It Can Always Get Dumber: Trump Sues Facebook, Twitter & YouTube, Claiming His Own Government Violated The Constitution
from the wanna-try-that-again? dept
Yes, it can always get dumber. The news broke last night that Donald Trump was planning to sue the CEOs of Facebook and Twitter for his "deplatforming." This morning we found out that they were going to be class action lawsuits on behalf of Trump and other users who were removed, and now that they're announced we find out that he's actually suing Facebook & Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter & Jack Dorsey, and YouTube & Sundar Pichai. I expected the lawsuits to be performative nonsense, but these are... well... these are more performative and more nonsensical than even I expected.
These lawsuits are so dumb, and so bad, that there seems to be a decent likelihood Trump himself will be on the hook for the companies' legal bills before this is all over.
The underlying claims in all three lawsuits are the same. Count one is that these companies removing Trump and others from their platforms violates the 1st Amendment. I mean, I know we've heard crackpots push this theory (without any success), but this is the former President of the United States arguing that private companies violated HIS 1st Amendment rights by conspiring with the government HE LED AT THE TIME to deplatform him. I cannot stress how absolutely laughably stupid this is. The 1st Amendment, as anyone who has taken a civics class should know, restricts the government from suppressing speech. It does not prevent private companies from doing so.
The arguments here are so convoluted. To avoid the fact that he ran the government at the time, he tries to blame the Biden transition team in the Facebook and Twitter lawsuits (in the YouTube one he tries to blame the Biden White House).
Pursuant to Section 230, Defendants are encouraged and immunized by Congress to censor constitutionally protected speech on the Internet, including by and among its approximately three (3) billion Users that are citizens of the United States.
Using its authority under Section 230 together and in concert with other social media companies, the Defendants regulate the content of speech over a vast swath of the Internet.
Defendants are vulnerable to and react to coercive pressure from the federal government to regulate specific speech.
In censoring the specific speech at issue in this lawsuit and deplatforming Plaintiff, Defendants were acting in concert with federal officials, including officials at the CDC and the Biden transition team.
As such, Defendants’ censorship activities amount to state action.
Defendants’ censoring the Plaintiff’s Facebook account, as well as those Putative Class Members, violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution because it eliminates the Plaintiffs and Class Member’s participation in a public forum and the right to communicate to others their content and point of view.
Defendants’ censoring of the Plaintiff and Putative Class Members from their Facebook accounts violates the First Amendment because it imposes viewpoint and contentbased restrictions on the Plaintiffs’ and Putative Class Members’ access to information, views, and content otherwise available to the general public.
Defendants’ censoring of the Plaintiff and Putative Class Members violates the First Amendment because it imposes a prior restraint on free speech and has a chilling effect on social media Users and non-Users alike.
Defendants’ blocking of the Individual and Class Plaintiffs from their Facebook accounts violates the First Amendment because it imposes a viewpoint and content-based restriction on the Plaintiff and Putative Class Members’ ability to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Defendants’ censorship of the Plaintiff and Putative Class Members from their Facebook accounts violates the First Amendment because it imposes a viewpoint and contentbased restriction on their ability to speak and the public’s right to hear and respond.
Defendants’ blocking the Plaintiff and Putative Class Members from their Facebook accounts violates their First Amendment rights to free speech.
Defendants’ censoring of Plaintiff by banning Plaintiff from his Facebook account while exercising his free speech as President of the United States was an egregious violation of the First Amendment.
So, let's just get this out of the way. I have expressed significant concerns about lawmakers and other government officials that have tried to pressure social media companies to remove content. I think they should not be doing so, and if they do so with implied threats to retaliate for the editorial choices of these companies that is potentially a violation of the 1st Amendment. But that's because it's done by a government official.
It does not mean the private companies magically become state actors. It does not mean that the private companies can't kick you off for whatever reason they want. Even if there were some sort of 1st Amendment violation here, it would be on behalf of the government officials trying to intimidate the platforms into acting -- and none of the examples in any of the lawsuits seem likely to reach even that level (and, again the lawsuits are against the wrong parties anyway).
The second claim, believe it or not, is perhaps even dumber than the first. It asks for declaratory judgment that Section 230 itself is unconstitutional.
In censoring (flagging, shadow banning, etc.) Plaintiff and the Class, Defendants relied upon and acted pursuant to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Defendants would not have deplatformed Plaintiff or similarly situated Putative Class Members but for the immunity purportedly offered by Section 230.
Let's just cut in here to point out that this point is just absolutely, 100% wrong and completely destroys this entire claim. Section 230 does provide immunity from lawsuits, but that does not mean without it no one would ever do any moderation at all. Most companies would still do content moderation -- as that is still protected under the 1st Amendment itself. To claim that without 230 Trump would still be on these platforms is laughable. If anything the opposite is the case. Without 230 liability protections, if others sued the websites for Trump's threats, attacks, potentially defamatory statements and so on, it would have likely meant that these companies would have pulled the trigger faster on removing Trump. Because anything he (and others) said would represent a potential legal liability for the platforms.
Back to the LOLsuit.
Section 230(c)(2) purports to immunize social media companies from liability for action taken by them to block, restrict, or refuse to carry “objectionable” speech even if that speech is “constitutionally protected.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2).
In addition, Section 230(c)(1) also has been interpreted as furnishing an additional immunity to social media companies for action taken by them to block, restrict, or refuse to carry constitutionally protected speech.
Section 230(c)(1) and 230(c)(2) were deliberately enacted by Congress to induce, encourage, and promote social medial companies to accomplish an objective—the censorship of supposedly “objectionable” but constitutionally protected speech on the Internet—that Congress could not constitutionally accomplish itself.
Congress cannot lawfully induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” Norwood v. Harrison, 413 US 455, 465 (1973).
Section 230(c)(2) is therefore unconstitutional on its face, and Section 230(c)(1) is likewise unconstitutional insofar as it has interpreted to immunize social media companies for action they take to censor constitutionally protected speech.
This is an argument that has been advanced in a few circles, and it's absolute garbage. Indeed, the state of Florida tried this basic argument in its attempt to defend its social media moderation law and that failed miserably just last week.
And those are the only two claims in the various lawsuits. That these private companies making an editorial decision to ban Donald Trump (in response to worries about him encouraging violence) violates the 1st Amendment (it does not) and that Section 230 is unconstitutional because it somehow involves Congress encouraging companies to remove Constitutionally protected speech. This is also wrong, because all of the cases related to this argument involve laws that actually pressure companies to act in this way. Section 230 has no such pressure involved (indeed, many of the complaints from some in government is that 230 is a "free pass" for companies to do nothing at all if they so choose).
There is a ton of other garbage -- mostly performative throat-clearing -- in the lawsuits, but none of that really matters beyond the two laughably dumb claims. I did want to call out a few really, really stupid points though. In the Twitter lawsuit, Trump's lawyers misleadingly cite the Knight 1st Amendment Institute's suit against Trump for blocking users on Twitter:
In Biden v. Knight 141 S. Ct. 1220 (2021), the Supreme Court discussed the Second Circuit’s decision in Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, No. 18- 1691, holding that Plaintiff’s threads on Twitter from his personal account were, in fact, official presidential statements made in a “public forum.”
Likewise, President Trump would discuss government activity on Twitter in his official capacity as President of the United States with any User who chose to follow him, except for seven (7) Plaintiffs in the Knight case, supra., and with the public at large.
So, uh, "the Supreme Court" did not discuss it. Only Justice Clarence Thomas did, and it was a weird, meandering, unbriefed set of musings that were unrelated to the case at hand. It's a stretch to argue that "the Supreme Court" did that. Second, part of President Trump's argument in the Knight case was that his Twitter account was not being used in his "official capacity," but was rather his personal account that just sometimes tweeted official information. Literally. This was President Trump appealing to the Supreme Court in that case:
The government’s response is that the President is not acting in his official capacity when he blocks users....
To then turn around in another case and claim that it was official action is just galaxy brain nonsense.
Another crazy point: in all three lawsuits, Donald Trump argues that government officials threatening the removal of Section 230 in response to social media companies' content moderation policies itself proves that the decisions by those companies make them state actors. Here's the version from the YouTube complaint (just insert the other two companies where it says YouTube to see what it is in the others):
Below are just some examples of Democrat legislators threatening new regulations, antitrust breakup, and removal of Section 230 immunity for Defendants and other social media platforms if YouTube did not censor views and content with which these Members of Congress disagreed, including the views and content of Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members
But, uh, Donald Trump spent much of the last year in office doing exactly the same thing. He literally demanded the removal of Section 230. He signed an executive order to try to remove Section 230 immunity from companies, then demaned Congress repeal all of Section 230 before he would fund the military. On the antitrust breakup front, Trump demanded that Bill Barr file antitrust claims against Google prior to the election as part of his campaign against "big tech."
It's just absolutely hilarious that he's now claiming that members of Congress doing the very same thing he did, but to a lesser degree, and with less power magically turns these platforms into state actors.
There was a lot of speculation as to what lawyers Trump would have found to file such a lawsuit, and (surprisingly) it's not any of the usual suspects. There is the one local lawyer in Florida (required to file such a suit there), two lawyers with AOL email addresses, and then a whole bunch of lawyers from Ivey, Barnum, & O'Mara, a (I kid you not) "personal injury and real estate" law firm in Connecticut. If these lawyers have any capacity for shame, they should be embarrassed to file something this bad. But considering that the bio for the lead lawyer on the case hypes up his many, many media appearances, and even has a gallery of photos of him appearing on TV shows, you get the feeling that perhaps these lawyers know it's all performative and will get them more media coverage. That coverage should be mocking them for filing an obviously vexatious and frivolous lawsuit.
The lawsuit is filed in Florida, which has an anti-SLAPP law (not a great one, but not a horrible one either). It does seem possible that these companies might file anti-SLAPP claims in response to this lawsuit, meaning that Trump could potentially be on the hook for the legal fees of all three. Of course, if the whole thing is a performative attempt at playing the victim, it's not clear that that would matter.
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, class action, content moderation, donald trump, jack dorsey, mark zuckerberg, section 230, state actor, sundar pichai
Companies: facebook, twitter, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube are all LLCs (Limited Liability Corporation). Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that mean that he legally cannot include their CEOs in his lawsuit?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Grifters gotta Grift
Considering that it was only minutes after filing this lawsuit, he was sending out notices for fundraising for this lawsuit, it's most likely this is just one big performative grift.
The lawsuit was written for an audience of one, Trump, and he can use it as a means to dupe people into giving him money.
The rubes who are his core base will gladly give him more money just so they can help him "stick it to big tech" while he at the same time he gives credence to their racists, homophobic, xenophobic, and bigoted views.
I wonder how long it will take his followers to realize that he is essentially just stealing their money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Serious question
Why doesn't Trump just make his own platform at this point?
He'd be in total control of said platform.
His supporters would flock to it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Grifters gotta Grift
"I wonder how long it will take his followers to realize that he is essentially just stealing their money."
If they haven't figured it out by now, they never will.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christ, what a snowflake.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKjxFJfcrcA -- My response
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trump knows a platform of his own won’t have the reach that a platform like Facebook or Twitter does. The end of his brief attempt at blogging, such as it was, proves he knows that. It’s also why he never joined Parler or Gab—where’s the fun in poking at liberals if they’re not there to poke back and give him all the attention?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Performative nonsense is what he does best. It's what got him elected president. He knows his fans won't care about the merits of the case or hold the inevitable loss agaist him, so he's free to perform his act.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If he opens a theme park at Mar-A-Lago, can he avoid paying attorney fees?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anybody with one working brain cell knows his government violated the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oh, like laws have ever mattered to Donald Trump.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
LLC stands for Limited Liability Company. None of them are LLCs. Twitter Inc, Facebook Inc, and Google Inc. An LLC would use LLC not Inc. They are C-Corps. That said, a C-corp provides even stronger liability protections, so that is a minor point.
It is common to initially sue the Cheif executives at a company, particularly when you want to claim some personal basis for company actions. It is possible to peirce the corporate veil and sue the executives, particularly if you are suing over the direct actions of an executive. You don't know the exact responsible party, so you sue all possible parties, and let discovery and the court sort out the responsible party(s).
You will have a hard time holding the CEOs responsible, but nothing stops you from filing the lawsuit (except perhaps competent legal council).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
On the hook for legal fees
Given his past record for paying his debts, why would this potential risk bother him?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
from Wikipedia Limited liability
This does not apply if a board member is successfully sued for malfeasance in office.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's the owners who have limited liability, i.e. they won't lose anything beyond whatever they paid for their shares.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Beside which, those run by his associates have a terrible security record.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Serious question
He did, it bombed hilariously because it turns out when he's not the president a bunch of people who were keeping track of what he said/did because of how damaging it could be simply don't care anymore.
As for making a bigger one where people other than him could post it's largely for the same reason, the only people who would sign up would be his cultists and people going there just to troll him/them by 'telling it like it is with locker-room talk' which would leave his audience much smaller than the one he could get on the current social media platforms and for a narcissist who needs people to pay attention to him that just won't do.
There's also the fact that by going this route he gets to play the 'persecuted victim' for his gullible(at best) cultists and con them into giving him an endless supply of money to 'Stick it to the libs/big tech!', and why would he ever give up easy money like that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Imaginary Dictatorship
News flash: Trump never had omnipotent control of even the executive branch, despite the overactive imagination of some. It was well known that on several occasions, elements of the executive branch of government were working against Trump.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Okay, but we're not talking about somebody with one working brain cell, we're talking about Donald Trump.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's not the 'poking at liberals' that drives his lack of desire to join those platforms, it's the reach and the big number he can brag about. On twitter, he can brag about having millions of fans, about all the retweets he got from the conservative griftosphere, botnets and elderly racist relatives people can't unfollow without family drama, you can't do that on a platform with less than a million users.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Serious question
Because he doesn't want his own platform. He wants the existing platforms to do his bidding, and he has no interest in accepting anything less than complete loyalty.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Its a Crime Mike
Mike I told you this before and I will tell you this again. When a government official contacts Facebook, twitter ect. to get them to take down constitutionally protected speech, the correct response form Facebook, Twitter etc. is "No we cannot legally conspire with government officials to censor legally protected speech." They should then forward the request to the DOJ's Civil Rights Division for attempted violation of 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights.
Nothing more and nothing less.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Imaginary Dictatorship
No POTUS has omnipotent control.
Trump was very incompetent, clueless and lazy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trump claimed this will result in a victory for freedom of speech.
He may actually end up being correct, but not in the way he imagines.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Correct
Correct,
I believe the common phrase in law is
'Sue them all and let the judge sort them out.'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
'You're being treated badly, now give me money!'
While it wouldn't surprise me if he was stupid enough to think that these arguments are even remotely sound and that he managed to find lawyers similarly lacking in basic legal knowledge I suspect that this is nothing more than a PR stunt/fundraiser to fleece the gullible rubes that are his cultists while reminding them how horribly they're 'persecuted' to keep that complex/fetish alive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Imaginary Dictatorship
Well, when faced with the choice of working against the people and violate a solemnly sworn oath of office or work against Trump, not everyone will pick the same option.
Sadly, I might say, but probably for a different reason than you.
It's really appalling that the U.S. for a while had a president forcing that choice upon government employees, and that the responses were such a mixed bag.
And it's appalling that this clown show isn't over yet by far and the only thing the Republican party thinks it has to offer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
These may be private company's but they are out there and make themselves the PUBLIC FORUMS. In this case, I do think the first amendment is needed. We already have mostly one-sided leftist views. They have been flat out lying about Trump, Over, and Over again. Not just Trump, but most everything else they are talking about. Lies, Lies, Lies, and god forbid if anyone else throws out the truth.
Let me put it another way, Here in California, MALLS, which are Private Owned, have to let people have their First Amendment rights in them. FREE SPEECH in Private owned malls!!! Yep, that's rights. So what is the difference?
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/583/pruneyard-shopping-center-v-robins
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Serious question
Because this is all performance headlines to being used to fundraise. He earns millions from sending out emails, as opposed to creating his own platform which would both cost $$$ and fail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shoutout to Eric Goldman, for appearing on the radio to explain how baseless Trump's latest scam is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The lyin' king...
He took their manes? Going by the usual characteristics of those cats, that would only make them more predatory, wouldn't it?
yes, yes, I know. It's just a typo. Let me have my fun, 'k?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Serious question
Because it's easier to take over something and drive it over a cliff than to build one.
Like the GQP. Trump took it over rather that start a new party which would require competence. He's currently driving that over a cliff.
See how his own blog failed along with so many of his businesses.
He would have been better off being a used-car salesman.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is the same idiot who wouldn't join Parler unless its owners agreed to deplatform anyone who criticized him there, which they didn't. So again, GQP folks love cancel culture when it works in their favor, and then scream victimization when they're the ones being cancelled --- er, held acountable for their actions.
Wanna bet he tries charging his GQP followers to 'join' his lawsuit 'class' ???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
At this point, Trump is boring me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One such person: Donald Trump. Or did you forget that he kept saying Article II gave him the power to do basically anything?
Gee, can’t imagine why~.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wow, actually this is great for his new law team of Liebowitz, Prenda, & Righthaven!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Imaginary Dictatorship
It was well known that on several occasions, elements of the executive branch of government were working against Trump.
Well, he hires the best people. So why is it not his own fucking fault?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I wonder why President 'Why can't we nuke hurricanes?' Trump experienced pushback from subordinates... Guess we'll never know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not HIS money
Trump will not be using HIS money for this lawsuit. He will use funds from his Trump 2024 campaign.
Remember, donations to his campaign come with a disclaimer that a large portion of the funds can be used for activities not directly related to his re-election (is that even legal?) like legal fees.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Drumpf: "I want a moat in front of the wall at the Texas border."
Aide: "There's a river there already"
Drumpf: "I want a moat!!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
As if on cue…
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Defendants’ censoring of the Plaintiff and Putative Class Members from their Facebook accounts violates the First Amendment because it imposes viewpoint and content based restrictions..."
I guess the objective truth is a viewpoint if you want to look at it that way...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is a great example of where money and power gets you in litigation, even at this early stage. A plaintiff on a budget would never be able to afford a lawyer who would put his reputation on the line for this kind of drivel.
"Want me to file your silly, performative litigation? That's gonna cost you extra."
The fact that none of these lawyers are any of the usual suspects isn't that surprising to me. He's either chased away the others, stiffed them, or thrown them under the bus to be arrested. That is how one-way loyalty works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Serious question
"Why doesn't Trump just make his own platform at this point?"
Because like a lot of his more vocal supporters, he's a selfish asshole. He's wants all the benefits of a widely used platform without having to do any work or spending his own money. In his whole life the only thing he's been legitimately successful at is grifting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Imaginary Dictatorship
"...elements of the executive branch of government were working against Trump."
Some say "working against Trump, some call it "following the law".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Could it be that Lin Wood, Richard Liebowitz, and Steven Biss are now The Donald's lawyers?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Considering that Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani have been disbarred, I'm actually looking forward to this clown-car circus of a lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hes not gonna touch it
Tha'ts sad even for you bro.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Its a Crime Mike
Note: Back in the real world, Chozen's bullshit theory here is completely legally baseless, as has already been ruled by courts.
A state actor is not created merely from relyong on the government as a source for facts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Social media services are not public fora. A Supreme Court ruling from 2019, for which Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, doesn’t directly address social media but still provides the logic necessary to counter any “yes they are public fora” argument:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Serious question
He doesn't want his own platform. He wants his own courts. It didn't quite work out as well as he thought it would with "his" Supreme Court. Nor actually any court of law since there are (yet) minimum intellectual and legal requirements.
But the highest court of the land is not actually the Supreme Court. It is the court of public opinion. Because in the end, public servants get elected, or get appointed by people who got elected.
And Trump is not hemorrhaging as badly in it as in the courts of law. Because he just doesn't stop. And people give him money so that he can go on. And his "art of the deal" is to never budge an inch. In the end, enough people fall for it instead of just walking away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There must be something to this case. After all, I'm sure that Donald Trump 'knows more about the Constitution than anyone.'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Its a Crime Mike
Per the cited statute:
...in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States...
So next step will be enlightening us where in the Constitution you are guaranteed a right to a social media account.
That's the problem with you copy/paste morons who keep regurgitating the same bullshit. You just take it at face value and don't even bother to read what it says. It's why I loathe assholes like you, and either block, report, or unfriend them - you simply have no utility whatsoever, and you're making more people stupid with your garbage.
Why not tell the folks at Gab or Parler? At least someone over there might give something close to a shit and not just think you rode the short bus to school.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Oh for fucks sake..not the fucking mall shit again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Snarter
So, you think it's dumb to fight for Free Speech? Could you get dumber? Why on Earth would you support totalitarian practices? Because Trump?
That's your reason? You are right about one thing: you could always get more dumber.
What else will you snark about? When all of your friends and associates are de-platormed because some social network decided that you and your buddies are also issuing "disinformation"?
When you lose your platform will you keep snarking to the neighboring table at the Starbucks (because you will have nowhere else any longer to snark)?
Will you ever stop writing stupid articles that celebrate fascism? Can you get even dumber?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
looks busy in here.
1. How many corps would LOVE to not monitor Content?
How many 1000's of people would be Unemployed?
How many other nations would LET these services Let stand ANY/ALL posts?(NONE)
Who is the biggest complainer to All of these sites? NOT THE GOV.
RIAA/MPAA.
What could happen? SOME form of Perfect ID to get into a forum/chat? NO WAY.
Does anyone know WHAT happened to about 1/2 the porn sites on the net? Look it up. The States Jumped on them, and used the Credit card corps against them. they could no longer use credit cards, so ALLOT of the Closed down, IN THE USA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Methinks Facebook May Revise the Term of Trump's Banishment
Remember that Facebook has converted Trumps indefinite suspension to a two-year conditional suspension. If this goes as I expect it will and the courts throw these lawsuits out, and if they require him to pay Facebook's lawyer fees, I have a feeling that one of the conditions of lifting the suspension in two years will be that he has to have paid those lawyer fees.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
shut up, Meg
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dead girl or live boi I'd wager
Poor jhon boi. By the way what did you do that you don't want anyone to find out?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Can I get a womp womp?
It's damn telling when even the most dedicated tongue based boot polishers, like you, can't defend this crap.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Methinks Facebook May Revise the Term of Trump's Banishment
As funny as that would be(if anything would get him to pay his legal fees that would be it, and even then it might not be enough) sadly I don't see it happening, though actions like this do certainly strengthen the case that they'd be fools to let him back on in two years as he's clearly not repentant in the slightest and hasn't changed at all from when they gave him the boot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I can't help but think that you could have some fun with that quote if you initially left out who said/wrote it and just attributed it as 'a judge' and watched as the 'conservatives' tripped over themselves to deride what was obviously a democrat-socialist-commie judge who had no idea what they were talking about and were sure to be overruled by the Real Americans(tm) on the Supreme Court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If not for FB timing out the poor woman who was spreading mask misinformation, she surely would have been able to find her missing brother before he was discovered dead 2 months after he went missing.
stares
One does hope the court collects the pro hac vice paperwork & fee before punting these silly cases.
One would also hope that a letter would be sent to each state where these "lawyers" are barred for misconduct.
There is nothing new or novel about this, the law is settled.
Trumps insane claims are merely fodder for the Faux News set to keep the big lie alive.
This is a campagin ad wasting the time of the courts & private companies.
Also Trump claims to be the head of the GOP, someone might want to inform them to change the website then.
Insane dipshit wastes other peoples money fighting to prove fantasies are reality... OMG its just like he got a 5th year in office!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Snarter
Will you ever stop writing stupid articles that celebrate fascism?
Wouldn't 'stupid articles that celebrate fascism' also be an exercise in free speech?
How do you reconcile supporting free speech while complaining about someone else's exercise of free speech?
Can you get even dumber?
Before you consider replying, I've got some terms for you to look up:
Be prepared, because there's gonna be a fucking test.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Snarter
person woman man camera tv
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Its a Crime Mike
To wit - The district court debunk's Chozen/Bobmail's deliberate lies here:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210630/00262647091/robert-f-kennedy-jr-ridiculous-lawsuit- against-facebook-gets-tossed-out-court.shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And as if on cue...
Was watching DW the Day (German News cause the world is more then 'Merika kids)...
Right after the press conference mass mailing went out trying to get cash from the Trump faithful.
A lawyer they interviewed also pointed out the hypocrisy in Trumps lawsuit...
When Trump was sued for blocking people he claimed they were a platform now magically when it suits him they aren't.
Trump likes to use his lawsuits to try and scare people into giving him what he wants, because he can run the bills up. Perhaps the fake billionaire should have noted the trillion dollar valuation & that all 3 of these companies will not be scared of him & will force him to pay them for defending this meritless case. Trump of course will never pay the bill (cause hes broke) but hopefully one of the many entities he owes large amounts to will finally decide he is more trouble than he is worth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Google is an LLC (and so is YouTube, have a look at the embedded lawsuit). They're both owned by Alphabet, Inc since they reorganized their corporation a few years ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Methinks Facebook May Revise the Term of Trump's Banishment
"Two-year conditional suspension"
Is that Earth years, or Plutonian ( 90,553 earth days) years?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Snarter
Hell, even if the test doesn't fuck, it's still gonna embarrass the fuck out of you!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Serious question
"Why doesn't Trump just make his own platform at this point?"
He did. Then the promised "platform" turned out to be nothing more than a blog and he shut it down i a hissy fit due to low traffic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Serious Problem
Some judge is going to have to read this thing, including [Twitter pg 14]:
Then he will know why there is no longer any direct public discussion of political issues in the U.S.
Without that information, he might have blamed the lack of U.S. public political discussion on this ``markdown'' stuff, which tried to change P:60 above to P:1 as though it were the first of a numbered list.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Correct
...which albeit possible is still just monumental stupidity when the odds are good the initial claimant will be the one sitting with millions of dollars worth in lawyer bills.
My guess is we'll find out whether Trump was trying to use this as a PR stunt or not when we see whether he drops the suits crying and lamenting in front of his base, or ends up showing everyone if he actually can lay his hands on significant cash.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Grifters gotta Grift
"I wonder how long it will take his followers to realize that he is essentially just stealing their money."
As long as he can give them their grievance addiction fix they're just fine with it; there's a reason the Department of Homeland Security published a study on white supremacists suffering withdrawal symptoms after letting go of their hate.
Once Trump got into the entertainment biz he never left, and the product he delivers is just badly aimed rage.
His base are essentially junkies. They'll keep paying whatever it takes to get the next dose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Methinks Facebook May Revise the Term of Trump's Banishm
Go with Neptune instead. Pluto is no longer considered a planet and that might open a loophole that it doesn't have a "year."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Imaginary Dictatorship
" It was well known that on several occasions, elements of the executive branch of government were working against Trump."
I'm not sure which is worse, Koby; the fact that Trump is one of very few presidents to have issued orders so unlawful the executive had to step in and say "We can't do that" or that you and your alt-right comrades think it's a great shame the president still has to obey the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Correct
"My guess is we'll find out whether Trump was trying to use this as a PR stunt or not when we see whether he drops the suits crying and lamenting in front of his base, or ends up showing everyone if he actually can lay his hands on significant cash."
My prediction is both. This will fail quickly due to the laughable nature of the lawsuit, and his base will hand over more cash as he wails and moans about the "deep state" another other nonsense. Initial takes by actual lawyers suggest that his legal counsel is as high quality as ever.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/legal-experts-point-out-glaring-errors-in-trump-lawsuits- against-facebook-youtube-and-twitter/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Its a Crime Mike
"...for attempted violation of 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights."
Why am I not surprised to see you once again trying to press-gang a law into the debate which has nothing to do with the topic nor proves what you want it to prove, Baghdad Bob?
You once again bringing up a case which was already ruled against by SCOTUS is just pathetic and sad.
Almost as much as when you were nagging about the Munn precedent which was overturned in 18-bloody-86.
Here's a hint, Bobmail...err.."Chozen"...as long as you keep dropping your own brand of insane in your comments it doesn't matter which nickname you try to make them appear under. We still realize who it's coming from.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"These may be private company's but they are out there and make themselves the PUBLIC FORUMS."
Nope. The law is pretty damn clear that private property can not be public property. SCOTUS has ruled on this a number of times already.
There is only one way for Facebook to become a public forum; if Government takes over Facebook, turning it into a bona fide part of the US government.
"We already have mostly one-sided leftist views."
Which happens to also be the legal view, the constitutional view, and the factual view. If you're so far down the rabbit hole that factual reality is "leftist" to you then that is not a condemnation of factual reality. It's a sign that you're insane.
"Here in California, MALLS, which are Private Owned, have to let people have their First Amendment rights in them. FREE SPEECH in Private owned malls!!! Yep, that's rights. So what is the difference?"
They don't. The mall owners can evict patrons at whim and with no prior notice, then deny said patrons entrance in perpetuity. The bar owner can toss you out for any reason. The restaurant owner can deny you entry.
But hey, don't take my word for it; Go to any mall and make use of your right to speak in a way which makes the other patrons uncomfortable. I guarantee that security will evict you in a blink and no court will touch your free speech case because the mall owner will be the one in the right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Trump's so regular you can set your egress to him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Give me your money
It's almost as if it was a cynical ploy to separate morons from their money via "fund raising"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Methinks Facebook May Revise the Term of Trump's Ban
Well at 60,190 days that's still a good idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well, you know, after Four Seasons Total Landscaping nothing surprises me anymore with this ilk.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Snarter
Unlikely (unless on Parler and Co) cause they're no members of the death cult of stoopid. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
WRITING IN CAPS doesn't make it any more true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Its a Crime Mike
And you were wrong the first time as you are now. So?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Imaginary Dictatorship
Yup, they did not ingest bleach to fight Coronavirus. How come?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Correct
I keep forgetting that with Trump if there are multiple different ways a situation can be exploited or abused he will go for all of them at once. Ironically that approach of his kept failing him in business but pays real dividends in politics...
And I can see that he's already started asking his base for funds in the lawsuit so by the time he drops the suit he can wring his hands and complain loudly about the leftist judges stopping his righteous crusade while pocketing the money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Its a Crime Mike
[Addendum]
Also, you trying to predict the appropriate response a private entity would have to give to government tells us all about where you're coming from.
Twitter and Facebook are free to set their own policy. And they can do so based on input from anyone they choose to listen to.
No one owes you an audience, Baghdad Bob. On a social platform you have no rights beyond those stated in the ToS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It's the alt-right in a nutshell. A bunch of entitled man-children who've gotten used to the idea that if they repeat their demands again and again in as loud a voice as they can muster, eventually people will let them have their way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A Serious Problem
"...he might have blamed the lack of U.S. public political discussion on this ``markdown'' stuff, which tried to change P:60 above to P:1 as though it were the first of a numbered list."
I somehow doubt it. Sure, Trump will sue anyone for anything, but normally he goes after people with a lot of money - apparently wealth makes for extra asshat behavior or something.
Unless someone dares lampoon his dainty miniscule hands. Trump will sue homeless beggars and stray dogs over that shit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Ah, when Rudy Giuliani managed to book the back parking lot of a landscaper between the dildo emporium and that crematorium, where he held a truly stirring speech on how some unspecified conspiracy changed the ballots on massive scale from under the noses of the republican election monitors with no one the wiser? Must have been those Liberal Shadow Ninja Queers striking from their base at Hogwarts, I reckon.
Still, Rudy may have been gabbling nonsense between the cock and the charred place but at least he didn't melt before the cameras that time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Correct
Would this be a case of evil savant? I can't bring myself to say "evil genius".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Between a cock and a charred spot...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Correct
How about “evil one-trick pony”?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Correct
"Would this be a case of evil savant? I can't bring myself to say "evil genius"."
Idiot Savant sounds about right. It's not as if Trump has added new strings to his ukulele over his documented forty years of applying the exact same con time and time and time again.
The two things he has got going for him is the way he doesn't let a hundred failed grifts dissuade him from launching more, and his ability to always find a new set of gullible sheep to fleece.
Although I'll say this; In politics the herd of sheep he found seem to be an infinitely renewable resource. He'd be able to pick their pockets, screw their daughters, and hijack their car...and they'd still keep sending him checks...
If he actually did shoot someone on 5th avenue they'd be OK with that as long as he claimed it was a liberal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This just in: Donald Trump sues self for $100 trillion on charges of gross financial negligence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Go after his law team
If this law suit is actually frivolous then the judge needs to throw the book at Trump and his law team. Though I'm sure Trump will figure out a way to not pay any fines (or even pay his own legal team).
But what will happen to the lawyers if they're looking at thousands or millions in legal costs and punitive court fines? Or do they not care about fines since they'll get tons of attention from the right-wing conservative media sphere? Sure, they'll have to sell off all their assets to pay the court fines, but look how many conservative followers they now have on Twitter!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
For the first, and likely only time in his career, villige idiot savant (functional drawing hand, nonfunctional brain) Ben Garrison managed to draw a comic that somewhat accurately reflects the real world, (as much as his obviously having never read the source material):
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/143/239/382
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Uh, not really? Trump sure as hell isn't doing this in the name of 'free speech', he's not trying to prevent censorship and the bull-horn of china(pretty sure that's their flag) heading all the companies isn't an accurate one last I checked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Methinks Facebook May Revise the Term of Trump's Banishment
Nah! Trump (or his handlers) might just be clever enough to pay it, and raise a stink if his account isn't immediately and permanently restored, without prejudice.
After all, if it's paid, it won't be paid with his own money, anyways.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Exactly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Snarter
Shut up, Karen.
When we want an idiot's pointless and totally wrong opinion, we'll ask.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
3 billion?
Wait, is he arguing that there are 3 billion US citizens?
Or that each US citizen has 9-10 user accounts, on average?
[ link to this | view in thread ]