Will the courts finally fix Section 230?
We are about to find out...
Oral arguments are set for October.🧐

Now, nearly a dozen cases PROVE that my case was dismissed incorrectly (i.e., 230 was applied wrong).

Section 230(c)(1) cannot be unfettered prior restraint authority - immunity, otherwise it is unconstitutional as applied.

That is not just our opinion, that is also the opinion of Chat GPT 4o. Yes, even Ai recognizes the courts made a mistake here. Read the attached documents below, they are an eye opener!

We are now challenging the law itself in a Rule 5.1 Constitutional Challenge. Read here:

This decision will either correct and unify the application of Section 230, or it will determine that our constitutional rights no longer exist on the Internet. It is either the courts fix this manifest injustice, or they choose to willfully deny me of my right to challenge a law that denied me of a legal right. That's extraordinary!

I pray that the 9th Circuit does the right thing and sees true to uphold the law and my rights. And, although it is uncharted territory, Big Tech will finally be legally liable for their own conduct if that conduct is not done in "good faith," and as a "Good Samaritan."

Please support our efforts to preserve YOUR rights on the Internet @ the Social Media Freedom Foundation.

https://x.com/JasonFyk/status/1766486397160984784?t=r-qbEuISDVySKjwFJ3XDxw&s=19

I have read so many posts about Section 230 from people that have absolutely no idea how it works, or even what it says.

Below is a harmonious simplification of the entire statute, and how it should work as a whole:

1/10 §230(c) (Motivation): the “Good Samaritan” general provision, must be considered (1) in the interest of the public, (2) at the onset of
litigation, and (3) applied in the interest of others (i.e., not for the benefit or interest of the ICS provider or user).

2/10

🚨Fyk v Facebook Supreme Court Petition🚨

The courts / government have robbed everyone of Due Process and Free Speech through the misapplication of Section 230(c)(1) "super-immunity" ~ @SenTedCruz

The Supreme Court must hear this petition to protect all of our rights!

1/13 2/13
Section 230 ultra simplified.
Introduction to the petition

This is the origin of Section 230's mistaken application. If you want to understand why Big Tech cannot be held accountable for anything, this is why AND it's an easy fix.

Let it be known, that on December 6th 2022 the @US9thCircuit received my personally sworn affidavit of notice of awareness and demand for remedy by necessity.
Maxim: "Necessity overrules the law." Hob 144;
"In cases of extreme necessity compels, it justifies." Hale, P.C. 54. Our forefathers, who started this nation, said that the only way to stay free, is to frequently teach our servants.
Did our forefathers tell the bar association to teach government the fundamentals or the People?

How did Big Tech get so big?
Consider how Section 230(c)(1) changes meaning, if you change one simple word?

SCOTUS can fix this whole mess by simply giving the word "the" effect.

This is far more important than it seems. Let's just say, words matter when determining who is who.

“In this country, [@9th_court] like to boast that persons who come to court are entitled to have independent judges, not politically motivated actors, resolve their rights and duties under law. Here we promise, individuals may appeal to neutral magistrates to resolve... 1/4 their disputes about "what the law is." Everyone, we say, is entitled to a judicial decision "without respect to person," and to be a "fair trial in fair tribunal." (Cite omitted) Under a broad reading of Chevron, however, courts often fail to deliver on all these promises. 2/4

Big Tech acts as the FCC
"Congress has given (Big Tech) the responsibility (Section 230) for administratively enforcing the law that governs these types of broadcasts (Community Standards). (Big Tech) has authority to issue... penalties (restrict materials)... or deny (access)" Private Entity vs. FCC
"The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech."

🚨🚨🚨
Supreme Court Certiorari (full doc)
Fyk vs. Facebook
Docket #20-632
🚨🚨🚨
We MUST be heard!
#Section230
#FYKs230

@realDonaldTrump
@tedcruz
@HawleyMO
@LindseyGrahamSC
@dbongino
@DavidJHarrisJr
@marklevinshow
@tracybeanz
@Jim_Jordan
@TulsiGabbard
@TuckerCarlson