Milo Yiannopoulos v. Simon & Schuster, Inc. (2017) -

[Elwood P. Dowd]

I made it about 45 seconds into this and had to shut it off. Not only did it not make sense, as best I can tell he wasn't even trying to make sense.

Edit:

I really fucking hate Milo

Any reason in particular? I agree with probably about 2/3 of what he spouts, so I guess I'm kind of a fan, but beyond that I just take him for what he is.

 

[AprilRains]

For his sake you should hope not.

But for the sake of lulz...let us prey.

 

[Null]

Any reason in particular? I agree with probably about 2/3 of what he spouts, so I guess I'm kind of a fan, but beyond that I just take him for what he is.

I inherently distrust people who attach themselves to controversies or movements. This is double-plus-true for anyone around Trump. The people like Ben Garrison and Alex Jones who've been in that anti-Globalist sphere for a very long time prior to Trump's surge in popularity are trustworthy, but the rest are not. I trust Jones about as far as I can throw him, but I at least assume he will be consistent in his views. Milo is just a sailboat catching winds, and I don't need flamboyant personalities or mouthpieces telling me what to believe. I already know what I believe. Hearing Milo echo my own thoughts does not gratify me, and I see him for what he is: a faggot. He is hideously insecure and makes up for it with bombast and flair.

I don't think people who like Milo or faggots like Gavin McInnes are dumb, I just think they like hearing their own opinions regurgitated as a form of entertainment and I'm pretty sure there's a part of my brain missing that'd let me do the same. It's instead replaced with a giant glob of cynicism.

For this case I'm rooting for the publisher because I love nothing more than seeing smug people get obliterated from the face of the fucking planet.

 

[Elwood P. Dowd]

Fair enough, and thanks for the response. The only quibble I have is this bit:

For this case I'm rooting for the publisher because I love nothing more than seeing smug people get obliterated from the face of the fucking planet.

In the sense that the "Big 5 Publishers" are every bit as smug and arrogant as Milo is, without his sometimes amusing (IMO) antics. Meaning even in the unlikely event of a Milo "victory" (however defined) some smug people would still be taken down a peg or two.

 

[Strelok]

He doesn't intend to win, he intends to run a show.

Courts tend to take an exceedingly dim view of pro se litigants who try to intentionally turn the courtroom into a circus, moreso than they do even twords lawyers who do much the same.

 

[Done]

Courts tend to take an exceedingly dim view of pro se litigants who try to intentionally turn the courtroom into a circus, moreso than they do even twords lawyers who do much the same.

Then you must have not been following the Alex Mauer civil suit. Alex was given an incredible amount of leeway.

 

[AnOminous]

Then you must have not been following the Alex Mauer civil suit. Alex was given an incredible amount of leeway.

Alex is viewed, more or less correctly, as out of his mind. He's an asshole, too, but the court isn't going to let the other side take advantage of his mental retardation. Milo would be quite obviously just being a gadfly and deliberately creating a scene to polish his own public image. It's a little different when you're a wealthy nutcase in possession of his faculties and deliberately wasting everyone's time with theatrical nonsense.

 

[Elwood P. Dowd]

Milo's now suing Twatter.

Right-Wing Activists Lawyer Up to Fight Tech Giants
12:59 PM PST 1/11/2018 by Paul Bond

• EMAIL ME
• PRINT
• COMMENTS

By Don Arnold/WireImage (Yiannopoulos), Mark Wilson (Stone), both Getty Images; Courtesy of Peter Duke (Johnson)
Roger Stone, Milo Yiannopoulos and Charles Johnson
Roger Stone and Milo Yiannopoulos say they are planning to file a lawsuit in February.
Conservatives who feel slighted by social media giants are lawyering up, and some are taking their cases to Washington.

On Wednesday, GOP operative Roger Stone for the second time said he was preparing a lawsuit against Twitter, and this time he said that Milo Yiannopoulos will join him. Meanwhile, a high-ranking Beltway source claims that a prominent Republican member of Congress is getting ready to call for congressional hearings into alleged discrimination against conservatives on the part of Twitter, YouTube, Google and more.

The Stone and Yiannopoulos promise of a lawsuit that's planned to be filed in February comes the same day ambush-journalist James O’Keefe released undercover video of Twitter employees claiming the platform “shadowbans” conservative tweets so that, unbeknownst to the author of the tweets, they cannot be read by his followers.

“It is time for Twitter to be regulated like a public utility or perish,” said Stone, who was banned in October after tweeting insults at CNN reporters, including Don Lemon. Twitter viewed Stone's tweets as harassment and threatening, which Stone calls “hypocrisy.”

“Verified tweeters call for my murder online every day, but Twitter doesn’t ban them,” Stone said.

The reveal of a planned lawsuit from Yiannopoulos and Stone comes three days after Charles Johnson sued Twitter for banning him for life. And it came on that same day former Google engineers James Damore and David Gudeman sued the search giant alleging a pattern of discrimination based on their politics and race.

Damore was famously fired when he wrote an essay saying there may be “biological causes” that “explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership,” and Gudeman’s lawsuit says he was derided by management for, in part, suggesting that President Donald Trump was not “a Nazi or ISIS” out to “hurt gays, women or the disabled.”

Legal analyst Paul Lopez, the managing partner and head of litigation for Tripp Scott in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, says the claim from Damore and Gudeman have merit on at least some level.

“We’ve got this environment of people claiming discrimination based on race and sex, so time will tell if that applies to white males,” Lopez said. “Companies concerned about affirmative action can go overboard, allowing the pendulum to swing too far to the other side. When they do that, they’re in danger. The law says they need to treat people even-handedly."

Three months ago, Prager University, which has posted dozens of educational videos on YouTube, sued the Google-owned platform for “restricting” 40 of its conservative-leaning lessons. The cyber-entity is run by Dennis Prager, who has been chastising YouTube on his nationally syndicated radio show. On Jan. 9, for example, he sarcastically suggested that his video explaining the causes of the Korean War was deemed “pornographic” by YouTube.

“They censor videos that are not on the left. Anyone who watches our 40 videos will know that their censorship is ideologically driven,” Prager says. He says it isn’t necessarily money Prager U is suing for, but for a change in policy.

“I want people to understand how serious this is. If we lose, it means that the greatest contemporary vehicles for an open society are closed,” he says. “The censorship is from leftists, and liberals have to decide if they are liberals or leftists. The greatest threat to liberalism comes from the left.”

Prager is making a documentary film with comedian Adam Carolla called No Safe Spaces that is about political correctness at college campuses, and he says the legal battle between Prager U and YouTube will be featured.

The argument Prager and the others are making though, amount to “viewpoint discrimination,” and it will be a tough sell, says Lopez.

“There’s merit to the claim of being discriminated against because you’re a white male, but being a conservative? That dog won’t hunt. There’s no law protecting that,” he says.

Lopez speculates the lawyers taking on these cases “are doing so to create precedent — to create new law. But I suppose it could also be about publicity.”

While it remains to be seen whether or not plaintiffs can extract anything from the internet giants via their lawsuits, they’ve clearly struck a nerve with like-minded consumers.

Johnson, for example, raised $2,000 in a few days via crowdfunding to help him pay his legal fees, and he raised $58,000 to help Damore. He also is financing his lawsuit, and possibly more to come, with millions of dollars he made in Bitcoin, having purchased the cryptocurrency circa 2010 for 50 cents per coin (they traded for $15,000 apiece on Jan. 9).

“I expect to win the argument if not the lawsuit,” Johnson says. “They’re militantly left, which is fine for a business, but then why is a baker forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding? I’m going to keep fighting these cases and the public has expressed an interest to participate.”

Johnson says he’s also headed for Washington next week, where he’ll meet with representatives from the FCC and congressmen Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Ron DeSantis.

“The social-media giants fashion themselves utilities rather than monopolies. They’ve said so. But you don’t see the electric company stifling free speech,” he says.

Google and Twitter declined to comment on lawsuits against them, but Twitter issued a statement about the O'Keefe video that reads: "The individuals depicted in this video were speaking in a personal capacity and do not represent or speak for Twitter. We deplore the deceptive and underhanded tactics by which this footage was obtained and selectively edited to fit a pre-determined narrative. Twitter is committed to enforcing our rules without bias and empowering every voice on our platform, in accordance with the Twitter Rules."

YouTube issued the following statement: "YouTube is an open platform and, to make it a great place for users, creators, and advertisers, we provide different choices and settings. Restricted Mode is an optional feature used by a small subset of users to filter out videos that may include sensitive or mature content. Giving viewers the choice to opt in to a more restricted experience is not censorship. In fact, this is exactly the type of tool that Congress has encouraged online services to provide for parents and others interested in a more family-friendly experience online."

 

[AnOminous]

It is time for Twitter to be regulated like a public utility or perish,” said Stone, who was banned in October after tweeting insults at CNN reporters, including Don Lemon.

So big government should step in and regulate? Is he saying there should be some kind of thing on the net where it's, you know, neutral and stuff? Do these idiots even pay attention to what they're saying from one minute to the next?

 

[Null]

So big government should step in and regulate? Is he saying there should be some kind of thing on the net where it's, you know, neutral and stuff? Do these idiots even pay attention to what they're saying from one minute to the next?

T_D screeching about how XYZ needs to be regulated makes me laugh and laugh and laugh and cry but mostly laugh. Like, okay, so what we need is less government regulation everywhere except social media platforms where you're treated like shit for telling users they should kill themselves. Got it.

 

[Fulda's Gap]

Who said it? A filthy ESS JEWWWW or a based Right Wing champion?

"Social media needs to cater to my feelings."
"Some speech needs to be protected, but others need to be censored."
"The government needs to step in."

 

[Null]

We haven't been following this closely and if someone wants to go digging for documents I'd be appreciative.

A blue tickmark autist on Twitter summarized lately revelations as:

"Basically, Milo booted his lawyer in an attempt to access Simon and Schuster document from discovery that only his lawyer could see. But alas, the judge still won't let him see the documents now that he's his own lawyer."

 

[AnOminous]

We haven't been following this closely and if someone wants to go digging for documents I'd be appreciative.

A blue tickmark autist on Twitter summarized lately revelations as:

"Basically, Milo booted his lawyer in an attempt to access Simon and Schuster document from discovery that only his lawyer could see. But alas, the judge still won't let him see the documents now that he's his own lawyer."

Whether you like Milo or not, it's absolutely insane that he is expected to litigate his case while he's literally not even allowed to see the evidence against him.

 

[Null]

Whether you like Milo or not, it's absolutely insane that he is expected to litigate his case while he's literally not even allowed to see the evidence against him.

The only thing I can imagine is that he insisted on accessing irrelevant documents, and all parties involved except Milo agreed that his lawyer could read them and see they are irrelevant and relay that to Milo without giving it to him directly. Since he's decided to just remove his lawyer, the court is now saying that the documents are irrelevant to discovery and he doesn't get to see them at all. That's all I can imagine by the lawyer's "irreconcilable differences" as opposed to just wanting to represent himself.

 

[DragoonSierra]

For his sake you should hope not.

I mean this clearly is all a show for him.

 

[Null]

whys that? I mean this clearly is all a show for him.

Because courts wield the power of government and tend to despise being used for a show. Your question is dumb.

Also, if he's trying to run a show, he's doing a really bad job and looking like a fool. This is almost as bad as the time he confessed to supporting pederasty.

 

[AnOminous]

The only thing I can imagine is that he insisted on accessing irrelevant documents, and all parties involved except Milo agreed that his lawyer could read them and see they are irrelevant and relay that to Milo without giving it to him directly. Since he's decided to just remove his lawyer, the court is now saying that the documents are irrelevant to discovery and he doesn't get to see them at all. That's all I can imagine by the lawyer's "irreconcilable differences" as opposed to just wanting to represent himself.

I've tried to be charitable about interpreting this, but my charity runs out at some point. These assholes literally want to use evidence against Millo that he isn't even allowed to see.

This is fucking bullshit.

 

[Slap47]

Any reason in particular? I agree with probably about 2/3 of what he spouts, so I guess I'm kind of a fan, but beyond that I just take him for what he is.

He doesn't seem to hold any genuine views. He's just offensive to get attention and a basher of sjws.

 

[AnOminous]

We haven't been following this closely and if someone wants to go digging for documents I'd be appreciative.

A blue tickmark autist on Twitter summarized lately revelations as:

"Basically, Milo booted his lawyer in an attempt to access Simon and Schuster document from discovery that only his lawyer could see. But alas, the judge still won't let him see the documents now that he's his own lawyer."

I don't care what you think about Milo personally, but how the fuck does this comport with anything resembling due process?

In what civilized country does a shit-faced cocksucker of a "judge" pretend to be presiding over an actual cause or controversy and jokingly tell the plaintiff he's not even allowed to see the evidence being used against him?

The only thing I can imagine is that he insisted on accessing irrelevant documents, and all parties involved except Milo agreed that his lawyer could read them and see they are irrelevant and relay that to Milo without giving it to him directly. Since he's decided to just remove his lawyer, the court is now saying that the documents are irrelevant to discovery and he doesn't get to see them at all. That's all I can imagine by the lawyer's "irreconcilable differences" as opposed to just wanting to represent himself.

That's clearly bullshit, though. It the documents were entirely irrelevant, the corrupt judge would have simply ruled that at the outset. Instead, the corrupt judge ruled that only the lawyers could see it. When Milo fired his lawyers, making that irrelevant, the corrupt judge made up an entirely different excuse.

Obviously, Simon & Schuster has a judge in their pocket.

This case should be assigned to a judge who isn't corrupt.

 

[keksz]

I also can't imagine that the judge wouldn't allow him to see evidence unless there was some other motive. Is there any chance of:

1. Milo not making his decision final / official that he'll represent himself?
2. Having made such decision, that somehow the paperwork for it hasn't come through yet?

Other than that I find that very hard to believe, that a judge wouldn't instate due process. Are the sources on this trustworthy? Null doesn't seem to have posted any links for us to verify.