Thomas Talleyrand  0:02  
Hello, this is Thomas Talleyrand. And welcome to the populace cast. 

Thomas Talleyrand  0:07  
And here we go. Episode Two, we took a look at the Parler VS. Amazon Web Services complaint, the initial filing. Now we've had two more filings. We've had the response from Amazon, saying that they've done nothing wrong, they promise. And then they've had the response to that response from parler, where you can tell that they kind of held a few things back to let Amazon step in it. So first things first, according to Amazon, that it's parlor who's all in the wrong that parlor conducts the absolute minimum of content moderation. That parlor operates a social media service. This is reading section two, paragraph 25. Or line 25. Excuse me. parlor operates a social media service that has gained favor as an alternative to Facebook and Twitter. Partly parler prides itself on its hands off approach to moderating user content. borrowers homepage tells users to speak freely and express yourself openly without fear of being deep platformed for your views, somehow, this is evil. According to Amazon, the CEO says that he's gonna do what he says he's gonna do, which is try to give people his fair place to speak as possible. On June 12 2018, parlor signed up with AWS with which provides hosting and cloud computing services for businesses, nonprofit and the CIA. I mean, I'm sorry, and government organizations globally. There's a declaration from their executive that's supposed to mean something. There's a copy of their acceptable use policy, which they do not enforce. parlor repeatedly violates the agreement. They point out sometimes that they have pointed out things that needed to be taken care of. And they are indeed, in some cases, absolutely awful, and I believe parlor says that they will take care of those things and they're trying to AWS exercise its right to suspend parlors or count on January sixth 2021 rioters supporting president's efforts to overturn President Elect Biden's victory stormed the US Capitol. That whole sentence seems borderline perjury to me continuing on by people died, including a police officer who did not die from wounds from the Capitol. At least they're not sure of that yet. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies have since opened at least 25 domestic terrorism cases related to these incidents, there is no law for domestic terrorism.

Thomas Talleyrand  3:17  
There's only a law for other types of violence. This is also possibly illegal I don't know it to me, it seems like perjury, content encouraging violence and continue to grow rapidly after the events January 6, AWS reported additional examples of that content says that the executive spoke on January 9 2021, Apple and Google terminated Parler's account we know this that evening Parler she posted that he should be operational within less than six hours downtime. I do not understand what this matters. Just because they had a plan doesn't mean that that is good enough. You know, in other words, what partner is saying is well, there's no problem with this doing this. I guess they're trying to limit damages, because they could do something else, no matter if it costs them another $300 million to do that, or what the effort is that that takes forth, or whether that customer a lot of business doesn't matter because they can fix what we screwed up. It says that parler alleges no facts that could possibly support its claims for breach of contract. tortious interference with prospective economic damages, excuse me with prospective economic advantage or violation of the Sherman act. A temporary restoring or restraining order is an extraordinary and drastic remedy. Lopez vers Brewer. I will say this that's a case from 2012. In my personal experience, temporary restraining orders are quite easy, especially in a situation like what Parler's  doing where you're putting somebody out of business. That's what they're for. Therefore when the bulldozers there and there's no way to stop it and they're going to bulldoze over the tree or the house or in this case where they're going to eliminate Parler from basically the base of the earth. It goes over several other issues. Basically what they're saying is that they suspended Parler they didn't terminate the accounts Parler gets to pay for this month so Parler claims AWS I'm reading from line 23. parlor claims AWS breached their agreement by failing provide 30 days notice of termination To be clear, AWS suspended and didn't terminate the account, but it was parler who breached the agreement by hosting content advocating violence and failing to timely take the content down. The agreement requires Parler to ensure that neither its content nor the content of Parler's users violates AWS policies or the law. Executive to declaration example a or dot j. The policies include a up which prohibits illegal or harmful use, including content that may be harmful to others and requires parler to immediately suspend access if it becomes aware. The content violates the agreement. It Parler fails to comply with this duties AWS may immediately suspend Parler's account, there's a copy of the contract in there, we're not going to get into the content. A Ws provided Parler is merely representative of volumes of content that poses a security risk and harms others in direct violation up. The content includes but is not limited to cause for violence against a wide range of individuals, including elected individuals, law enforcement officers and teachers. People have acted on these calls people Parler was used to incite organize and coordinate the January sixth attack on the US Capitol. AWS reported Parler over many weeks, dozens of examples of content that encourage violence and the lawsuit goes on to give a list. You're welcome to look at that list. I'm not going to repeat it here but it's terrible stuff just like we see on Twitter and other services all day every day. One only needs to go look at any of the old tweets to Trump or to Trump Jr. Or to anybody who stands up for the constitution to see violence being called for. And Twitter, a noted customer of AWS never has been even emailed as far as we can tell.

Thomas Talleyrand  7:50  
AWS reported to Parler over many weeks 1000s of examples just like I said, and Parler's complaint is replete with insinuations that AWS had equal grounds to suspend Twitter's account this discriminated against Parler , or example Parler sites, the hashtag blank, which briefly tweeted on Twitter, but AWS does not host Twitter's feed, so of course it would not have suspended access to sweaters excuse me access to Twitter's content. Twitter has since independently blocked that hashtag parler cannot plead around at around its contract claim by asserting a claim for tortious interference. This is under AWS did not torturously interfere with Parlerbusiness expect an interference claim requires the plaintiff to establish a valid contractual relationship or business expectancy. Okay, they do that that defendant had acknowledged of that relationship. The defendant did an unintentional interference, including or causing a breach or termination of the relationship or the expectancy that offended interfered for an improper purpose or use improper means and resulting damage Parler fails to allege several of these elements however, I don't think that they needed to in that first thing, and we'll get to that in the next reading. Basically, they go into how they didn't violate the Sherman act because they say so. And section 230 This is the funniest thing section 230 bars interference antitrust claims, section 3230 does no such thing. In addition to their facial deficiencies, Parler's  interference and antitrust claims also fail under 230 of the communications decency act. Under that statute, the provider of an interactive Computer Services immune for acting in good faith to restrict access to material that is excessively violent, etc, etc, etc. The thing is, section 230 does not get any kind of immunity to the Sherman Antitrust Act. It does not give immunity for breach of contract, it does not give immunity for fraud by Emily, according to Amazon parlar would suffer no damages for being off the internet for months on end, or days on end, when even seconds count. They feel like they can do whatever they want to do. They can damage however they want to just tell you what I think about this answer. They had to have some kind of answer. And their lawyers were left with needing to do something. Now, if you ask me my opinion, my personal opinion, is this is one of the worst answers to a lawsuit I've ever read. Since I've been doing this. The claims are laughable. The clients protection by Amazon are absolutely laughable. That doesn't mean that they won't get granted though. So far, they have a judge that was appointed by Jimmy Carter. However, just looking at this from a populace perspective, which is the layman's perspective, and the clear meaning of the law, the TR o should 100% get granted. The more interesting thing in my opinion in this whole thing is the response from Parler. Amazon has only had a few things that it could actually use as a defense. I think that the them using section 230 as a defense shows how bad that they know that they are in trouble. I think that they would probably rather not have due to the risk of having bad lobbyists stablished against section 230 something that the media companies have invested 10s of millions of dollars into what say expanding the scope of over the last few decades, they might have even spent hundreds of millions of dollars. And no, I'm not just talking about what they donate to political campaigns and deeper political campaigns. It's my understanding that they also donate to liberal

Thomas Talleyrand  12:11  
think tanks to law schools. And they are trying to shape the thought of the judiciary at the