Court Rejects Facebook User's Lawsuit Demanding $10 Million Per Day In Damages For Having His Posts Removed
from the all-things-in-moderation...-except-these-monetary-demands dept
How many constitutional rights can Facebook violate? To paraphrase Nigel Tufnel, the answer is none. None rights can be violated.
That won't stop people from suing social media platforms for having their posts/accounts moderated. Do a bit of deletion and all of sudden some people feel they have a federal case. Mandela Brock, d/b/a Mandel El'Shabazz on Facebook, got on the wrong side of some moderation and decided to sue about it.
The complaint [PDF] alleges a whole host of constitutional violations on the part of Facebook, which had removed some posts that violated the site's Community Guidelines. This is what Brock alleged:
As of the time that Plaintiff, Mandela Brock, was unconstitutionally subjected to censorship, without "just cause," and stripped of his rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the New York State Constitution, along with federal and state law, there continues to be a pervasive and high-handed unwillingness of the defendants to obey the laws that govern them or to ensure the individual defendants, who they are mandated by law to supervise, follow the laws that govern them in particular the United States Constitution.
Moving beyond that, there are accusations that Facebook violated Brock's free speech, subjected him to psychological torture, "denial of his right to protest in a public square," and otherwise angered him to the point of litigation. According to Brock, Facebook violated his First, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. There's also a RICO allegation (because of course there is). That allegation surfaced after Facebook tried to relocate the lawsuit to its native California. (I'm sorry, I'm just reporting the facts. I cannot actually explain that part to you.)
Here's an indicative sample of the posts Brock created that Facebook removed:
If you can't see the embeds, perhaps you should feel grateful.
Brock's lawsuit asked for compensatory damages of $1 million "per account restriction" and $250,000 a day per "individual restriction violation of rights" as well as punitive damages of $10 million per day (plus $500,000/day) for the same thing. Also attorney fees, despite representing himself.
The complaint is signed Mandela Brock, Belligerent Complainant, Sui Juris Prose, In Propia Persona.
So, how much does Facebook owe for taking down Brock's n-word-loaded posts? None. None of the above. (via Eric Goldman)
Despite the plaintiff's citation of cases that don't actually help him (like Pruneyard and a case involving a labor union protest in front of a business{??}) [oh, and the California Constitution for some reason, which isn't going to help in New York], the court (performing the charitable reading of the complaint required in pro se cases) says there are no rights violations here. Just a private company doing private company stuff.
From the decision [PDF]:
Plaintiff’s claims based on the First Amendment, as well as on the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, therefore fail at the threshold because Facebook is not a state actor. Plaintiff contends that Facebook’s status as a “state actor” is “immaterial” because Facebook is performing a function “traditionally” performed by the government. The relevant function that Facebook provides is an online platform for speech. Plaintiff also analogizes Facebook’s provision of an online messaging service to the government’s traditional provision of mail services through the United States Postal Service. However, “[i]t is ‘not enough’ that the relevant function is something that a government has ‘exercised . . . in the past, or still does’ or ‘that the function serves the public good.’” Prager Univ., 951 F.3d at 998 (quoting Halleck, 139 S. Ct. at 1928-29). The government must have performed the function in question exclusively as well. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. at 1929. Facilitating the exchange of communication or hosting a platform for discussion are not activities “that only governmental entities have traditionally performed.” Prager Univ., 951 F.3d at 998...
At least the plaintiff can now proudly claim he got shot down just like Prager U, which also wastes a lot of everyone's time (including that of courts) attempting to portray social media companies as public utilities or public squares in order to advance its theory that its rights have been violated every time its content gets moderated.
The same goes for Brock's "new town square" argument.
The Supreme Court held in Marsh v. State of Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 506 (1946) that citizens in a company-owned town were guaranteed constitutional protections against the deprivation of their First Amendment rights by the company, but courts have refused to extend Marsh’s holding to social media cases.
Brock also claimed that moderation of his content violated Section 230. Nope.
Facebook is immune under Section 230(c)(1) from claims related to its removal of objectionable content.
That's it for Brock. If Brock still wants to avail himself of the use of private property, he'll have to follow the owner's rules. It's that simple.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 1st amendment, content moderation, mandela brock, section 230
Companies: facebook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's really not that complex...
You'd think that for all the screaming about how important constitutional rights are by some people/groups they'd get around to actually reading the document and doing the most basic research to learn what those rights actually are, but I guess it's easier to base your arguments on a fictional version that always says exactly what you want it to at any given moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's really not that complex...
Well, if it works for organized religon...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's really not that complex...
https://www.theonion.com/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-consti-1819571149
Hey, remember the days when The Onion was a silly satire outlet that thrived on things that would never happen in real life, rather than an accurate description of current American politics? Good times...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, is this finally a specific example of the kind of "conservative thought in general" that the complainers claim social media is biased against?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you are on the twitters, I highly suggest you follow the NPR account July 4th.
They post the complete text of the Constitution every year, every year thousands of people are reporting the tweets and screaming into the void about how they are trying get people to overthrow the government. (something something venn diagram of jan 6th rioters & those who think the words of the constitution are a call to overthrow white christian america.)
These "true" Americans have no idea what their rights actually are, just what they imagine. We force people who wish to become American to have a great understanding of the nation & our rights than we demand people we elect to Congress have.
The big take away is "all men are created equal" to these people seems to mean that they have more rights than the next guy & will fight tooth and nail to deny them the same treatment they get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think what you mean is that NPR posted the Declaration of Independence and the Trumpers thought it was about their tyrant instead of the ones George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et al. were rebelling against.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'd call it sad beyond belief that so much of the US citizenry have devolved into paragons of dunning-kruger who regularly chant marxist and nazi excerpts of mein kampf and the communist manifesto in the apparent belief they're quoting the US constitution; and worse, scream loudly about the Declaration of Independence being "un-american".
...but I've grown numb to the idea, by now, that 70 million americans have devolved into clownish rubes with the brains and erudition you'd expect from a 12th century peasant.
The saddest part is there's no real question how this happened; those 70 million have been failed by a system of education unable to provide a nation even full literacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And by supporting the likes of Trump, they are working hard on becoming real peasants again, as they will end up living as the top 1% permit them to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"...they are working hard on becoming real peasants again..."
And will be proud to the point of becoming violent if questioned about it. Or gloat that it doesn't matter how bad shit gets for them as long as the "libs" get hurt just as bad.
It's amazing. The rest of the world strives for upwards mobility and improving their lot in life. These 70 million americans all strive to live in misery...as long as they can drag everyone else down with them.
Doom cults normally don't get that big, but I guess this is what happens when you make grievance addiction a national pastime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's not that simple. Though this is purely anecdotal, take local nuisance tp here, who is Finnish. Finland has the absolute opposite education system than the US's in terms of quality (and how much they value teachers, for that matter), yet tp couldn't make a cogent argument worth a damn.
My point is this: blaming the US's woes on education is only part of the issue; it's not the whole story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ten. Million. Dollars. A. Day.
I can't hear a thing due to the endless fleet of ROFLcopters flying over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice to have yet another court adding yet another layer of debunking to the "platforms are public squares" "facebook is a state actor" and "platforms can censir/infringe on free speech rights" lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what are those rights?
I believe, because I've read the document, that one of them says '...life, liberty,...' and if so, how can you square your first statement with this?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/pg-e-to-admit-fault-in-84-fire-deaths-plead-guilty-to-manslaughte r-11592321556
Apparently companies can, in fact, be charged with killing people. I'll admit that its unlikely that Facebook could kill anyone by setting forest fires, but they could probably drop a rack of computers on someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what are those rights?
It's very easy to square that statement because it's all about context as usual. What you refer to is actually addressed in the document:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Of course they can, but if you want to conflate moderation with killing people to make an argument, you don't have an argument to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: what are those rights?
Killing people deprives them of their rights. Moderation can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what are those rights?
Let me know when one actually goes to prison for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]