Correct interpretation of 47 U.S. Code § 230

Questions Presented 1. The opinion contained in Malwarebytes v. Enigma and an obiter dictum in Biden v. Knight imply associated. with 47 U.S. Code § 230 is flawed. What is the correct interpretation of § 230? 2. The Appellate Court of Zeran v. America Online, Inc. used the logical fallacy called denial of the antecedent in the interpretation of § 230. Is it allowable for a Court to use a logical fallacy in interpretation of a statute? 3. Did the Appellate Court of Zeran violate U.S. Constitution Article J-Section-I by interpreting. § 230 in-a-way that amounts to creating law? 4, The Internet/WWW is a state-supported establishment that has a definite identifiable structure that can be mapped to a location that-has sublocations all over the planet. The Internet/(WWW has premises that have buildings with grounds or appurtenances throughout the United States of America, The premises of the Internet/(WWW may temporarily include premises of a user, whose device connects to the Internet/(WWW. Since the 1950s the Internet/( WWW, which has evolved from the ARPANET, was intended to beceme a place of accemmedation for resource sharing. Now it is public. Is the Internet/WWW a place of public accommodation within the definition provided by 42 U.S. Code § 2000a? 5: Does each Defendant of the trial court proceeding provide a place of public accommodation within the definition provided by 42 U.S. Code § 2000a? 6. Whether or not the current caselaw associated with § 230 is cerect; does § 230 override civil rights law including 42 U.S. Code § 1981 and 42 U.S. Code § 1982? 7. Has § 230 voided practically all civil rights law? 8. Each Defendant provides a common carriage service that hardly differs from telegraph service or telex service, each of which is a common carriage service. § 230 says nothing about common carriage. Because the federalgovernment is not regulating. anInteractive Computer Service (ICS) by means of federal common carriage law, does U.S; Constitution Article VI J 2 give a state the power despite § 230 to use state common carriage law | to regulate.an ICS, which is a common carrier? | 9. Whether or not the current caselaw associated with § 230 is | | peionyii Divewps WW. MUR bi rer ugow? oetau te tor coer out . . ‘ Petition Page 3 correct, does § 230 override common carriage law? 10. Has § 230 voided practically all common carriage law? H, The districtcourtjudge did not challenge the Petitioner (Joachim) when he asserted that each Defendant was a common carrier but used an irrelevant voice precedent to assert that the _ Petitioner had no monetary claim under M.G.L. Chapter 159, §1 & §2. Is digital personal. literary property, which a Defendant carries in the form of a post, comment, or tweet, “other property” according to M.G.L. Chapter 159, § 1? 12. Was the dismissal of the Petitioner’s Original Complaint an abuse of discretion? utwoIgn miiverwpe Wy. AON Ti t-rsu-e7 98%ou ro-rot ebeuer our Petition Page 4 List of All Parties Because the district court judge dismissed the ; Petitioner’s Original Complaint before service, the only party to the proceeding is Petitioner Joachim Martilio.