Protecting the Public's Right to Know
Newsflash: 04/12/2026 @ 1:23:54 PM
Intro:
This article speaks to the direct and personal experience of the dictatorship regime’s war on freedom of speech. The regime in question is none of the usual suspects one might expect to be targeting the public with retaliation for freedom of speech against public corruption alongside draconian religious conformance tactics.
Modern societies, especially those of a first world nature, tend to automatically presume that freedom of speech is a given. In fact, most if not all, modern societies have fundamental anchors embedded within their respective legal and societal relationship with citizens – immigrants, and even transients enjoy such freedom of speech. Typically, freedom of religion will sit alongside freedom of speech as a fundamentally protected right in countries such as the United States, and Canada: when thinking of northern America.
Other regions of the world are often villainized in the media for anti-freedom of speech and freedom of religion postures. For example, the Middle East region has long been a source of media frenzy publishing articles, YouTube videos, and documentaries on how counties such as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., are typically characterized as dictatorship regimes which regimes allegedly have raised frontal assaults on democracy. Take for example, the current war in Iran, uniformly waged by the United States of America – without the required proclamation of war by the USA’s Congress. Well for you sticklers of detail, technically speaking there is an exception to the Congressional proclamation of war which is explicitly limited to a 90-day duration, after which a proclamation of war by the USA’s Congress is required. At least on paper. So technically speaking the USA’s war against Iran is legally excepted manoeuvring to advance its war agenda. But the real question is why? Well according to the USA its objective was and is to “liberate” Iranians from the dictatorship regime of Iran and its stronghold on freedom of religion and speech. Maybe so, but perhaps: "You've got oil," is a little more higher up on the rung of importance for waging war against this small nation. And Iran's alleged nuclear threat. Well let's put it this way: Israel, and pakistan have nuclear capablity (and have had so for years), so if the threat of nuclear was so important, why are said countries not on the radar? And Japan has recently cleared a hurdle to resume nuclear energy related activities. Incidentially, the USA has been the only nation in the world's history to deploy the "Fat man" aka A-bomb on any nation e.g. Japan. And to this day, the USA remains the top nation with respect to its nuclear arsenal. The point? There is always a hidden corrupt motive with the USA. That's 100% fact.
Let’s take a quick look at this issue with liberating Iran, with respect to its alleged dictatorship regime’s war on freedom of speech (and religion). While it is true that Iran is not a democracy so too is it true that the USA is, also, not a democracy! Say it ain’t so! In the words of the late great Gary Coleman “What you talking bout’ Willis?” Yes. Indeed, the USA is not a democracy, that is 100% fact in more ways than one. First, for those unfamiliar, the USA is a Republic not a Democracy. A Republic is one where the people exercise, their supposed freedoms (and rights) by voting for and selecting officials through a regular election cycle, who represent them and their alleged rights and freedoms in local, state, and federal government. That is the very definition of a Republic, which has been the USA's government foundation from day one. So all the talk about a Democracy is very misleading and designed to give the people what they want e.g. the belief that a democracy exists and that the people are the center of that democracy.
Virtually every voter in the United States knows that if democracy exists in the USA it exists 6 months to 1 year leading up to the next election cycle, where politicians put on the dog and pony show to entice their existing voter base (or to extend their current voting base via targeting new voters) to vote for them because they are the “Champions of this,” or the “Fighters for that,” and on and on and on. Then as the story goes, new or incumbents when [re] elected gain or keep their existing office, it is the same old story e.g. it is the other guy’s fault why the public official could not advance this or that agenda for which they insisted they would be the champions or fighters which, again, was the basis for voters to vote for such public officials. And all along the way the same public officials get to keep their six-figure salaries, perks, concubines, and all the power that comes with their positions. This is precisely how 'Democracy' works in the USA. Furthermore, it has been like that for more than a century. What is most surprising is that despite this recognizable pattern - voters partake in this ruse each election cycle involving the foregoing dynamics, and nothing ever changes. That is, excepting the occasional changing of who occupies what seat in Congress, committee leadership role, or other voter elected political position.
So why then all the talk about these other regimes and their alleged anti-democracy government structures?
Will the Real United States Stand Up
On the outside looking in the United States is the “Land of milk and honey,” where any rational democracy, freedom advocate, prosperity seeking person would want to be. There could be no greater truth, of the foregoing, than the USA’s immigration surge and “Crisis” as the USA’s officials refer to the immigration situation. In other words, the greatness of the USA is demonstrated, on its face, as being vindicated by the onslaught of individuals risking everything just to enter the “Land of milk and honey,” even illegal entry. Perhaps the most descriptive adage of the USA’s attraction from the outside is none other than: “Ignorance is bliss.” These new and prospective immigrants have no idea how the real USA works, what they know is what is portrayed in the media e.g. the vast wealth of the USA.
Could it be that the star actor in the dictatorship regime’s war on freedom of speech is the United States of America itself? Well, suffice it to say this matter is one calling for a bottle of scotch – skip the shot glasses and just bring the whole bottle.
Legalhotwater has been the target of retaliation by the United States of America and its intelligence communities for Legalhotwater actually exercising its so-called freedom of speech and freedom of religious choice (and assembly). How so? Well in truth, freedom of speech, in particular, only exists if you have the money and political connections to protect yourself against attacks from the USA government, especially, when speaking towards verifiable confirmed facts from first-hand experience surrounding the criminal abuses of the USA and the tactics its intelligence agencies use to silence unwanted speech. The basis for this criminal abuse and political corruption is the painting of a different picture than that which the USA parrots to the rest of the world. Take for example, JudicialWatch, this entity is far more revealing and aggressive in their exposure of public and political corruption. The difference? First, the leadership of JudicialWatch was involved in the first Trump administration. Second, said leadership is of Caucasian descent. Third, JudicialWatch has a substantial litigation budget and political connections to protect itself against attacks by the USA government. Even so, occasionally, JudicialWatch has, even, complained about its issues with the FBI stemming from Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) lawsuits against the FBI.
As for Legalhotwater, as a result of its exposure of the widespread corruption within the USA’s courts, illegal criminal surveillance and subsequent political persecution by the CIA and FBI, a key correspondent for Legalhotwater was forced to flee the USA and seek asylum abroad. Even worse, the same USA intelligence agencies e.g. CIA and FBI, erased our correspondent from their federal databases and communicated to his then (past tense) intended family abroad that he was “Dead.” Then there has been the ongoing interference with all – and the operative word is “All” of our correspondence’s monetary activity, designed no doubt, to ensure there is no money upon which to live. And lastly, the USA has consistently and repeatedly coerced, controlled, and manipulated its allies in the host asylum country to continue advancing the “Dead,” “No Money” agenda to the point that it is necessary to seek food bank assistance.
The foregoing is all verifiable fact. And this is all the doing of the United States of America in the name of freedom of speech, or more appropriately stated, retaliation for freedom of speech and expression alongside religious persecution. Who is behind this? Well for at least six (6) years the United States of America has worked feverishly to preclude the exposure of the specific individuals involved, but we can say that there are links to Italy, Pasta, Pizza, Crooked Cops, Spies, the Church, the United States Supreme Court, You're Fired, Federal Judges, The Bride, and a bunch of dirty politicians involved with this travesty – many of which are with the conservative party i.e. the GOP. Did we mention that our correspondent is a conservative? With friends like those who needs enemies? So, if it seems surprising, dumbfounding even – why the United States of America engages in acts of war against a very small virtually defenseless country, such as Iran, don’t be surprised. This is what the USA is, and how it really functions and operates. Now, on to the bigger question: Is that bottle of scotch empty yet? Oh well.
This is a developing story more to come. For now, this Reuters article is directly relevant: NOTE: To the best of our knowledge, this white Reuter's reporter was not subjected to political persecution, targeted as “Dead,” oppression, poverty, crooked sideways court criminal coverups, interference with contract or monetary gains, lining up at food banks, nor targeted by the CIA or FBI for writing the following article questioning (at least indirectly) the USA's human rights record, which the USA, ultimately, precluded from scrutiny by withdrawing from the United Nations. Case in point, Reuters has an extensive litigation budget, a host of high profile political ties, and the ability to draw the attention of millions with respect to any political corruption issues it desires to flag.
Updated: 04/07/2026 @ 10:41:07 AM
Scope:
This article discusses the Section 230 dubbed as the Communication Decency Act (“CDA”), litigation history and current posture of the courts with social media firms seeking CDA immunity with respect to lawsuits against these large corporate outfits.
Courts fire back on CDA immunity claims against Google and Meta. It seems that the tide is shifting, with respect to the USA federal courts and the normal-general ‘Hand waving’ political sideways approach to interpreting section 230 of the United States Code which has been dubbed as the Communication Decency Act (“CDA”).
Since 1996, the CDA has been interpreted as providing blanket immunity to technology companies. Consequently, social media sprung rapidly, with technology companies resting assured they could not be sued for the content published on their networks as authored by third parties.
The wildly popular Meta Platforms Inc., which owns Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram coupled with the internet police-giant Google, per its YouTube, have routinely and extensively raised section 230 as a complete defense to civil litigation against them often seeking monumental damages against these companies.
Let’s be clear, large corps such as Meta Platforms Inc., and Google Inc., are often targeted by Big Law for massive payouts the overwhelming majority of which enter the coffers of the attorneys and (if lucky) upon shakedown a few pennies here and there actually go to the plaintiffs e.g. the individuals actually harmed by the law(s) in question giving rise to suit; in this case the CDA.
What is worse is that Big Law rarely, if ever, comes clean with their clients on the probability of success on the lawsuits they bring into the federal courts such as the CDA. Granted, section 230 of the CDA is a very high bar to climb and does provide immunity to social media outfits who publish the content of others; but, not without exception. And while the exception paths are few and narrow, they are carved out by statute. Thus, one would wonder why, even today, there are literally thousands of lawsuits against Meta and Google related to the CDA which have so little chance of success, notwitstanding there are at least a few paths which provision for smooth sailing against these social media outfits in courts whereas CDA immunity is not available as a defense.
The current collaboration route against these media outfits is to target the platforms, directly, rather the content published on those platforms, since platforms such as Meta and Google have been successful at defeating such claims against the content on their platforms - by arguing that the third parties on their platforms who publish such content have a freedom of speech right e.g. constitutional right to protected speech on the internet. No respectable intelligent attorney would argue that the USA’s constitution provides a constitutional guarantee to utter whatever speech one desires on the internet e.g. social media outfits such as Meta and Google. The USA constitution guarantees no such right nor did it ever.
What the USA Constitutional first amendment guaranteed was specifically focused on freedom of the press and the ability to use the press as a platform to speak in unfavorable, unpopular manners with the intent of providing a check on abuse of power in public office e.g. public awareness of public office misconduct via the use of freedom of speech and expression per freedom of the press. This was later interpreted by the United States Supreme Court to extend to individuals as part of the Bill of Rights, albeit the USA constitution makes no such explicit statement anywhere.
Even if the USA constitution had made such an explicit right to freedom of speech, such could not possibly have been interpreted as being without exception. It is public common knowledge that freedom of speech exceptions exist as people far and wide know, who are not jurists, that one cannot say certain things on the internet or otherwise and expect to not be held liable (or accountable) for such statements. For example, it is public common knowledge that you cannot make threats of bodily harm to people on the internet or otherwise, especially those holding public office. This is merely one example, as an exception to the concept of freedom of speech. There are other examples to illustrate exceptions - many of which the public knows through word of mouth.
The point being is that the general public is aware that their speech has limits. The public has always been aware of such limits. What the USA Constitution did is strip down most (but not all) of those limits to provide a check of public office abuse of power via freedom of the press and, again, later via the United States Supreme Court's individual rights provision per the USA Bill of Rights.
In any event, the federal and state courts not wanting to wade into the murky waters of ‘Who can say what, when, and how’ on social media have collaborated with Big Law in targeting these platforms, themselves, as opposed to the speech on those platforms. This approach has led to recent verdicts against Meta and Google, including a verdict coming out of the central district of California e.g. the greater Los Angeles area.
Let’s take a closer look:
“[A Los Angeles jury] found Meta liable for $4.2 million in damages and Google for $1.8 million, small amounts for two of the world's most valuable companies with annual capital spending over $100 billion each” Reuters
The plaintiff, Kaley, – a 20-year old Caucasian woman, alleged:
“[S]he became addicted to Google's YouTube and Meta's Instagram at a young age because of their attention-grabbing design, such as the “infinite scroll” that encourages users to keep looking at new posts.”
So in essence, a Los Angeles jury found Google and Meta liable for behavior of a, now, adult, which began as a minor, for actions which Google and Meta could and likely will argue (if they have competent counsel) – “At what point did the plaintiff realize the behavior she now argues was addictive? And at that point did the plaintiff continue to use the platform(s) after realizing the harm?” In short, legally - one cannot inflict harm upon themselves by continuing to engage in conduct they know is harmful to them then go after the coffers of those who allegedly provisioned for the harmful environment. That is squarely a merit based appeal argument.
Then there is the case in New Mexico whereas Meta was found liable, via a jury verdict, of $375 million in damages per the state of New Mexico’s state law regarding harmful content targeting children. In particular, the Meta court found:
“The jury also found that the company’s actions were unconscionable, meaning Meta knowingly took advantage of a lack of knowledge in New Mexico residents.”
See the difference? In the New Mexico case, the verdict was based on state law, which is an exception to the CDA law, and specifically affirming that Meta “[K]nowingly took advantage of a lack of knowledge in New Mexico residents.” This is particularly damaging (but not impossible) and will be very difficult to overcome on appeal.
For Meta, the possibility rests with its ability to narrow the circumstances of the judgment via going after the stated 75,000 violations, each of which was awarded $5,000. A merit based argument could be made that no impartial jury could possibly have deliberated in less than one day in reaching a verdict for the breathtaking amount of $375 million. The math does not lie. Assuming the jury deliberated for just six hours, that would mean the jury actually assessed damages of 12,500 violations per hour. Really! Come on.
Meanwhile, Legalhotwater has made a very compelling case involving Meta, Section 230 e.g. the CDA, and several constitutional claims, which were dismissed in the lower federal district court via left wing senior judge Susan Illston, who is long past due for retirement. Legalhotwater immediately appealed that case, which has been parked in the 9th circuit court of appeals ever since. Following the appeal docketing, Legalhotwater submitted a motion to the full court to hear the CDA issue, to which the court has never responded.
Let’s look at Legalhotwater’s arguments a little closer.
“It is appellees’ position that the Communication Decency Act (“CDA”) provisions absolute immunity such as to promote criminal-civil digital-verse discourse whereas appellees can create, manage, and/or control a digital-verse which completely displaces said Constitutional Rights, under the ill drawn conclusion that Congress, via the CDA, permitted the creation and evolution of a wild wild west internet and thereby sanctioned private entities to displace Constitutional Rights. Appellees position is misplaced, ill drawn, and entirely frivolous.” Legalhotwater's en banc referral motion. See brief below.
For the layman, let’s examine the crux of the Legalhotwater’s posture. What is at issue, here, is that freedom of speech works both ways e.g. if a speaker on Facebook has a right to utter speech no matter how foul, offensive, derogatory, and of a harassing nature, does not the receiver (in this Legalhotwater) have a right to utter his decline to partake in the free speech of others, at Legalhotwater’s discretion – when it finds such speech as “[F]oul, offensive, derogatory, and of a harassing nature?” This argument cannot be defeated – not by an impartial judge or jury. Why? Common sense dictates that every person has a right to say, “You know what, I do not want to hear that speech and I am advising you Meta that these third parties continue to utter this speech via targeting my feed (despite never having any relationship with the parties) with such speech. Furthermore, these parties routinely create fake un-vetted Facebook accounts for the sole purpose of harassing and targeting others with their speech.” For the court or a jury to say otherwise would mean that anyone can say what they want to anyone else and that the person who dislikes the speech cannot leave that conversation but rather has to stay in that conversation and absorb the speech or alternatively is left with the sole option to leave the platform altogether. In essence, this misplaced legal argument would create a backdoor discrimination channel or quasi-censorship route for those who harass others on Facebook. Once more, Legalhotwater’s position is entirely consistent with section 230 itself e.g. the CDA
Let’s look:
“[It is the policy of the United States] - to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.” Section 230 (b) (5).
Now this section does not provision for a private right of action based on criminal law violations. At the same time, this section begs for (and requires) uniformity in application. How so? Criminal prosecution for legal transgressions, especially like here, are within the sound discretion of local-federal prosecutors who most assuredly will not prosecute for these misdemeanor crimes -- that fact is even more pronounced when large corp. executives such as Meta and Google are in the spotlight for actions allegedly criminal on their platforms . At issue is how can Meta and other social media outfits claim civil immunity for behavior, which could be said to be unconscionable, when the policy of the United States is to deter said behavior? This is a central issue.
Either the CDA is a toothless caricature, since prosecutors will not prosecute high ranking executives in Meta, Google, etc., to deter Meta and Google from permitting such behavior, or the courthouse doors are open to a plaintiff who can bring a cause of action under tort law based upon the same arguable unconscionable behavior and/or that which is consistent with the United States policy on “[O]bscenity, stalking, and harassment,” in a civil law context. In other words, a civil plaintiff, while having no right to pursue criminal violations, can and should be permitted to invoke civil law based upon the same conduct, in a civil law context – which the United States has already made clear such conduct is not a basis for a defendant to invoke CDA immunity in a criminal law context.
Perhaps this is yet another example of how ‘White is Right’ race superiority politics play into who gets to raise the same or similar arguments as plaintiff Kaley, ante, and how the courts fashion their partial (versus impartial) determinations based upon the race of a plaintiff. For the layman, while the jury entered the foregoing verdicts, in both cases - the judges decided what the jury heard or did not hear based upon the politics of the bench via the facts vehicle i.e. what facts the judge wants presented to the jury aka a motion in limine - presented by a defendent, which these courts routinely deny, especially when it knows they have a defendent in a precarious position and either the court/judge is looking to make a name for itself or him/her-self coupled with political pressure of Caucasian soccer moms outside the courthouse demanding justice for their sons/daughters while turning a blind eye to the same legal issues as it applies to those who do not look like them.
Legalhotwater’s brief is found below.