Civil Forfeiture to Solve the Monopoly of Facebook/Google/Twitter/Microsoft

Facebook/Google/Twitter/Microsoft has been a factor, a venue for many crimes.

In civil forfeiture, a grandma objects, she has done nothing wrong. The police is now seizing her house. They reply, we are not saying you have broken any law. However, your grandson conducted drug deals in this house, so this house is involved in criminal activity, may be seized.

A guy is pointed out by a drug dog. He say, he has done nothing wrong. The police is seizing his cash. The police says, we are not saying you have broken any law. However, your cash has traces of cocaine, so your cash has been involved in cocaine trafficking.  (All cash in America has traces of cocaine.)

Mark Zuckerberg will say, I have committed no crime. The Department of Justice  says, we are not saying your committed any crime. However, Facebook has been involved in thousands of terrorist and criminal acts. We are therefore seizing the assets of Facebook/Google/Twitter/Microsoft because of its involvement.

Civil forfeiture is the path to stop this abomination, Facebook/Google/Twitter/Microsoft. Seize all of its assets.

Because they meet the legal definition of a monopoly, the government, as possessor, could split them apart, The government executive branch could save delay, drama, and legal cost.

Add Craig's List to the list.

Sextortion at Facebook.

Path to First Amendment Enforcement in Private Entities

You own a home. The deed has the boundary line in the middle of the street, and certainly includes the sidewalk in front of the house. If you do not shovel the snow from that sidewalk, you may be fined by the city. It is considered your property.

The sidewalk is your property. It is a public accommodation. Can you exclude people in protected classes from your sidewalk? No. If protesters with a viewpoint want to set up a picket line, in the correct time and manner, may you exclude them based on their viewpoint? No.

Facebook is a private corporation to whom the First Amendment does not apply. However, it is not the dining room of the property. It is the sidewalk. It may not exclude people, or ban, or punish people based on viewpoint. It is the ultimate public accommodation, the ultimate sidewalk portion of the property, with 1.5 billion invitees.

I support an aggregate claim against Facebook, and compensation of $10 Billion to those who have been banned based on viewpoint.