temporal1 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 11, 2022 2:35 am
The doctor who exposed this portal through litigation is named Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai.
Sigh. So many celebrity political figures promoting iffy controversies. And Shiva seems to spend a lot of time and energy filing lawsuits and publicizing them, losing the lawsuit, but winning the publicity. Which makes him a celebrity.
Shiva's case was dismissed. I think
this is a good description of the case:
On September 1, 2020, the plaintiff learned that he had lost the 2020 Massachusetts Republican primary senate race. Shortly after, the plaintiff and his volunteers issued Freedom of Information Act requests to the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s office and over a dozen jurisdictions respectively, seeking ballot images, log files, voters lists, and other election records. On September 25, 2020, the plaintiff tweeted the false claim that Massachusetts had “destroy[ed] over 1 million ballots,” citing communications with a Massachusetts elections attorney.
The defendants notified Twitter through the Partner Support Portal that the plaintiff was spreading election misinformation. The platform subsequently removed the plaintiff’s tweets and suspended his account on September 26, 2020. The plaintiff filed a complaint on October 20, 2020, arguing that the reporting of his tweets, subsequent takedown, and the suspension of his accounts were in violation of his First Amendment rights.
My view:
1. Twitter is a private company. They aren't bound by the 1st Amendment.
2. Massachusetts, on the other hand, is a branch of the government, and they are bound by the 1st Amendment (via the 14th Amendment). But they didn't seem to demand that Twitter take his posts down, they simply told Twitter that his posts were false. That's an important difference.
3. Shiva's claims were clearly false, but he continues to make them in public without getting arrested. His 1st Amendment rights seem to be intact.
4. If Shiva wanted to demonstrate that they are true, he could take them to court with some evidence, or persuade electoral boards with some evidence. But he prefers YouTube.
On August 10, 2021, the case was voluntarily dismissed and all parties agreed that there was no remaining controversy between them.
Because he didn't have the evidence to win in court.
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?