Ready for things to get really interesting? Recently, the judge who presided over my lawsuit with Facebook recused himself. More recently we filed a Rule 5.1 Constitutional Challenge and since then the DOJ has entered its appearance in the case. When the constitutionality of a law's application is challenged, the DOJ has the ability to defend the State’s (i.e., the courts’) application of that law, here Section 230(c)(1). But, in this case, if the State somehow argues that the law was applied correctly by the courts, we can literally use their own words against them. Yup, you heard me right. Conveniently, the DOJ submitted an amicus brief in Gonzalez v. Google that literally supports our position that 230(c)(1) was applied incorrectly. We've been right about Section 230 all along, but nobody is paying attention. The DOJ literally said in its brief that it is the position of the United States that “230(c)(1) has been applied beyond its proper bounds.” In other words, wrongly / unconstitutionally! Now that the DOJ has already agreed with us in public record, what are they going to do, argue that their own position is wrong? They are in a Catch-22, but what's more exciting is that the court is as well. This is a bit more complicated, but in another case, Jarkesy v. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that if there is no “intelligible principle” (i.e., the general provision / motivation of 230 is not applied) overarching the SEC’s actions (here, Big Tech’s actions), then the law that affords them that protection is unconstitutional (i.e., one’s federally authorized immunity from civil action cannot be “unfettered”). “Unfettered” protection is precisely the result of the courts misinterpretation of Section 230(c)(1). That's why Big Tech can get away with anything. The courts messed it up. Taken from our recent Rule 5.1 Constitutional Challenge: Put simply, it is a Catch-22: either the District Court was wrong about the application of Section 230(c)(1) (that is, wrong that Section 230(c)(1) is somehow not subject to the Section 230(c) “Good Samaritan” intelligible principle) or the federal statute is unconstitutional. Either way, the dismissal of Fyk’s case was / is untenable and must be immediately overturned. In other words, if the court is somehow right about Section 230(c)(1)’s overly broad application (which it is not), the law is unconstitutional (i.e., it is wrong). And, if they are just wrong about its application, well, then they are wrong. Either way, the courts are wrong and in a Catch-22 that the DOJ cannot possibly defend, and what's even better is that my right to challenge Section 230 at this point, according to Rule 5.1(d), is "not forfeitable." Therefore, “the court must, under 28 U.S.C. §2403, certify to the appropriate attorney general that a statute has been questioned.” Simply put, Big Tech is about to become liable for all its publications decisions that are not done in “good faith” and / or as a “Good Samaritan.” Checkmate! 🤯 Make no miatake, we are not trying to get rid of 230, we are trying to get the courts to apply it correctly - i.e. the way it was written by Congress. Are you ready for the Internet to fundamentally change back to what was originally intended by Congress? I sure as hell am.