I thought y'all yankee doodles had this thing called the Communication Decency Act section 230 that prevented a "service provider" from being responsible for the content of third-party's -- whether or not they were acting as a publisher; and, also the principle of law that an agreement to violate the law (as in a Contract which ignored that provision that the "service provider" was not liable for the content provided by third-parties) was nul ab initio?
Therefore it would appear to me that AWS has not a leg to stand on, that the terms of the contract which violate section 230 constitute a prior agreement to violate the law and therefore are a nullity, and that Parler is entitled to specific performance of the contract and/or damages, including aggravated or punitive damages, from Amazon. The only exception would be if the "content" were Criminal and that would require a court finding that the content was Criminal but, such facts not in evidence, Amazon has violated the law and should be held liable. You cannot convict someone of murder and have them executed simply because they have a hand which may hold a gun which may then be used to commit murder in order to prevent the murder. First there must be establishment of the fact of the murder, not the mere establishment of a hypothetical fantasy of fact. But then again it is likely that the lawyers representing Parler are of low ability and unable to make the case required. -- Be decisive. Make a decision, right or wrong. The road of life is paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision. >-----Original Message----- >From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+kmedcalf=dessus....@nanog.org> On Behalf Of >Jeff P >Sent: Wednesday, 13 January, 2021 10:43 >To: nanog@nanog.org >Subject: Re Parler > >ICYMI: Amazon's response to Parler Antitrust relief: > >https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/LHNWTAI/137249864/Parler_LLC_v_Ama >zon_Web_Services_Inc__wawdce-21-00031__0010.0.pdf > >JeffP >je...@jeffp.us <mailto:je...@jeffp.us> > >
