February 2022 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Universal BitLicense Declaration on Virtual Currency & Human Rights
by Gunnar Larson 24 Mar '25

24 Mar '25

Dear Madam Acting Superintendent: Reflecting this week, Ripple once again <https://www.law.com/radar/card/ripple-legal-chief-accuses-sec-of-playing-de…> shares concerning comments and approaches to respecting their Bitlicense award. Even more, many experts are concerned <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-17/nyc-miami-seen-facing-po…> about MIA Coin and resulting NYCCoin disasters. Madam Acting Superintendent, on August 4, 2020 as part of our Conditional BitLicense application we submitted a draft of the Universal BitLicense Declaration on Virtual Currency & Human Rights. - Today this memo is to re-new our obvious approach to virtual currency innovation in New York. Together under your leadership, we should be leading the world in the principles of modern cross-border BitLicense logic. - Madam Acting Superintendent, this type of stuff matters. The Deceleration aims to level the playing field for all and impacts the future of women and girls with respect to financial inclusion. - At the very least, New York and your office should be embracing such thoughtful approaches to support future generations and protect virtual currency from market manipulation. Madam Acting Superintendent, we implore that if some version of the Declaration was enacted in 2020, the world would be a better place today. Kindly find a copy of the Universal BitLicense Declaration on Virtual Currency & Human Rights <https://thecapital.io/article/universal-bitlicense-declaration-on-virtual-c…> below. We will be in contact with your office this coming week to engage in dialogue on the Declaration's feasibility forward. Very respectfully yours, Gunnar Larson *WE THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK DETERMINED* - to pioneer noble advancement of BitLicence theory and regulation, whereas it is essential to safeguard virtual currency and its potential to galvanize international, economic and social advancement of all peoples, and - to ensure clarity, principally New York’s BitLicence being the preeminent institution with mandate of ensuring that virtual currency manipulation (of any sort) shall not burden the common global interest of humanity, and that human rights are protected in the jurisdiction of New York for all peoples *AND FOR THESE ENDS* - to save succeeding generations from financial fraud and corruption, which in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to humanity, and - to reaffirm New York’s faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and - to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from BitLicence regulation and other sources of financial services law can be maintained, and - to promote larger social progress by leading global standards, given that New York remains the center of technological innovation and forward-looking virtual currency regulation *HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS* *Now, therefore this UNIVERSAL BITLICENSE DECLARATION ON VIRTUAL CURRENCY & HUMAN RIGHTS as the common crypto standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive to promote respect for human rights and personal freedoms by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance of New York-based companies accountable to a **universal **BitLicense **standard of virtual currency regulation across all global territories of business, protecting all peoples and all nations.* *Article One* - Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in failed financial frameworks that have outraged the conscience of mankind, and - Whereas the foundational vision of BitLicense theory imagines a world in which human beings shall enjoy safe, reliable and regulated virtual currency tools and financial products, now proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, *Article Two* - Whereas ethical stewardship of virtual currency is inherent to the BitLicence mandate, the invention of blockchain, and virtual currency aimed to secure the equal and inalienable rights of all as foundation to financial freedom and economic prosperity, especially in the developing economies, and - BitLicense members pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the state of New York, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of international human rights fundamental to the integrity of the BitLicense’s virtual currency regulation. - Whereas New York reaffirms faith in the BitLicense’s foundational themes and the general concept of human right protection. The dignity and worth of the human person and the equal rights of men and women are part of New York BitLicense protections and standards which correlates to noble “public-spiritedness” virtual currency regulation with exponential social progress of humanity. *Article Three* *The Purposes of this Declaration are:* - To maintain the protection of BitLicense virtual currency standards, implying any New York- based group or person has no right to engage in “loophole” business activities in global markets out of New York, or to perform any act aimed at bypassing BitLicense virtual currency regulation, and - To take effective collective measures to remove inconsistencies and prevent the suppression of human rights or other breaches of BitLicense regulations of virtual currency, and to bring about conformity with the principles of justice and international human rights laws, adjusting or settling international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of New York BitLicense law; - To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, while executing appropriate measures to close KYC/AML loopholes by strengthen universal virtual currency regulation of New York firms operating in global emerging markets; - To achieve international co-operation in solving international virtual currency problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian nature, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and - To offer New York as centre jurisdiction and the BitLicense as universal to harmonizing smart virtual currency actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends. *Article Four* New York BitLicensees (members), in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article One, shall act in accordance with the following Principles: - All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from BitLicense membership, shall fulfill the obligations assumed by them in accordance with this Declaration, and - All Members shall immediately settle their international virtual currency inconsistencies by peaceful means in such a manner that international law and justice are not endangered while meeting this Declaration and overall BitLicense compliance, and - All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the violation of human rights or abuse of virtual currency manipulation *by leveraging territorial loopholes (e.g. Africa) and/or inconsistent jurisdictional integrity and enforcement (e.g. Europe), nor willfully employ political naivete of any state (e.g. New York)*, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of this Declaration, and - Continued membership is contingent on the requirement that BitLicense Members based in New York act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental virtual currency regulation, and finally - Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of human rights or degradation of the BitLicense’s virtual currency statute or mandates set forth in this Declaration. -- *Gunnar Larson - xNY.io <http://www.xNY.io> | Bank.org <http://Bank.org>* MSc <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - Digital Currency MBA <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107 New York, New York 10001

1 20

[ot][random][crazy][spam] Out of it, Video Game Design Project
by Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many 23 Mar '25

23 Mar '25

I am totally out of it. I said some things to my therapist that sent my psychosis into convulsions. I can barely consider goals. I found a nice one: I spend so much time without good motor control, painfully associated with my goals and values, that I have a lot of experience daydreaming around pointless stuff to pass the time. One cool pointless project is the idea of a time travel video game. I've started it a few times, hard to get anywhere with though. Current behavior may be changed to boss story activity or something productive. The current attempt to draft this video game design is at https://github.com/xloem/multiplayertimetravel . The repo is basically empty. The idea is to get multiple players into an experience where they can time travel and interact with each other in each others' past and future using techniques such as simulation, prediction, vagueness, multiple timelines, etc. It's interesting because it sounds impossible when you propose it but is not too complicated to fake.

2 23

xNY.io | Palantir Technologies Board of Directors - Securities Fraud and Computer Crimes
by Gunnar Larson 27 Oct '24

27 Oct '24

Dear Palantir Board of Directors: You have yet to respond to xNY.io’s February 8, 2022 memo concerning <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oej5gM5wuftu68eVkXTR4wWqoHREP2zg3nwlH1H…> a reasonable request for the resignation of Mr. Peter Thiel from the Board of Directors of your esteemed organization. Making matters worse, Palantir’s Board of Directors failed to respond to xNY.io’s February 18, 2022 memo urging <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NMs-8HFD_Rrnkw4ePUhQSvJSGwhU70F9/view?usp=…> Palantir’s Board of Directors to act in resonance with the law. - Today’s correspondence <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cRuyS6IUS-8j8yKjOvs7Mx1V85zbMGfg6hyV6g2…> (memo attached) mints xNY.io’s overall concern of being victim to Palantir’s Board of Directors conspiracy to commit Computer Crimes and Securities Fraud. - xNY.io has made 185 highlights to the Prosecuting Computer Crimes Manual <https://drive.google.com/file/d/11tbgHgDg8qagomO-NBffvIFpxXKmBC3g/view?usp=…>, issued by the DOJ Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section Criminal Section. - xNY.io has made 85 highlights to the FDIC’s Office of Inspector General’s investigation <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mTHY9KMc6pK9T-brBhweEJlWfbka0fTg/view?usp=…> outlining Palantir’s Board of Director’s likely exploiting vulnerabilities in your system to conduct malicious cyber activities. - xNY.io now has logical concern of active Securities Fraud <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_fraud> sponsored by Palantir’s Board of directors that may be a threat to xNY.io’s international enterprise (chart detail attached). Seemingly, Meta’s Board of Directors (FB) embody xNY.io’s similar, logical approach. How would you like to proceed? Warm regards, Gunnar Larson -- *Gunnar Larson - xNY.io <http://www.xNY.io> | Bank.org <http://Bank.org>* MSc <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - Digital Currency MBA <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107 New York, New York 10001 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Date: Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 3:45 PM Subject: Re: Imploration of Peter Thiel Resignation, Palantir Technologies Board of Directors To: <Investors(a)palantir.com>, <investor(a)fb.com> Cc: cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)lists.cpunks.org> Dear Palantir Board Members: xNY.io seeks Palantir's immediate response on the extremely reasonable and overall logical request regarding Mr. Thiel, alleviating any co-conspiracy concerns of your directorate. We are tracking Palantir's Board now behind the reasonable 02/14/22 deadline at the expense of xNY.io (given our general perception of xNY.io related files being hosted on your platform). - Humbly, Palantir's Board may want to assure the United States that Palantir's Board is not sponsoring the next Cambridge Analytica. - Furthermore, xNY.io is designed <https://xny.io/whitepaper>to sidestep such unnecessary circumstances - xNY.io points to the New York Post's report <https://nypost.com/2021/08/25/fbi-palantir-glitch-allowed-unauthorized-acce…> on a "glitch" in Palantir's system allowing Cambridge Analytica type access to private data. *Make no mistake, it is not xNY.io's fault if Mr. Thiel is potentially sacrificing the purity of Palantir's Board.* What does Palantir have to lose in doing the right thing here? xNY.io further hints that it is not our overall problem if Palantir's Directorship wishes to self-destruct against scientific law <https://xny.io/> (aka modern logic). History provides the epic example <https://thecapital.io/article/directorates-who-discredit-truthful-witnesses…> of Enron and a cunning Board of Directors of misleaders, a team of flimflam artists who used sly rhetorical skills to bamboozle the public, turning night into day. In this conception, directorates tell stories only in order to seduce and beguile regulators who fall prey to the advocate’s star-crossed tricks. - Potentially best said by Senator John Mccain, “And the persons who ultimately are harmed by all of this, of course, is the average consumer, the average citizen, who has no knowledge, unless it paid attention to this hearing, of the extent of the manipulations that have been carried out by the largest financial institutions in America and, indeed, probably the world.” Forgive the efficient, yet candid locker room talk above. We are not saying Palantir's Board is crooked. But, you can imagine xNY.io's next correspondence should not be necessary. Very respectfully yours, Gunnar Larson -- *Gunnar Larson - xNY.io <http://www.xny.io/> | Bank.org <http://bank.org/>* MSc <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - Digital Currency MBA <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107 New York, New York 10001 On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 5:20 PM Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> wrote: > Dear Palantir Board of Directors: > > Today’s memo implores > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oej5gM5wuftu68eVkXTR4wWqoHREP2zg3nwlH1H…> > the resignation of Mr. Peter Thiel from the Board of Directors of your > esteemed organization. > > - > > Reasonable expectations support this resignation on or before Monday > February 14, 2022 at Noon EST. > - > > Failure in the resolution of the resignation concerned may be a threat > to xNY.io’s international enterprise (detailed below). > - > > Simple logic behind our request coincides with the February 7, 2022, > 4:07 PM EST > <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-07/peter-thiel-to-leave-met…> > Bloomberg News report of Mr. Thiel’s resignation from Meta’s Board of > Directors. Bloomberg cited that Mr. Thiel plans to explore political > endeavors that perhaps would be a conflict of interest to sacred Board > Director entitlement responsibilities. > > > Kindly find the attached memo addressed to the attention of Palantir's > Board of Directors. > > Respectfully yours, > > Gunnar Larson > -- > *Gunnar Larson - xNY.io <http://www.xny.io/> | Bank.org <http://bank.org/>* > MSc > <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - > Digital Currency > MBA > <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship > and Innovation (ip) > > G(a)xNY.io > +1-646-454-9107 > New York, New York 10001 >

2 13

Sonic Weapons Affect St. Bernard
by Gunnar Larson 29 Sep '24

29 Sep '24

Brody, the most wonderful St. Bernard on the Planet running around with Havana Syndrome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havana_syndrome Honestly, I really respect this technology. It is super cool. I just do not think they thought it would affect a big, beautiful boy like Brody.

3 5

Havana Syndrome, Sonic Weapons - INTERNATIONAL LEGAL INNOVATION
by Gunnar Larson 29 Sep '24

29 Sep '24

Cognitive liberty is not currently recognized as a human right by any international human rights treaty.[11] <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_liberty#cite_note-Bublitz_and_Mer…> While freedom of thought <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_thought> is recognized by Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights> (UDHR), freedom of thought can be distinguished from cognitive liberty in that the former is concerned with protecting an individual's freedom to think *whatever* they want, whereas cognitive liberty is concerned with protecting an individual's freedom to think *however* they want.[29] <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_liberty#cite_note-29> Cognitive liberty seeks to protect an individual's right to determine their own state of mind and be free from external control over their state of mind, rather than just protecting the content of an individuals’ thoughts.[30] <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_liberty#cite_note-Boire,_Part_II-…> It has been suggested that the lack of protection of cognitive liberty in previous human rights instruments was due to the relative lack of technology capable of directly interfering with mental autonomy at the time the core human rights treaties were created.[21] <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_liberty#cite_note-Boire,_Part_I-21> Havana Syndrome bred by Sonic Weapon technology more or less is lazyly playing in regulatory arbitrage loopholes related to cognitive liberty. Recently, we went to the SEC for guidance on consolidation of an ILO (Intiatal Legal Offering). As we await engagement with the SEC on the ILO prospect, ILO’s resemble Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs), but rather than raising money for a new coin, app, or service, they’re used to fund specific litigation. Think micro-investing for lawsuits. In an ILO, investors receive tokens entitling them to shares of potential recoveries, an economic right converted to a digital asset. If cases fail, they lose their investments. We are exploring an ILO at the international level (International Criminal Court <https://www.icc-cpi.int/>, International Court of Justice <https://www.icj-cij.org/en>), to solidify the right of Cognitive Liberty. Likely, the broader public will overwhelmly support their individual right to free thinking and systems and processes associated with thinking freely. The New York City Police Department (NYPD) is a pioneer in engaging sonic weapon technology <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_weapon>, An NYPD officer stands ready with the LRAD 500X at an Occupy Wall Street protest on November 17, 2011 near the city hall. The NYPD conducts experiments and other cutting edge innovation strategies as being America's Best Urban Police Force. It should be considered that the NYPD properly file logs of such technology engagement (aka ... what, when, where, why, how) as xNY.io strives to liberate the semantics related to cognitive thinking liberty. Moreover, while the NYPD pioneers new crowd control technology, other private firms have abused the technology for their own selfish agendas. Keeping all this in mind, one of xNY.io's active engagements is closing the semantic loophole related to cognitive liberty. The SEC likely will provide associated guidance in the coming 2022 year. Happy New Year World! Thank you, Gunnar -- *Gunnar Larson - xNY.io <http://www.xNY.io> | Bank.org <http://Bank.org>* MSc <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - Digital Currency MBA <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107 New York, New York 10001

4 7

Directorates Who Discredit Truthful Witnesses (W/80 Highlights)
by Gunnar Larson 19 May '24

19 May '24

“And the persons who ultimately are harmed by all of this, of course, is the average consumer, the average citizen, who has no knowledge, unless it paid attention to this hearing, of the extent of the manipulations that have been carried out by the largest financial institutions in America and, indeed, probably the world.” - Senator John McCain *Highlights and working notes on the ethical limits of discrediting the truthful witness, observing modern directorates and ethics rules that fail to prevent truth distortion by unethical means (Source research by Marquette Law Review).* History provides the epic example of Enron and a cunning Board of Directors of misleaders, a team of flimflam artists who used sly rhetorical skills to bamboozle the public, turning night into day. In this conception, directorates tell stories only in order to seduce and beguile regulators who fall prey to the advocate’s star-crossed tricks. Why do company Directors employ unethical, false story techniques to advance a false defense when ethical means are available? The exponential effects of this troublesome behavior requires that the firm’s every word, action and attitude be consistent with the conclusion that is dishonest. Board directors are the ultimate self policing body of an organization, responsible for setting the tone for ethical rules and standards. Not only are modern ethical rules unable to prevent directorates who use of false-story techniques, but little can be done in the way of reforming the rules themselves so that they can more effectively regulate the unethical means by which honesty is systematically discredited and made to look untruthful. - As witnessed in New York State recently, top leaders sometimes ignore ethical rules by rationalizing away conduct known to be unethical standards of professional behavior. - More abstract-oriented discussions concerning whether society’s best interests are advanced with attempts to distort outcomes by discrediting the truth has even impacted virtual currency innovation out of New York. These points simply seem invented as an outrageous scenario presented to the public by way of question, yet they are indeed true. - There is a pattern of routinely using an arsenal of tricks to subvert the truth. The culprit may argue that the version of events is untruthful, because of a motive to fabricate the truth. In actuality, incompetence is the only true motive to fabricate directorate supported dishonesty. Now more than ever, honest and ethical leaders know that each time a directorate uses talents and skills to pollute the marketplace with lies (either explicit or implicit) to manipulate profits is an act that initially diminishes the chances of a prosperous society. Such practice of engaging in conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation is impermissible and should not be tolerated. Without swift action, the public may lose confidence in both system wide innovation and maximizing the whole human potential of our species. - Alternatively, employing truthful answers to string together a series of inferences that collectively weaken the case of interlocking directorates. - Vigorously defending potentially problematic interlocking directorates can be systematically re-purposed with the goal of protecting the innocent. We share 80 highlights to Todd A. Berger’s (published by Marquette Law Review) “The Ethical Limits of Discrediting the Truthful Witness: How Modern Ethics Rules Fail to Prevent Truthful Witnesses from Being Discredited Through Unethical Means.” https://thecapital.io/article/directorates-who-discredit-truthful-witnesses… -- *Gunnar Larson - xNY.io <http://www.xNY.io> | Bank.org <http://Bank.org>* MSc <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - Digital Currency MBA <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107 New York, New York 10001

1 16

Breaking News: Robinhood Rebrands as 'Libra'
by Gunnar Larson 12 May '24

12 May '24

*SILICON VALLEY - Embroiled in the naturally malevolent evolutionary controversy of brand fakery <https://thecapital.io/article/robinhoods-brand-fake-vs-paypals-crypto-corru…> in the name of manipulating humanity, Robinhood Markets (a financial services company) rocked the brand marketing world by finally coming to its senses while vindicating Mr. Hood’s legacy. The company has distanced itself from the old Robinhood firm image of “we take advantage of our customers” with a fresh rebrand as ‘Libra.’* *Celebrated humanitarian Richard Simmons applauded the name change. “Mr. Hood’s story of altruism is loved by young and old alike world-wide. Today Mr. Hood is vindicated from association to the former Robinhood’s tricky company shenanigans. The new ‘Libra’ image is a super smart act of serving our country well... I hope the all-stars at Bear Stearns will join me in congratulating the new ‘Libra’ brand,” Simmons said.* *The nature and timing of the brand change raised eyebrows in New York, a recent familiar reaction to news from our pal <https://thecapital.io/article/robinhoods-brand-fake-vs-paypals-crypto-corru…>s from the Valley.Gleefully contemplating the long term impact on society, this reporter touts the courage of the real Mr. Hood for opposing forces similar to that of the former Robinhood.History will celebrate the newly minted Libra, which will be hailed for its valor in rebranding, even though it did so to escape the regulatory cloud that has hung over the Robinhood project since it first came into the public domain.(A Satirical Monograph on the News) *

1 2

1984: Thread
by grarpamp 08 Mar '24

08 Mar '24

https://www.theepochtimes.com/new-york-state-assembly-introduces-bill-manda… https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/A11179

8 384

Re: Assange's Case #FREEASSANGE
by zeynepaydogan 27 Feb '24

27 Feb '24

Julian Assange's Brother speaks to @democracynow "Its 11 years since Julian was arrested in England...The charges need to be dropped...He should be at home with his family" @GabrielShipton #FreeAssangeNOW https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1469321995292758016?s=21 Açık Cum, Ara 10, 2021 17:47, zeynepaydogan <zeynepaydogan(a)protonmail.com> yazdı: > Julian Assange Fiancee @stellamoris1: "Julian has been detained in one form or another for 11 years... every time we have a hearing we hear more about the criminal nature of this case" #HumanRightsDay > > https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1469317128977326093?s=21 > > Açık Cum, Ara 10, 2021 17:40, zeynepaydogan <zeynepaydogan(a)protonmail.com> yazdı: > >> Today is international human rights day. How cynical to have this decision on this day.' >> >> Stella Moris has urged people to 'fight for' her partner Julian Assange after describing the High Court's ruling as a 'grave miscarriage of justice.' >> >> https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1469268552448421895?s=21 >> >> Açık Cum, Ara 10, 2021 14:49, zeynepaydogan <zeynepaydogan(a)protonmail.com> yazdı: >> >>> Reminder: >>> https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1469254580374577155?s=21 >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail for iOS >>> >>> Açık Cum, Ara 10, 2021 14:16, zeynepaydogan <zeynepaydogan(a)protonmail.com> yazdı: >>> >>>> I can't believe Assange's case is up to these people's opinions >>>> >>>> https://twitter.com/pritipatel/status/1468577874630303751?s=21

6 64

FreeSpeech and Censorship: Thread
by grarpamp 22 Feb '24

22 Feb '24

https://jonathanturley.org/2020/12/09/krebs-files-lawsuit-against-digenova-… https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AFtCgSn%2Dq5lrL8c&cid=477107F019583E7… http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/390640 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/case.html https://newsmax.com/ https://www.twitter.com/newsmax Fired Pussy Christopher Krebs whines to the State to shutter FreeSpeech... " Fired CyberSec Head Krebs Files Lawsuit Against diGenova, The Trump Campaign, And Newsmax Authored by Jonathan Turley, Christopher Krebs, has filed a lawsuit against Trump attorney Joe diGenova over this controversial joke that Krebs should be “drawn and quartered” and then “shot” for his failures as the former head of U.S. cybersecurity. The lawsuit strikes me as meritless under governing tort doctrines. While Mark Zaid declared that “no rational person” who heard diGenova calling for a person to be drawn and quartered and then shot “would have taken it as ‘jest,’” many of us took the comment as an obvious use of exaggerated rhetoric. While I immediately condemned the language, I did not view it as a serious call for violence. Torts cases of defamation often turn common understanding of such expression as jokes or opinion. The lawsuit not only contradicts governing case law but threatens constitutional protections for free speech and the free press in seeking such tort relief. Joe diGenova gave an interview to Newsmax’s The Howie Carr Show and said that Krebs should be “drawn and quartered” and then “taken out at dawn and shot.” It was a typical over-heated statement of “that guy should be shot” variety. diGenova made it even more absurd by combining it with a medieval method of execution. It was both literally and figuratively an example of overkill. In an interview with the Washington Examiner, diGenova quickly stated that his comment was a joke and not intended as a threat. He stated “For anyone listening to the Howie Carr Show, it was obvious that my remarks were sarcastic and made in jest. I, of course, wish Mr. Krebs no harm. This was hyperbole during political discourse.” The lawsuit names diGenova as well as the Trump campaign and Newsmax. The lawsuit is filed by Charles Fax and Liesel Schopler of Rifkin Weiner Livingston Inc and Jim Walden, Jefferey Udell, Jacob Gardener, Rachel Brook, and Derek Borchardt of Walden Macht & Haran. It is not clear who the opposing defense counsel will be in the case. The lawsuit reads at points more like a political screed in defending the “patriot” Krebs against the “angry mob” fueled by Trump and diGenova who is described as a conspiracy theorist. Count I is a straight defamation claim (against all three defendants). Count II is an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim (against diGenova and the campaign). Count III is an aiding and abetting claim (against Newsmax). Count IV is a civil conspiracy claim. >From the outset, the complaint collides with controlling case law. Take Count II. The argument of Krebs would gut the first amendment and run counter to the clear precedent laid down in Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011). I previously wrote that such lawsuits are a direct threat to free speech, though I had serious problems with the awarding of costs to the church in a prior column. I was therefore gladdened by the Supreme Court ruling 8-1 in favor of the free speech in the case, even if it meant a victory for odious Westboro Church. Roberts held that the distasteful message cannot influence the message: “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” Roberts further noted that “Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro’s funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. As a nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.” The Court in cases like New York Times v. Sullivan have long limited tort law where it would undermine the first amendment. In this case, the Court continues that line of cases — rejecting the highly subjective approach espoused by Justice Samuel Alito in his dissent: Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. “If there is a bedrock principle underly- ing the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989). Indeed, “the point of all speech protection . . . is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.” Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 574 (1995). The jury here was instructed that it could hold Westboro liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on a finding that Westboro’s picketing was “outrageous.” “Outrageousness,” however, is a highly malleable standard with “an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors’ tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression.” Hustler, 485 U. S., at 55 (internal quotation marks omitted). In a case such as this, a jury is “unlikely to be neutral with respect to the content of [the] speech,” posing “a real danger of becoming an instrument for the suppression of . . . ‘vehement, caustic, and some- times unpleasan[t]’ ” expression. Bose Corp., 466 U. S., at 510 (quoting New York Times, 376 U. S., at 270). Such a risk is unacceptable; “in public debate [we] must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate ‘breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.” Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 322 (1988) (some internal quotation marks omitted). What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment, and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous. Ironically, these lawyers are espousing the position of the lone dissenter: Justice Alito. The dissent gave little credence to concerns over the constitutional rights raised in the case. He insisted that “[i]n order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner.” It is hard to see how any court could accept Count II and not do precisely what the Supreme Court barred in the use of this tort to limit political and religious speech. Count III and Count IV is equally troubling. It makes sweeping and vague claims of aiding and abetting and conspiracies without support. The comment was clearly part of over-heated rhetoric now common on both ends of the political spectrum. Such claims, if successful, would gut the first amendment. That leaves us with Count I on defamation. That claim is equally dubious from both constitutional and tort perspectives. The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. Ironically, this is precisely the environment in which the opinion was written and he is precisely the type of plaintiff that the opinion was meant to deter. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. In order to prevail, West must show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth. The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. Again, the Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. Krebs is a former public official and a current public figure under Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 352 (1974) and its progeny of cases. The Supreme Court has held that public figure status applies when someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public’s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.” He would have to carry the burden of proving that the defendant knew the statement was false or showed reckless disregard for its truth. The problem is the the statement is clearly opinion given in the heat of a contested election. The Supreme Court dealt with such an overheated council meeting in Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Association v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 (1970), in which a newspaper was sued for using the word “blackmail” in connection to a real estate developer who was negotiating with the Greenbelt City Council to obtain zoning variances. The Court applied the actual malice standard and noted: It is simply impossible to believe that a reader who reached the word “blackmail” in either article would not have understood exactly what was meant: It was Bresler’s public and wholly legal negotiating proposals that were being criticized. No reader could have thought that either the speakers at the meetings or the newspaper articles reporting their words were charging Bresler with the commission of a criminal offense. On the contrary, even the most careless reader must have perceived that the word was no more than rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered Bresler’s negotiating position extremely unreasonable. The comment here is clearly “rhetorical hyperbole” that is part of public debate over the 2020 election. Ironically, I have previously criticized President Trump for his calls (here and here and here and here) to change defamation laws to erode protections for the media and free speech. These lawyers and Krebs are doing precisely what Trump has called for. Notably, while I consider this lawsuit to be meritless, I do not believe that any of these lawyers should be charged with bar complaints. That has been the call of Democratic members and many liberal lawyers who want to see bar complaints filed against lawyers challenging the election. I also would not support a campaign like the one at the Lincoln Project (funded by many lawyers) to harass these lawyers or put pressure on their clients. The lawsuit in my view will fail and the legal system will protect free speech from such ill-considered and unsupportable legal claims. Here is the complaint: Krebs v. diGenova "

8 162