IN
THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
Curtis J Neeley Jr., MFA
Plaintiff
v
CASE NO. 12-5208
Federal
Communications Commission,
Microsoft
Corporation, Defendants
Google Inc.
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR VIOLATIONS OF PRIVACY RIGHTS, FAILURE TO REGULATE SAFETY FOR
SIMULTANEOUS RADIO AND WIRE COMMUNICATIONS AND VIOLATION OF THE
EXCLUSIVE HUMAN RIGHT TO CONTROL CREATIONS FOR A TIME PROTECTED BY 42
USC §1983 AND THE COMMON LAW HUMAN COPY RIGHTS PROTECTED BY 42
USC §1988.
The
Plaintiff, Curtis J. Neeley Jr., MFA, respectfully states a complaint
for reckless indecent presentation of the Plaintiff in simultaneous wire and
radio communications
and violating privacy by internationally distributing indecent
artwork creations publicly that are personal “sins”
sought maintained privately. The Federal Communications Commission
fails to protect Plaintiff’s privacy on interstate and foreign
communication by wire
and radio and
fails to protect the safety of internet wire communications for any
citizens including the Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s children, as
required by law. These wrongs are further explained for each
Defendant as follows concisely labeled I-V. Trial by jury is
demanded.
I. Federal
Communications Commission's
Failure to Protect Wire Communications
1.
The Supreme Court mislabeled the simultaneous usage of computers to
facilitate wire communications “a wholly new
medium”
in ACLU v
Reno, (96-511). This plain error has not yet been addressed by Congress
but indecent wire
and radio communications
were never determined by Congress or the Supreme Court to be exempt
from regulation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). See FCC v Fox,
(10-1293)(2012)
1 > >>
2.
The clear intention of the Communications Act of 1934 was regulation
of all pervasive distant communications. The ACLU v
Reno mistake causes the portions remaining from the Communications Decency Act of
1995 to diametrically oppose decency by preempting responsibility for
“indecent”
simultaneous wire
and radio communications
instead of the promotion of decent distant communications.
3.
The FCC demonstrates malfeasance by failing to intervene or
otherwise seek to prevent 47 USC §230(c)(1) from repeated interpretation by courts counter to: 1) the
Constitution, 2) the title of the indecency excusing §230, and
3) the mission of the FCC given in 47 USC §151 wherein Congress created the FCC and gave the agency clear regulatory
authority over distant wire
and radio communications.
< 2 > >>
4.
The continual display of indecent art to unidentified parties like
the Plaintiff’s children and other unidentified pornography
consumers over wire
and radio communications
is allowed by the FCC refusing to perform the statutory mission to
protect the safe use of pervasive interstate and world-wide wire
and radio communications
used in commerce as listed clearly in 47 USC §151 in plain
English as can be read in footnote #2 on the previous page.
5.
There is no simple administrative procedure to address this
malfeasance for citizens beyond those already tried for years by the Plaintiff. These include service of the general complaint by
certified mail in 2009 and electronically “filing” this
complaint repeatedly via FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS) as can be seen by the public searching the <fcc.gov>
website as evidenced repeatedly in docket #5 attachment #1 Exhibit
“A”. Jurisdiction was vested in this District Court per
28 USC § 2675(a) after failure beyond six months to end this
malfeasance.
6.
Kim Mattos, of the FCC, advised the Plaintiff that decency
regulation for interstate wire
and radio communications
was beyond the jurisdiction of the FCC and claimed, “everyone at the
FCC”, was
aware of this complainant and this complaint. The attempts by the FCC
to establish tacit jurisdiction for [sic]“open internet”
for broadband rules failed miserably to assert the clear jurisdiction
to regulate interstate and world-wide wire communications as are
often described with the slang term [sic] “[i]nternet”
or the multidimensional slang term improper when used in any law or
legal filing as a singular noun as would be improper usage of the
English language. The FCC should now create a rule set like
attachment “47 USC §232”.
<< < 3 > >>
7.
The FCC v
Pacifica ruling from 1978 has been substituted wholly for the 47 USC
§151 rational for regulation of distant wire
and radio communications
in plain error by the FCC when simultaneous wire
and radio communications
displaced common usage of facsimile machines and telegraph machines
for wire communications. The FCC regulated wire
and radio communications
better when telegraph wires were the only way for near-immediate
communication across oceans.
8.
The FCC uses the thirty-four year old Pacifica ruling now to determine jurisdiction instead of 47 USC §151 in
clear error as an excuse for not regulating the network of computers
that replaced telegraph machines as the apparatus connected to wires
for interstate and world-wide communications used in commerce.
9.
Wire communications described precisely in the Communications Act of
1934 in 47 USC §153 ¶(59) became the worldwide network of computer apparatus connected to
either end of wires. These simple facts went unrealized in the ACLU
v Reno “landmark” mistake of 1996 alleging to discover “a
wholly new medium for human communications”
and failing to recognize a new usage of two very old mediums.
<< < 4 > >>
10. This
1990's Supreme Court error caused simultaneous wire
and radio communications
to become Earth’s wire
and radio venue
for utterly unsafe indecent communications despite the rest of the
ignored text of 47 USC §151 requiring protection for the safe
use of both of these mediums in interstate and world-wide commerce.
11. The FCC fails now to
ensure safe personal communications privacy for this Plaintiff in
interstate and world-wide communications. Plaintiff is left
protected only by the Constitution and common law despite 47 USC §151
due malfeasance of the Federal Communications Commission.
12.
The FCC abandoned regulation for the safe content of wire
and radio communications
despite the plain statutory mission given in 47 USC §151 to
protect the safe use of both of these mediums for distant
communications used in commerce.
13.
The thirty-four year old Pacifica ruling
leaves the FCC using archaic court interpretations of clear statutes
to preclude content regulation on simultaneous wire
and radio despite clear text requiring regulation of all distant
communications.
14.
The “landmark”
court error of ACLU v
Reno allows
irresponsible wire
and radio communications
of pervasive distant indecency contrary to the 47 USC §151
requirement for protecting the safety of the public in uses of wire
and radio communication
used in commerce.
<< < 5 > >>
15. This cultural
error made by the Supreme Court causes the current uses of simultaneous wire and
radio communications
to not be regulated by law and be given over-broad First Amendment
protections without the associated responsibilities for safe
communications, which are the prerequisite required for any free
speech.
16.
The FCC allowed and allows simultaneous usage of wire
and radio communications
to become patently unsafe today and harm this Plaintiff’s
reputation and personal privacy as well as more people than live in
the Western District of Arkansas and more people than live in the
entire United States.
17.
The FCC duty to protect public safety when using distant wire
and radio communications
became FCC malfeasance when television signals generally moved to
wires called cables and away from exclusively the radio medium.
18.
Regulation allowed for fleeting indecency in broadcast radio
television by CBS
v FCC,
(06-3575) is incompatible with indecent images authored by the
Plaintiff or associated with the text “curtis neeley”
allowed now to be transmitted by unsafe wire
and radio communications
regardless of who placed the indecent content on computers made
accessible by simultaneous wire
and radio communications
without respect to the popular “title” given these medium
independent communications. e.g. interactive
network of computers, interwoven network of computers, or
interconnected, international interactive network of computers or
just “inter”…+ net.
<< < 6 > >>
19.
The FCC was created to protect communications by the Communications Act of 1934 five decades before any “wholly
new”
simultaneous usage of wire
and radio distance communications existed. No
new medium has ever existed in spite of this clear mistake.
See the clear English definition of medium.
20.
The failure to properly apply 47 USC §153 ¶(59) was done
in 1996 by one Justice who grew up without fear of nuclear war due to
growing up before
WWII began and before the first usage of two WMDs to terrorize Japan was done by
the United States utterly destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki with only
two bombs.
21.
The failure to recognize a new manner for using the centuries old
wire medium and calling the new manner for usage of the old wire
medium “a
unique and wholly new medium”
was plainly wrong yet was adopted in error by the FCC and not
challenged as was and still remains the statutory duty of the FCC.
22.
The rapid progress of science and indecent art spread by wire
and radio communication has allowed overwhelming desires for anonymous
indecency consumption to distort laws and lure humanity, including
United States Courts and the FCC, into preserving anonymous indecent wire communication consumption where responsibility for indecent wire
and radio communications is avoided counter to the safe use of pervasive
distant communications by wire
and radio.
<< < 7 > >>
23. The ACLU v Reno error is counter to the Constitution and rule of law and harms this
Plaintiff’s privacy as well as the safety of all minors and
spouses on Earth with access to unsafe yet pervasive simultaneous wire and
radio communications
revealing indecency searching for “curtis neeley” or more
well-known indecent art producers by name in a Google Inc or
Microsoft Corporation image search. This is allowed by the FCC to
cause harm to this Plaintiff contrary to the mission listed clearly
in 47 USC §151 despite years of ignored complaints by the
Plaintiff.
24.
Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation indexing copies of indecent
content and revealing indecent content locations should always have been penalized as transmitters of indecency by the FCC due to
communicating indecency in different contexts as new content by
harvesting indecent content and choosing to republish this unsafe
indecent content to create the pervasive lure for anonymous
pornography usage for ridiculous profits despite the FCC duty to make wire and
radio communications safe for interstate and world-wide communications used
in commerce.
II.
Inappropriate Text-image Associations Left
Violating Personal
Privacy by Microsoft
Corporation after Advised of Inappropriateness
1.
Microsoft Corporation searches of the network of computers connected
to wire and radio communications creates the false appearance the
Plaintiff desires or desired anonymous minors to see indecent
creations using “curtis neeley” in searches of unsafe
simultaneous wire
and radio communications
called “open inter… + net”, though perhaps not
begun intentionally.
<< < 8 > >>
2. Microsoft Corporation
refused to halt this reckless personal name association without court
orders after requested repeatedly that all indecent images be removed
from search results for searches using the text “curtis neeley”
by refreshing the cache.
3. Microsoft Corporation
advised the Plaintiff that ceasing the text-image association of
“curtis neeley” with indecency would requires court
orders after admitted noting the Plaintiff’s concern about
obscene results and violations of the robots exclusions protocol
violating the privacy of the Plaintiff and violating the Plaintiff's
personal common-law right to not be associated with art. See docket #5 attachment #2 Exhibit “B”.
4. Injunctions requiring
disassociating “curtis neeley” in database searches from
indecent images are now sought regardless of other terms used by
unidentified searchers who may be minors or where identities can’t
be checked by an authority like is also plead required by the FCC.
III.
Google Inc Reckless Use
of Wire
Communications to Violate Privacy
1.
Google Inc continues to associate “curtis neeley” with
the presentation of indecent photographs placed by various random
parties world-wide and this violates the common law rights of the
Plaintiff. There are insufficient safeguards used on these indecent
Google Inc image presentations for prevention of anonymous viewers
including minors, Muslims, and the Plaintiff’s children from
viewing indecent images returned using “curtis neeley” in
searches of computers networked by wire
or radio despite the ease of preventing anonymous searches now for decades but
not done recklessly to increase profit. See “+'curtis neeley'
nude site:creative-nude.net” in the Google Inc “moderately
safe” searches in docket #51 attachment #1 Exhibit “CNN”.
<< < 9 > >>
2. The Plaintiff once
sought adult feedback on creations of indecent art and sold indecent
art from two websites providing 47 USC §231 filtration so that
anonymous visitors to these websites were not exposed to indecent
art unless disclosing identity via verifiable email wire
communications as should be ordered required by the FCC in keeping
with the intentions of 47 USC §151 and 47 USC §231.
3.
Google Inc formerly and currently bypasses the 47 USC §231
filtration described above after
advised vociferously of this wrong. Google Inc does this to continue the display of images otherwise
shown only to identity providing viewers for profit. <Google.com>
searches for “curtis neeley” limited to <deviantart.com>
revealed naked art and still reveal artwork declared “not safe
for work” (NSFW) after
Google Inc was advised of this wrong repeatedly.
4. The undesired return of
artwork, declared by the Plaintiff to be indecent, to anonymous
persons was documented repeatedly and can be seen now despite
indecent naked images being removed entirely from <deviantart.com>
and <redbubble.com> and years of vociferous advisement to
Google Inc and hundreds of Federal Court filings. This violated the
Plaintiff's common law copy right and common law privacy as well as 47 USC §605.
5. The bypassing of 47 USC
§231 filtration by Google Inc continues for this Plaintiff and
all users of <deviantart.com> seeking the 47 USC §231
identity requirement for viewership of art marked indecent or “not
safe for work” (NSFW).
6.
The undesired republication of indecent images from two websites
presented material publicly to ANYONE that was clearly not intended
for presentation to minors invalidating all 17 USC §107 claims.
Google Inc continues now violating common law and constitutionally
protected personal privacy and copy right and harasses the Plaintiff
with fraudulent use of computers bypassing identity filtration and
continues returning art labeled indecent in searches for “curtis
neeley” to minors in the wire
and radio mediums as are allowed by the FCC though rendering wire
and radio communications
unsafe due FCC malfeasance.
<< < 10 > >>
IV. The “Google Inc Books” 2010
Privacy Violation
1.
Google Inc attributed the Plaintiff accurately but inappropriately
to three additional ‘figurenude’
photographs via interstate and world-wide wire
and radio communications
after Google Inc scanned three images by the Plaintiff from one book
from a New York library against
the Plaintiff’s known desires. This was done after March 7, 2010 despite spending hundreds of
thousands in legal fees against this Plaintiff to continue this for
profit in addition to the millions spent in legal fees or offered
artists in New York to revise copy[rite] law and claiming to rewrite
federal laws in United States Courts for the Southern District of New
York in violation of the common law rights of the Plaintiff. This
book was later withdrawn by Google Inc.
2.
This negligent and harassing action by Google Inc was done while
litigating against this Plaintiff for undesired redisplay of
Plaintiff’s indecent artwork and caused this Plaintiff further
harm by creating another three harassing invasions of privacy
protected by common law and the Constitution. These were violation of
exclusive common law rights and were unauthorized republication of
book artwork in the wire
and radio mediums.
Publication was done only in the book medium. Viewing these
indecent image publications purposefully required encounters with the
physical book and not by simply typing “curtis neeley”
into a computer connected to wires networked ANYWHERE on Earth using Google Inc “book searches”.
3. Google Inc presented
Neeley in a false light by scanning indecent visual art from one book
and making unauthorized world-wide republications of this indecent
art making this indecency easy to encounter before anonymous
unidentified minors while in public schools or anywhere on Earth
searching for the Plaintiff's name.
<< < 11 > >>
4. This republication to
minors was thousands of miles from the book in New York. The
Plaintiff’s teen daughter or other searchers would have never
encountered this particular indecent visual art in a book on
photographic art in New York.
5.
This was a fundamental violation of privacy by Google Inc that is
constitutionally protected and is protected by common law in Arkansas
according to the opinion of the Arkansas Attorney General. See
Arkansas Attorney General Opinion No. 96-161 in docket #5 attachment
#3 Exhibit “C”.
For common law tort grounds see Dunlap
v. McCarty,
284 Ark. 5, 678 S.W.2d 361 (1984). For constitutional grounds see McCambridge
v. City of Little Rock,
298 Ark. 219, 766 S.W.2d 909 (1989).
6.
Congress agreed this manner of privacy violation was forbidden by
Treaty in 1988 and again in 1994. Unwavering Berne Compact
compliance was ruled constitutional on January 18, 2012 in Golan
v Holder,(10-545)
despite self-serving amici opposing these finding by Google Inc.
7.
The fair-use exceptions of 17 USC §107 to the exclusive rites
for using visual contributions to books have been unconstitutionally
vague since 1976 when created. Fair-use made it impossible for common
people to understand or agree on this law as is required for all
laws.
8.
Besides unconstitutional vagueness; §107 violates the accepted
treaty of the “Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary
and Artistic Works” despite the recent Golan
v Holder ruling calling the “Berne Compact” the copy[rite] law
accepted by Congress clearly counteracting the Supreme Court
mistakenly rejecting common law human copy rights in Wheaton
v. Peters,
33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834). This mistake was over a century before
Congress invalidated this mistake passing 42 §1988.
<< < 12 > >>
9. The 17 USC §107
claim does not consider unwanted additional publicity and even
world-wide publicity for reformed indecency authors thereby violating
privacy and the right to remain silent about past creations of
indecency without criminal convictions like sex offenders or other
such rational for requiring public registry of past indecent actions
and thereby violating this Plaintiff’s privacy.
10.
The fair-use exceptions of 17 USC §107 to the publishing rite
for indecent art have never been fair and have always been
unconstitutional. Any
name-associated usage of indecent art causes expanded republication and violates the right
to be secure in the person and remain silent and resist expanded
dissemination of prior indecent creations or unauthorized
use of the personal name “to the disgrace and against the will
of the author; propagat[ing] sentiments under his name, which he
disapproves, repents and is ashamed of.” Quoting honorable Lord
Mansfield in Millar
v Taylor (1769) 98 ER 201 at 252.
V. FCC
Decency Regulation Malfeasance
1. Protection
of anonymous citizens from exposure to indecent wire
and radio communications
is a legitimate state interest mostly allowed unregulated for decades
though ordered protected by 47 USC §151. It
is absurd and shows malfeasance when the FCC allows 47 §230(c)(1)
to be repeatedly misinterpreted by Federal Courts diametrically
opposed to the clear intentions and title of the Communications
Decency Act and the “Good Samaritan” section itself 47
§230(c)(1).
2.
The law intended by Congress to promote communications decency
instead was cited by the FCC, this District, and Google Inc to
traffic indecent art and defamatory communications including indecent
art once created by the Plaintiff before simultaneous wire
and radio communications
were disguised as the “interactive
network or interconnected network of interactive computer networks”
<< < 13 > >>
and christened
the “inter”+
net by ACLU v Reno (96-511) in clear error as could not be made more clear or be pointed
out more vociferously than done herein.
3.
The responsibilities for production, trafficking, and consumption of
indecent content or defamatory content is unconstitutionally waived
for all laws by 47 USC §230(c)(1) allowing utterly
unregulated speech in violation of the clear natural right to be free from defamation
and computer frauds
and to preserve common law copy right, and prevent privacy violations supported by numerous State
laws as well as 47 USC §151. This United States law is
entirely ignored by the FCC as could not be more clearly wrong and
could not be brought more squarely before United States Courts than
is now done.
CONCLUSION
1.
Plaintiff seeks only common sense regulation of wire
and radio communications. Google Inc advised of having clear institutional
interests in preventing identification of searchers looking for
indecency before Honorable Erin L. Setser in Western District of
Arkansas on Dec 10, 2010. See (5:09-5151) Dkt. #216
2. Google Inc and
Microsoft Corporation should pay compensatory and punitive monetary
damages as the jury feels is just based on $150,000 per intentional
moral “author's right” violation per 17 USC and $150,000
per indecent image remaining associated with “curtis
neeley”per day left accessible after first advised as
consistent with 47 §231. Damages ordered paid by Corporate
Defendants should be heavily impacting due to ignoring vociferous
advisement regarding unwanted indecent image text associations and
even expanding these violations while facing the Plaintiff in
Federal Court. Google Inc and Microsoft should also compensate the
Plaintiff due to non-fiduciary losses increasing the fiscal award.
This will be further explained in person before the jury.
<< < 14 > >>
3. This
prayer seeks only the “right thing” being done and
thereby finally establishing pervasive wire
and radio communications
as the border-less medium independent venue safe
for unsupervised children and pornography addicts and for free speech including speech not the least bit acceptable for unsupervised children but
protected for identified responsible adults willing to identify as contactable adults so ages may be
checked by the adult
claim verification office of the FCC or the owner of the computer or other devise used to view wire and
radio communications
of indecency.
4.
The FCC should be ordered to protect minors and pornography addicts
from anonymous access to harmful simultaneous wire
and radio communications.
This protection is an ignored duty related to free speech, privacy,
authors’ rights, and regulation of pervasive public wire
and radio communications.
The wire medium has been unregulated and left unprotected since 1978
or long before the simultaneous usage of these two mediums was called “a
unique and wholly new medium for human communications”
in egregious error that could not be more wrong or be brought more
squarely to court.
5.
Indecent adult-only communications will continue safely via wire
and radio communications
but the Plaintiff prays these be ordered prohibited by the FCC for
anonymous persons for indecent communications as has been trivial now for
decades.
The 47 USC §231 identity requirement for viewing indecency is
supported for even controversial and vaguely indecent subjects by Doe v.
Reed,
(09-559) when legitimate state interests are served.
6.
The protection of unsupervised minors or pornography addicts from
exposure to anonymous viewership of indecent pervasive wire
and radio communications
is the legitimate state interest ignored now for decades by the FCC
despite laws requiring regulation of interstate and world-wide wire
and radio communications
safety.
<< < 15 > >>
7.
All spouses and all parents on Earth have been left exposed to harm
by access to pervasive, unsafe anonymous communications provided by
both corporate Defendants. Roughly half
the damages awarded will be paid in taxes to the United States and offset taxes though this is not a class
action.
8. The jury should award
the Plaintiff enough to impact the United States budget. Each
corporate Defendant is seeking to continue unsafe indecent content
trafficking to the anonymous as is improper and clearly against the
law and common sense as has been obvious for decades.
9.
The scourge of pornography on families will become treatable soon
after anonymous access to indecent artwork is prohibited by the FCC
as is now sought ordered by an injunction of the District Court. This
regulation will quickly end all simultaneous wire
and radio child pornography and quickly re-establish the SAFcc distant
communications once provided by the Communications Act of 1934.
10.
Defendant Microsoft Corporation responded to the Plaintiff and
demanded the court injunction now sought though Microsoft Corporation
did not oppose the Plaintiff in court before this complaint was filed
like Defendant Google Inc did vociferously resulting in moral
copy[rite] of 17 USC §106A being ruled to not apply to
simultaneous wire
and radio communications.
This ruling should have no impact on the common law moral rights of
this Plaintiff to punish for republication of indecent art and
association of indecent art with the Plaintiff's personal name per 42
USC §1988 since Congress therein clearly restored common law
moral human copy rights.
<< < 16 > >>
11.
Google Inc made it a company policy for years to protect the
continued delivery of indecency to the unidentified and thereby
created a market for unsafe indecent wire
and radio communications using the oldest lure given to humanity and offering
an increase of knowledge. The pervasive lure of indecent knowledge
was presented by Google Inc through knowledge delivered on
simultaneous wire
and radio communication networks instead of fruit left hanging on one
“forbidden
tree”.
12. Defendant Google Inc
spent hundreds of thousands in legal fees and adamantly refused to
stop trafficking Plaintiff’s indecent art and other associated
indecent art to children and pornography addicts for profit while
facing the Plaintiff in United States Courts. Microsoft Corporation
admitted being made aware of obscene text-image associations and
continues these improper associations for profit as well.
13. This District Court
should invalidate all usage of 17 USC §107 fair-use to violate
privacy while trespassing on private computers and indexing computers
uninvited or how Google Inc chooses to steal content. This Court
should invalidate 47 USC §230 claims for excusing violations of
privacy as violates the rule of law.
<< < 17 > >>
14. 47 USC §230 was
used by Defendant Google Inc to ignore advisement of obscene or
indecent text-image associations by the Plaintiff as well as unsafe
speech sought censored recently by the White House in the interest of
unregulated free speech by Google Inc. It is well past time for this
United States Court to order regulation of all communications used in
commerce in the Western District of Arkansas by the FCC since
unconstitutional laws like 47 USC §230 can preempt absolutely no
other laws.
15. This
action will not be resolved finally without scores of amici filed as
the District Decision is appealed to the Supreme Court. This
District Court has authority to resolve this complaint by
injunctions demanding regulation of wire
and radio communications entering or leaving the Western District of Arkansas
and findings of liability for Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation
with a jury instructed to determine the common law award paid by
each Corporate Defendant after trial.
16.
Unsafe wire
or radio communications should be ordered prevented by the FCC in the Western
District of Arkansas by an injunction since jurisdiction was vested
here by 28 USC § 2675(a) due to the years of failing to address this complaint. This demand
will end the careers, political or otherwise, of anyone even
acknowledging this complaint including all media and everyone else
notified. This is the primary rational for United States Courts
remaining beholden only to law.
17.
The Supreme Court was wrong in Susan
B. Anthony v United States (1873)
and the fine levied for voting while female was ignored by Susan B.
Anthony though preceding women suffrage by forty-eight years.
<< < 18 >
18.
The Supreme Court was just as wrong in ACLU
v Reno (1996) as the
Supreme Court was in Susan B. Anthony v United States (1873).
This error has been used by Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation
seeking ridiculous profits and the FCC has used ACLU
v Reno (1996)
to allow unsafe distant free speech counter to 47 USC §151.
19. Unsafe indecent speech
made in the Plaintiff’s past now causes vulgar art once
published nearby to be associated with the Plaintiff by Microsoft
Corporation and Google Inc. These wrongs must not be allowed to
continue in the Western District of Arkansas and must now be punished
by an Arkansas jury. Arkansas was one of the first states to use
cable television wires left unregulated by FCC malfeasance due to the
mountainous local terrain and is therefore an ideal venue to end
Federal Communications Commission's malfeasance.
Respectfully
Submitted,
______________________
Curtis
J Neeley Jr., MFA
Curtis
J. Neeley Jr.
2619 N Quality Lane
Suite 123
Fayetteville,
AR 72703
<< < 19
|
