Even As Trump Relies On Section 230 For Truth Social, He's Claiming In Lawsuits That It's Unconstitutional
from the say-what-now? dept
With the launch of Donald Trump's ridiculous Truth Social offering, we've already noted that he's so heavily relying on Section 230's protections to moderate that he's written Section 230 directly into his terms of service. However, at the same time, Trump is still fighting his monstrously stupid lawsuits against Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube for banning him in the wake of January 6th.
Not surprisingly (after getting the cases transferred to California), the internet companies are pointing the courts to Section 230 as to why the cases should be dismissed. And, also not surprisingly (but somewhat hilariously), Trump is making galaxy brain stupid claims in response. That's the filing in the case against YouTube which somehow has eight different lawyers signed onto a brief so bad that all eight of those lawyers should be laughed out of court.
The argument as to why Section 230 doesn't apply is broken down into three sections, each dumber than the others. First up, it claims that "Section 230 Does Not Immunize Unfair Discrimination," which claims (falsely) that YouTube is a "common carrier" (it is not, has never been, and does not resemble one in any manner). The argument is not even particularly well argued here. It's three ridiculous paragraphs, starting with Packingham (which is not relevant to a private company choosing to moderate), then claiming (without any support, since there is none) that YouTube is a common carrier, and then saying that YouTube's terms of service mean that it "must carry content, irrespective of any desire or external compulsion to discriminate against Plaintiff."
Literally all of that is wrong. It took EIGHT lawyers to be this wrong.
The second section claims -- incorrectly -- that Section 230 "does not apply to political speech." They do this by totally misrepresenting the "findings" part of Section 230 and then ignoring basically all the case law that says, of course Section 230 applies to political speech. As for the findings, while they do say that Congress wants "interactive computers services" to create "a true diversity of political discourse" as the authors of the bill themselves have explained, this has always been about allowing every individual website to moderate as they see fit. It was never designed so that every website must carry all speech, but rather by allowing websites to curate the community and content they want, there will be many different places for different kinds of speech.
Again. Eight lawyers to be totally and completely wrong.
Finally, they argue that "Section 230(c) Violates the First Amendment as Applied to This Matter." It does not. Indeed, should Trump win this lawsuit (he won't) that would violate the 1st Amendment in compelling speech on someone else's private property who does not wish to be associated with it. And this section goes off the rails completely:
The U.S. contends that Section 230(c) does not implicate the First Amendment because “it “does not regulate Plaintiff’s speech,” but only “establishes a content- and viewpoint-neutral rule prohibiting liability” for certain companies that ban others’ speech. (U.S. Mot. at 2). Defendants’ egregious conduct in restraining Plaintiff’s political speech belies its claims of a neutral standard.
I mean, the mental gymnastics necessary to make this claim are pretty impressive, so I'll give them that. But this is mixing apples and orangutans in making an argument that, even if it did make sense, still doesn't make any sense. Section 230 does not regulate speech. That's why it's content neutral. The fact that the defendant, YouTube, does moderate its content -- egregiously or not -- is totally unrelated to the question of whether or not Section 230 is content neutral. Indeed, YouTube's ability to kick Trump off its platform is itself protected by the 1st Amendment.
The lawyers seem to be shifting back and forth between the government "The U.S." and the private entity, YouTube, here, to make an argument that might make sense if it were only talking about one entity, but doesn't make any sense at all when you switch back and forth between the two.
Honestly, this filing should become a case study in law schools about how not to law.
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, donald trump, section 230
Companies: facebook, truth social, twitter, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ah gross hypocrisy, we meet again
Argues against 230 and platform moderation while having both baked into his own social media platform to an even heavier amount, I do believe he's just provided the perfect way to troll him on that platform in the form of merely pointing out what a raging hypocrite he is when it comes to 'free speech'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah gross hypocrisy, we meet again
I think you're assuming too much about his knowing or caring.
Trump's an idiot. He doesn't really know what 230 is; I'm not sure he can even count that high. He rants about 230 because he's regurgitating whatever garbled talking points he picked up from Hannity, not because he has a working idea of what it is, what it does, or what his lawyers are saying about it either in court or in boilerplate on "his" website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a fascist, his only value is domination at all costs. He wants to keep critics and “the libs” from being able to force their voice onto his social media network, but he also wants to force his own voice onto social media networks that have already told him “get out and stay out”. The hypocrisy is therefore the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah gross hypocrisy, we meet again
Well, you do sort of have to admire the sheer unadulterated Chutzpah of the guy; The only use for 'Truth Social' is to get investors to stuff his pockets with money so it doesn't really harm him if the principle which would allow the damn thing to operate is overturned.
It's as if he's torpedoing a leaky canoe he floated in preparation to whine that the evil libruls sank his aircraft carrier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ah gross hypocrisy, we meet again
Eh, I might be more impressed if his cons didn't rely almost entirely on people being so gorram stupid. It's one thing to trick people because you're smarter than them or managed to find some tricky way to do it, another to just bank on spite and stupidity to get someone that you are actively urinating on to believe you when you say that it's nothing but a refreshing bit of rain and anyone who says otherwise is part of a grand conspiracy to keep the rain from you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ah gross hypocrisy, we meet again
" I might be more impressed if his cons didn't rely almost entirely on people being so gorram stupid."
You know, before 2016 neither you nor I ever realized 90 million americans are that stupid. And that was probably the prevailing assumption among upwards of 8 billion people.
But he did. Credit where it's due. He's simply the Rain Man of grift.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"It took EIGHT lawyers to be this wrong."
You know that old saying. Too many kooks spoil the broth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The ironic thing is no social media App could exist without section 230 as they would be wiped out by random lawsuits by trolls or people who want every form of speech to be allowed including fake news defamation and spam and threatening violent
content
even 4chan bans and removes content from its forums.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
After the Cubby v. Compuserve decision, and before section 230 existed, there were several years where interactive computer services were just fine. The kicker was that they didn't do extensive moderation, particularly with regards to political opinion on either side. If section 230 were to suddenly cease to exist, the Cubby v. Compuserve model would be back into play. I'm sure social media would continue, just as the internet didn't break in June 2018, despite the hype.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Before section 230 sites had been sued both because they moderated, and because they did not moderate. Remove section 230, and a smaller site is at risk of being forced into bankruptcy by nuisance suites. Also you would not gain a wider audience because sites would degenerate in 8 kun, or go out of business because the likes of you and your mates would sue them whenever they are moderated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would, but not in any way that resembles what we have today. No social media service would want to be held legally liable for the speech of its users; smaller ones would shut down, and larger ones would heavily restrict what can be said to avoid even the possibility of legal liability. Or to put it another way: Without Section 230, Donald Trump would’ve been kicked off Twitter far, far sooner than he was because damn near every one of his tweets could’ve landed Twitter in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is a source of never-ending entertainment that the very people most vehemently against 230 are by and large the same ones who would suffer the heaviest consequences were it ever repealed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Run away little man
Bravely bold Sir Koby
Rode forth from the Internet.
He was not afraid to die,
Oh brave Sir Koby.
He was not at all afraid
To be killed in nasty ways.
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Koby.
He was not in the least bit scared
To be mashed into a pulp.
Or to have his eyes gouged out,
And his elbows broken.
To have his kneecaps split
And his body burned away,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Run away little man
One new line per iteration? Clever lad!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Run away little man
Thank you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
After the Cubby v. Compuserve decision, and before section 230 existed, there were several years where interactive computer services were just fine
Several?
As in 5?
As in from 91-96?
As in the time frame between Windows 3.0 and Windows 95?
As in the time when the 56k modem was the gateway to all those interactive services?
Ever heard of Dunning-Kruger? Because you've got a fucking lot of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm stealing this
"But this is mixing apples and orangutans"
I genuinely scared my dog when I read this because it made me laugh way too loudly. I'm keeping this for use in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conservatives aren't anti moderation, they're definitely not anti censorship given that they're banning, even burning books right now, the issue they have with Section 230 is they're not in charge of all the platforms, so they're not the ones doing it and are subject to the same rules as everyone else... In theory. They get special treatment, but even then they always end up crossing the line and they find that intolerable. Rules for thee but not for me. See also their attitude towards policing and how swiftly they view any action against protests once it happens to groups like the Flu Trux Klan in Canada.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Only the best of the best".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It might be selection bias in play, you have to be pretty stupid and/or an opportunistic leech to sign up as Trump's lawyer after all so it makes sense that their legal filings would reflect that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The best available who will work for a promise of money, rather than demand payment up front, as a promise is likely all they will get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damn those numbers!
Donald Trump is firmly opposed to anything with numbers higher than he can count!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Damn those numbers!
Strange that he has trouble counting debt, but has no trouble when it is assets he is counting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Damn those numbers!
Actually his ability to count assets is also highly debatable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, if this is true, then Truth Social is -also- a common carrier, and it "must carry content, irrespective of any desire or external compulsion to discriminate against Plaintiff"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BuT gOoGlE iS a PuBlIc CoMpAnY!!1!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And this is called Doublethink.
it is the part of 1984 that can't really be believed...
mainly because people this stupid can't seem to hold onto power, I mean his coup went as well as his steaks, university, presidency, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eight lawyers to be totally and completely wrong ...
Eight lawyers to be totally and completely unpaid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eight lawyers to be totally and completely wrong.
They're just setting themselves up to start a 'legal defense fund' they can use to grab some cash from the rubes. I'm not saying that I'm starting to notice a pattern, but I am starting to notice a pattern:
The only limit is based on the supply of morons available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once again, some people make you wish you could set up a special court where they would be judged by their own standards rather than actual laws.
If they think 230 is bad, or that "platforms" must be "neutral" to be "protected"... when they are the farthest thing from "neutral" themselves... they wouldn't last a day in such a court before begging to be judged by actual legal standards. 45th wouldn't even last an hour given how whiny he is on a daily basis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
nb: quotes used multiple times because they have very unorthodox definitions for these words. Or alternate words with equally absurd definitions.
"Platforms" or "common carriers" is... well... anyone they want to sue who is not the actual speaker of the speech they didn't like. This is more a matter of twisting things to get a law they want to apply to the case at hand.
"Neutral" means to let them speak whatever they want, as hateful or dishonest as they want. If you ban them, even for the same reasons they would want a political opponent to be banned for, that's viewpoint discrimination.
And "protected" doesn't mean anything because nobody should be safe from their righteous fury anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd love it if a system like that was in play, the self-owns would be popping up like mad for some people.
'Last week you argued that law X shouldn't exist/apply to someone in your situation when it was used by someone else, as such you don't get to use law X as a defense so for your sake hope you've got a backup plan that doesn't depend on it.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, sure, holding people accountable for what other people say is all fine and OK... just like trying to overthrow the government of the United States is all fine and OK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Love hate relationship, a sign of cluelessness
This is pure Trump(ism). It's whatever suits him at the moment. A shallow single layer thought process. He can't even think deep enough to realize that he can't have it both ways at once. It's pure luck with zero understanding that he's actually right about one of the ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]