Sunday, December 31, 2017

Facebook solicits comments by contract

California has leveled misdemeanor charges against 41-year-old Mark Feigin after he sent five anti-Muslim posts to the Islamic Center of Southern California’s (ICSC) Facebook page in 2016.
 The California Attorney General’s office argues that his comments constituted “repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device” with “intent to annoy or harass,” a misdemeanor under California law, Reason.com reported Friday. California courts are scheduled to begin the trial Jan. 2, according to court records. Feigin admitted in October 2016 that he wrote the following comments between Sept. 17 and 25 of the same year.

Whoever filed the suit has no idea what they  are arguing.  This implies that the California legislature will intervene in contracts between private agents, specifically restricting the speech people are allowed.

This is both pure ignorance in California, and a attempt at full secession.  This prosecution could not stand while California remains in the union, that is an impossibility. The Federal courts would jam completely.

Who filed?

Outr attorney general, of the delusional law club, where the current affirmative action senator came from; pure Sotomayor, an embarrassment and cause for expulsion from the union.  And, if you look at the guy's last name, you get racist, another of the Franciscan tradition, just ask the priest or get a license from the king.  The typical idiot generated by that bizarre legal tradition, pure Venezuela.  


California is getting four years of this crap from Gavin, the child molesting, next appointed governor of the state.

The Federal law and rights

It is like a blockchain.  When some California political dufas fucks up a right, we have a choice in the Swamp.  Either tax the frig out of California and let the violation slip. Or, make the correct ruling and California has a tantrum.  But if we let it  pass, do the Sotomayor, then the whole legal blockchain jams as that violation ripples into all the past rulings.

No comments: