the social medium platforms and overwhelm the federal courts with the incalculable harm that social medium platforms have been doing to vast numbers of the American public. Any member of the American public can join this lawsuit. I want most of the compensation from this lawsuit to go to the Palestinian victims of Zionism, but I will make sure anyone that donates over $50 to this fundraiser receives a reasonable return for his donation as long as he includes his email with the donation and as long as I can correspond with him to obtain the necessary details for the plaintiff database.]

Claims of the Plaintiff

Count I – Trespass of the Public Forum, Which Is the Internet

139. All of the foregoing allegations are incorporated at this point as if they were fully set forth in detail in this count.

140. The US government must seize every domain name and every Internet address of each Common Carrier Defendant until the Common Carrier Defendant restores every one of Joachim’s accounts and all of Joachim’s content, of which the Common Carrier Defendant had bailment and until each Common Carrier Defendant pays Joachim the following compensation.

141. Because modern society does not function without respect for anti-discrimination law and because the discrimination was malicious, each Common Carrier Defendant must pay Joachim punitive compensation for removing Joachim’s account and content. If the Common Carrier Defendant cannot restore Joachim’s content, the Common Carrier Defendant must pay Joachim punitive compensation for the loss of irreplaceable content.

Count II – Violation of 42 U.S. Code § 2000a

142. All of the foregoing allegations are incorporated at this point as if they were fully set forth in detail in this count.

143. The Common Carrier Defendants have all violated 42 U.S. Code § 2000a. They must restore all the Plaintiff’s suspended accounts as well as all the content of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff has been prevented from accessing. If any content cannot be restored by a Common Carrier Defendant, the Defendant must compensate the Plaintiff for destroyed content. Each Common Carrier Defendant must cease to harass the Plaintiff in any way as the Plaintiff uses the social medium platforms. Each Common Carrier Defendant must never suspend any account of the Plaintiff. Each Common Carrier Defendant must compensate the Plaintiff for all harm that the suspensions have caused the Plaintiff.

Count III – Violation of 42 U.S. Code § 1981

144. All of the foregoing allegations are incorporated at this point as if they were fully set forth in detail in this count.

145. Because modern society does not function without respect for anti-discrimination law and because the discrimination was malicious, each Common Carrier Defendant must pay Joachim punitive compensation for discriminatory breach of contract and for removing Joachim’s account as well as his content. If the Common Carrier Defendant cannot restore Joachim’s content, the Common Carrier Defendant must pay Joachim punitive compensation for the loss of irreplaceable content.

Count IV– Violation of 42 U.S. Code § 1982

146. All of the foregoing allegations are incorporated at this point as if they were fully set forth in detail in this count.

147. Each Common Carrier Defendant did incalculable harm to Joachim by denying conveyance of his personal digital literary property. each Common Carrier Defendant must pay Joachim punitive compensation for discriminatory denial of conveyance of his property.

Count V – Penalties for Denial of Common Carriage

148. All of the foregoing allegations are incorporated at this point as if they were fully set forth in detail in this count.

149. The Common Carrier Defendants violate common carrier law by suspending the Plaintiff and must restore all the suspended accounts of the Plaintiff.

150. Each Common Carrier Defendant has refused common carriage to the Plaintiff at least 40 times a day to at least 1000 other users per suspended account (40,000 denials of common carriage) since December 20, 2018. At the lowest penalty ($50) that Massachusetts could levy per denial, each Common Carrier Defendant must pay the Plaintiff at least $300,000,000.00. The maliciousness and bad faith of a Defendant’s denial of common carriage justifies assessing the maximum common carriage penalty ($500) per instance of denial of common carriage. At the $500 penalty, each Common Carrier Defendant owes the Plaintiff approximately $3,000,000,000 or more.

Count VI – Violation of State Action Doctrine

151. All of the foregoing allegations are incorporated at this point as if they were fully set forth in detail in this count.

152. The US federal government and the government of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts must cease all use of any government account on each Common Carrier Defendant that hosts a government account.

153. The US government must seize every domain name and every Internet address of each Common Carrier Defendant that hosts a government account until the Common Carrier Defendant restores every one of Joachim’s account and all of Joachim’s content, of which the Common Carrier Defendant had bailment and until each Common Carrier Defendant, which hosts a government account, pays Joachim the following compensation.

154. Because modern society does not function without respect for anti-discrimination law and because the discrimination was malicious, each Common Carrier Defendant must pay Joachim punitive compensation for removing Joachim’s account as well as his content. If the Common Carrier Defendant cannot restore Joachim’s content, the Common Carrier Defendant must pay Joachim punitive compensation for the loss of irreplaceable content.