Chuck Johnson Sues Twitter, Copying Dennis Prager's Lawsuit Against YouTube

from the public-square dept

Last summer, we wrote about an important Supreme Court case, Packingham v. North Carolinia, which made the fairly important ruling that the internet was so central to everyday life that courts could not ban people from the internet, even if they were convicted of a horrific crime. It was an important ruling -- but almost immediately, some people worried that some would interpret the ruling in a way to suggest that online service providers, themselves, could not kick people off of their service. That's not what the ruling actually says, but it's possible to quote it out of context to suggest as much.

And, indeed, we've started to see such cases brought against internet companies. The case Dennis Prager brought against YouTube, for example, cites Packingham to argue that it's somehow unconstitutional to filter his videos with warning labels. And now we can add famed internet troll Chuck Johnson to the list, as he's filed a lawsuit against Twitter, long after the site permanently banned Johnson from using their platform.

As we noted with the Prager/YouTube case, it's unlikely this case will go anywhere. Courts have held out, repeatedly, that platforms have the right to operate however they want regarding letting people use their services or not (the big distinction with Packingham was that was the government denying individuals access to the internet, not private operators). And there is extensive case law around Section 230 of the CDA as well, which states in fairly plain language that sites not only can filter and moderate however they want without liability, but actually encourages them to do so. There is, of course, at least some amount of irony that it was conservatives who were complaining about "bad stuff" (mainly porn) online who pushed for incentives in the CDA to get internet services to censor via filtering... and now it's "conservative" commentators like Prager and Johnson, who are suing because those sites are filtering, as is explicitly encouraged by the law.

In short, I imagine that Johnson's lawsuit against Twitter will go about as well as his lawsuit against Gawker, which didn't go very well.

The arguments in Johnson's case are the same ridiculous arguments in the Prager case. And I mean that... they're almost verbatim. Here's from the first cause of action in the Prager case:

Article I, section 2 of the California Constitution protects the liberty of speech and association, especially in public, quasi-public, and limited public spaces.

In YouTube, Defendants created and maintain a public forum or its functional equivalent for the public to express and exchange views and ideas, or in the alternative at least a quasi- or limited public forum. Defendants further act as state actors because Defendants and the YouTube site perform an exclusively and traditionally public function by regulating free speech within a public forum.

And from the Johsnon case:

Article I, section 2 of the California Constitution protects the liberty of speech and association, especially in public, quasi-public, and limited public spaces....

In Twitter, Defendant created and maintains a public forum or its functional equivalent for the public to express and exchange views and ideas, or in the alternative at least a quasi- or limited public forum.

They're not identical, and each case fleshes out more specifics about the platform in question they're suing, but the arguments are remarkably similar (and, no, they're not using the same lawyers). Johnson's lawsuit gets particularly silly. You can read the whole thing yourself if you'd like, but it's based on the preposterous notion that Twitter has to allow everyone on their platform and can't kick people off. As with the Prager suit, this complaint makes strong reliance on the idea that Johnson was banned for his political views, rather than because he was a troll who regularly went on the attack, often accused of promoting false information or making trollishly outrageous claims.

But, even if he was banned for his political views (and, again, he wasn't), Twitter actually has the legal right to put in place just such a ban. It would be stupid and counterproductive -- which is why Twitter does not actually ban people over such things -- but it would be legal. Johnson's lawsuit even points out that Twitter's current terms of service state: "We may suspend or terminate your accounts or cease providing you with all or part of the Services at any time for any or no reason." And then immediately whines that they had "no valid business reason" for banning him. First off, that's not true. There were lots of valid business reasons for banning him -- in the form of lots of users complaining about his behavior and tons of people threatening to quit Twitter if the site didn't get rid of certain trolls.

Again, though, even that doesn't impact the legal analysis here. Twitter is within its clear legal rights to remove any user from its service.

Like with the Prager case, we expect the courts not to allow this case to go very far at all. And, unlike in the Packingham case, this really is a situation where if one social media site doesn't want you, there are lots of other alternatives. Johnson told Buzzfeed (who broke the news of the lawsuit) that this was an important First Amendment case:

“This is going to be a very serious case over the freedom of the internet,” Johnson told BuzzFeed News. “And whether people have the right to say what they mean and mean what they say.”

Except... that's not what the case is actually about. Johnson is free to say whatever he wants. He is not free to force private companies to host that speech. If there is any First Amendment argument here at all, it is on Twitter's side, in that the First Amendment gives it the right to present its own site the way it wants to -- and that includes kicking off people it feels are behaving badly.

Filed Under: cda 230, chuck johnson, dennis prager, first amendment, free speech, intermediary liability, platforms
Companies: twitter, youtube

Dennis Prager Seeks Injunction To Keep YouTube From Administering Its Own Site While YouTube Seeks Dismissal

from the free-speech-is-for-everyone dept

Late last year, we brought to you the story of Dennis Prager, noted conservative commentator, suing YouTube, noted place where you can watch videos, because the site had put some of his videos into restricted status to keep them from the eyes of younger users. The case is still ongoing and is still strange for many reasons, including Prager asserting his lawsuit on First Amendment grounds, his insisting that YouTube is a public forum and not a private company, and his belief that the Section 230 protections that protect YouTube from every last bit of this somehow don't apply.

But now he is upping the ante, requesting the court grant him a preliminary injunction against YouTube to keep it from operating its filters on its own site when it comes to his video content.

Presenting U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh with a free speech issue of "profound importance," Prager on Friday even nodded in court to the thoughts of net neutrality supporters.

"Among others, legal scholars Professors Jeffrey Rosen and Timothy Wu warn that private corporations like Defendants 'have more power over free speech and privacy than any president, king, or Supreme Court justice,'" states a court brief. "Because the First Amendment is 'centered on the problem of wrongful discrimination in communications' these scholars point out that 'anyone who wants to understand free speech in the twenty-first century needs to know how the concept has expanded over time' to include the vast and concentrated power over speech wielded by purportedly private internet intermediaries. And, with the recent curtailment of net neutrality by the FCC, the unprecedented concentration of power over speech by private intermediaries will necessarily be 'followed by an effort to crush ... political opponents and favor ... political supporters.'”

Let's just start out by noting that the nod to the repeal of net neutrality feels rather odd coming from someone who does't support net neutrality to begin with. On top of that, the complaint that YouTube has built a great platform for speech that many, many people enjoy using does not somehow put it under the scope of the First Amendment. To get there, Prager's legal team continues to suggest that YouTube is a public forum rather than a private entity, relying mostly on YouTube's own statements about being a forum for speech to do so. This will almost certainly not work, however, as a statement like that doesn't magically strip a private entity of its rights and transform it into a public forum. Worth noting too is that for all the talk of "censoring" in Prager's complaints, his videos are still on the site for anyone wishing to see them. They are just differently searchable having been flagged as restricted. Given that this all comes down to subjective filtering by a private entity, and given that Prager's restricted videos tackle subjects such as rape and abortion, it's hard to see how his claim that this is all the work of a liberal conspiracy to shut down his conservative speech is going to survive.

Google, not surprisingly, has likewise moved to have all of this thrown out on its own First Amendment basis.

Just as Prager was filing a bid for an injunction, YouTube's parent was moving to dismiss the case that alleges that Prager's videos are on lockdown while liberals like Bill Maher and Lady Gaga are allowed to speak freely on YouTube without being restricted in kind.

According to Google, "restricted mode" merely means that the video has been determined to contain "potentially mature" content that may not be suitable for all audiences. "Decisions about which videos fall into that category are often complicated and may involve difficult, subjective judgment calls," write Google's lawyers, adding that none of the videos are removed from YouTube, and all of them can be viewed by users who want to find them.

Google argues that Prager's claims are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Act as well as the First Amendment.

While the Section 230 argument is more than enough to make this lawsuit fit for the dismissal pile, note that what Prager actually wants is to strip YouTube of its own First Amendment rights by asserting his, all while he continues to enjoy YouTube's product,whcih is hosting his videos and which, again, are still on the site. This sort of pretzeling of one of the key laws governing our country would be sad from anyone, but Prager's own noted interest in protecting the First Amendment makes this all the more eyebrow raising.

I don't expect any injunction to be levied against YouTube.

Filed Under: dennis prager, first amendment, free speech, injunction, videos
Companies: youtube

Donald Trump Hires Charles Harder To Threaten Steve Bannon With A Lawsuit, Block Publication Of New Book

from the 2018-kicks-off-with-a-bang dept

If you follow political news at all, you probably saw the story yesterday concerning excerpts from Michael Wolff's upcoming book Fire and Fury, in which former Trump "Chief Strategist" Steve Bannon appeared to completely throw Trump under the bus, allegedly saying a bunch of pretty negative things about Trump and his family -- including the headline-making exaggerated opinion that Trump Jr., Kushner and Manafort meeting with Russians was "treasonous." Trump quickly responded in kind with one of the most incredible statements you'll see (and that's saying something, given the speaker) which starts out thusly:

Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my Presidency. When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind. Steve was a staffer who worked for me after I had already won the nomination by defeating seventeen candidates, often described as the most talented field ever assembled in the Republican party.

It goes on. Normally, none of this would be Techdirt-worthy, but late last night, a new twist was added. According to ABC News, President Donald Trump has hired lawyer Charles Harder to threaten Steve Bannon with a lawsuit for defamation, breach of confidentiality and non-disparagement agreements. And, then, this morning, more news broke of another letter, written by Harder, sent to Wolff and the book's publisher, demanding that the book not be published at all -- and that they send Harder a complete copy of the book.

So, let's lay our cards on the table here: the lawyer, Charles Harder, is still the lawyer representing a plaintiff in an ongoing lawsuit against us -- and we've written about many of his other lawsuits, including representing the First Lady, Melania Trump. Not much more needs to be said about him. We're also not huge fans of Steve Bannon. Or Donald Trump. Or, for that matter, of Michael Wolff, who has a long history of... not being very good at his job. So, if you want to accuse us of bias in this post, consider it spread all around.

ABC did not publish a copy of the actual letter Harder sent Bannon, but did extensively quote it, so we can piece together most of the letter. Here are the various excerpts:

"This law firm represents President Donald J. Trump and Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. On behalf of our clients, legal notice was issued today to Stephen K. Bannon, that his actions of communicating with author Michael Wolff regarding an upcoming book give rise to numerous legal claims including defamation by libel and slander, and breach of his written confidentiality and non-disparagement agreement with our clients. Legal action is imminent."

"You [Bannon] have breached the Agreement by, among other things, communicating with author Michael Wolff about Mr. Trump, his family members, and the Company, disclosing Confidential Information to Mr. Wolff, and making disparaging statements and in some cases outright defamatory statements to Mr. Wolff about Mr. Trump, his family members, and the Company, knowing that they would be included in Mr. Wolff’s book and publicity surrounding the marketing and sale of his book."

"Remedies for your breach of the agreement include but are not limited to monetary damages, injunctive relief and all other remedies available at law and equity...."

The letter then cites parts of Paragraph 8 of the Agreement: "Consent to Injunction. A breach of any of your promises or agreements under this agreement will cause the Company, Mr. Trump and each other Trump Person irreparable harm. Accordingly, to the extent permitted by law, and without waiving any other rights or remedies against you at law or in equity, you hereby consent to the entry of any order, without prior notice to you, temporarily or permanently enjoining you from violating any of the terms, covenants, agreements or provisions of this agreement on your part to be performed or observed. Such consent is intended to apply to an injunction of any breach or threatened breach."

The "Damages and Other Remedies" part of the Agreement is then cited, "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, each Trump Person will be entitled to all remedies available at law and equity, including but not limited to monetary damages, in the event of your breach of this agreement. Nothing contained in this agreement will constitute a waiver of any Trump Person’s remedies at law or in equity, all of which are expressly reserved."

"Further, as the prevailing party in any litigation arising out of your breach of the Agreement, Mr. Trump and the Company will be entitled to 'an award of reasonable legal fees and costs."

Phew. Donald Trump, of course, has a long history of threatening defamation lawsuits, not all of which actually come to fruition. He has actually sued for defamation a few times -- but not very successfully. Also, I'm not sure Trump or his supporters should be all that excited about the idea of a Trump deposition either. In the past, those haven't always gone well (though I'm sure the media would salivate over such a thing).

Still, having a sitting President sue a former top advisor and former campaign CEO for defamation would be... unusual. Without seeing everything that Wolff has written, nor seeing everything that Bannon has said, it's difficult to know if anything actually reaches the level of defamation -- nor will we speculate one way or the other. Bannon, of course, may not be the most trustworthy narrator -- and there are already reports that Bannon planned to use the book "to settle scores" against people he disagreed with -- such as Jared Kushner. But portraying people negatively, by itself, is not defamation.

So far, most of the comments revealed certainly appear to be statements of opinion not fact. But the full book has not yet been released. We will note, of course, that a pretty long history of US case law (and the good old First Amendment) makes it quite difficult to successfully claim defamation of a public figure -- and there basically is no more public figure right now than Donald Trump. Trump would have to show that Bannon said or wrote false things about Trump, knowing that they were false, or with reckless disregard for the truth. That's not an easy standard to meet but certainly not impossible. I would be very surprised if Bannon went that far, but it's not impossible. And, at least in the excerpted portions in the letter, there does not appear to be an explanation of which statements are actually defamatory and how (which is generally what one does if you're claiming defamation and have an actual basis for such a claim).

Of course, there may be other concerns as well. Some are already raising questions about Wolff's reporting in the book, which could create an interesting wrinkle should a case actually show up:

And, as noted, Wolff has been accused of questionable journalistic techniques in the past, which he denies, including claims that he "invented or changed quotes." So it's hardly surprising that a bunch of articles are popping up digging into Wolff's history as well. That said, Axios is also reporting this morning that Wolff recorded his interviews, so if officials want to claim that he made up their quotes, that may backfire badly.

As for the breach of confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses, those are other issues entirely. It's certainly been reported in the past that the Trump campaign made staffers sign confidentiality agreements which appeared to be quite broad. Whether or not such an agreement is actually enforceable would certainly be an interesting legal question, and one that would be watched quite closely in the courts -- especially seeing as there has been a lot of discussion lately about how non-disclosure agreements were used to silence the victims of sexual assault, and how perhaps such agreements should be made illegal, but nothing's really happened on that front so far.

It does seem worth pointing out that there's a built-in contradiction if Bannon's statements are both defamatory and a confidentiality agreement violation. Because if it's violating confidentiality, well, then that's an admission that it's true and not made up. It's possible that Harder is claiming some statements are defamatory while others breach confidentiality --but it'll be fun determining which ones are which.

So, does Trump (and Harder) have a legitimate case against Bannon? Without seeing the details it's difficult to say for certain. However, either way, I think we can express our strong opinion that merely having the President of the United States feel the need to bring in a lawyer to threaten a lawsuit against his former top strategist over some negative things said in a book... is a really bad look. It's no secret that our President appears to have an extremely thin skin when it comes to criticism. Threatening lawsuits certainly doesn't help change that impression.

As for getting Wolff and publisher Henry Holt & Co. to stop publishing the book entirely? That seems extraordinarily unlikely to happen. The book has already been distributed to bookstores, and getting a judge to order the publication to stop would be clear prior restraint and an absolute violation of the First Amendment. And, for Wolff and the publisher, you have to imagine that they're loving the threat for all the free advertising it's providing. There's a term for that, I think. On top of that, I'd argue that the President of the US demanding an entire book not be published is even more ridiculous than threatening Bannon with a defamation lawsuit. Banning books is most certainly not something the President should be doing and is an affront to the First Amendment. But, of course, Donald Trump has a long history of attacking the First Amendment, so perhaps it's not a surprise.

Many may argue that the threats alone may be the point of all of this. Threatening (or even suing) Bannon for saying mean things after leaving the White House may be intended more as a message to other Trump White House staffers (past, present and future) to shut the fuck up, rather than talk to the press. Historically, trying to enforce a code of silence in this manner doesn't tend to work well. It is likely to only lead to more leaking and more talking to the press -- though perhaps with less willingness to put names on the quotes. And, on top of that, threatening the publisher and author seem only likely to interest more authors in writing about the Trump White House in hopes of a similar "free advertising" blitz from the President and his lawyers.

Filed Under: charles harder, confidentiality agreement, defamation, donald trump, first amendment, free speech, michael wolff, non-disclosure agreement, steve bannon
Companies: henry holt

Texas Cops Arrest Journalist For Publishing Confidential Info Given To Her By A Police Officer

from the one-gets-a-paid-vacation,-one-gets-to-pay-to-head-off-an-unplanned-staycation dept

Something with a hint of retaliatory ugliness has reared its head in Laredo, Texas. Citizen journalist Priscilla Villarreal has been arrested for releasing information Texas law enforcement meant to keep secret. Villarreal -- a.k.a. Lagordiloca -- has been an unofficial fixture of Laredo nightlife for a few years now, cruising the town after dark to livestream footage of newsworthy events. She's well-known to local law enforcement, though not exactly well-liked, which may have something to do with her recent legal troubles.

Villarreal, 32, surrendered to Laredo police on December 13 after being charged with two felony counts of “misuse of official information,” stemming from her reporting on a Border Patrol agent’s suicide last April. Villarreal denies that she did anything illegal, and her attorney says the police department is simply trying to silence her because it does not like the way she reports. She often swears while she narrates her live-streamed footage, and she sometimes captures graphic images. She has been known to verbally spar with police officers in public.

"Misuse of official information" could be defined as nearly anything, thanks to its loose construction. It criminalizes the publication of information the government wishes to keep secret if the government feels the person doing the publication intended to profit from it or defraud someone by using it. Neither of those seem to fit Villarreal's actions, but that hasn't stopped the PD from moving forward with charges.

Police allege that Villarreal solicited information—the identity of a Border Patrol agent who committed suicide—from police officer Barbara Goodman before the department officially released that information through its public information office. “Information provided by Officer Goodman pertaining to the case in question was used by Priscilla Villarreal in her Facebook page ‘Lagordiloca News Laredo TX,’ immediately notifying her followers of the incident,” states the criminal complaint filed against Villarreal. “Villarreal’s access to this information and releasing it on ‘Lagordiloca News Laredo Tx,’ before the official release by the Laredo Police Department Public Information Officer placed her ‘Facebook’ page ahead of the local official news media which in turn gained her popularity in Facebook.

That last part -- "gaining popularity" -- is the linchpin of the Laredo PD's case. That's the closest the department can come to satisfying the "profit from" aspect of the law. But it's unclear that the attention of Facebook followers is enough to make these charges stick. This is the end result of a months-long investigation of Officer Goodman and Villarreal's relationship. According to the police, Officer Goodman and Villarreal had more than 500 phone conversations from January to July of 2016 -- some of them supposedly coinciding with Villareal broadcasts where information that hadn't been officially released by the department sometimes made its debut. Included in the info retrieved from Goodman's phone were messages about the Border Patrol agent who committed suicide.

If there's anyone at fault here, it's the officer handing out confidential information to the press. But no charges have been filed against Goodman, who may not have published the info, but handed it over to someone with the capability to do so. The PD only seems interested in Villarreal, who did nothing more than publish information given to her by a law enforcement officer.

This push by the Laredo PD to silence a journalist may end up being nothing more than a departmental embarrassment. Police officials probably should have discussed the proposed charges with their partner in crime(fighting) before issuing an arrest warrant.

The Webb County District Attorney's Office has never prosecuted a misuse of information case involving a citizen, the office's spokesperson said Friday.

There's no reason the DA should start now. The PD appears to have sniffed out the source of the leaks. It's that source who should face punishment for the violations the department is trying to pin on Villarreal. A journalist isn't expected to know what information is being rightfully withheld by law enforcement, and that determination is even harder to make when the info is received directly from a law enforcement officer. This looks far too much like the PD flexing its muscle to make life miserable for a freelance journalist officers don't particularly care for. It bears no resemblance to the actual job of law enforcement.

Filed Under: first amendment, journalism, lagordiloca, laredo, misuse of official information, priscilla villarreal, texas

Chinese Billionaire Got A US Court To Issue An Unconstitutional Gag Order On A Critic

from the this-is-bad dept

Eugene Volokh has an incredible -- and incredibly disturbing -- story about how Jia Yueting, a Chinese billionaire, appears to have convinced a Washington state court to issue an unconstitutional gag order against a critic who lives in Washington state. Jia is famous for his company LeEco in China, as well as his attempt to create an electric car giant competitor to Tesla in the US called Faraday Future. Almost exactly a year ago, we wrote about how Faraday Future was flailing with a series of incredible stories leaking out of the company. A large number of top execs were fleeing the company and there were reports of questionable activities, including Jia demanding that Faraday Future employees design a car for LeEco, without payment or credit. In the past year, it does not appear that things have gotten much better for Jia, and he was just ordered to return to China to deal with debts that appear to be piling up.

China has ordered a tech tycoon to come home and face the music.

The country's markets watchdog on Monday demanded LeEco founder Jia Yueting return to China before the end of the year to fix his business empire's financial woes.

The China Securities Regulatory Commission said that Jia, whose whereabouts are unknown, has not made good on earlier promises to provide interest-free loans to the embattled company.

Not surprisingly, there are many online critics of Jia. One of them is a resident of Washington state, named Yingqiong Gu who criticized Jia on WeChat, the ever-present social network/communications app that is insanely popular in China. Back in October, Jia sued Gu to try to get the criticism to stop. As Volokh notes, it is entirely possible that Gu made defamatory statements about Jia. But the First Amendment tends to reject any attempt to silence speech. While some states will allow injunctions against defamatory speech, that tends to be only after the content has been determined by a court to actually be defamatory. Here, however, the court agreed first to a temporary restraining order less than a week after the complaint was filed, and a preliminary injunction a few weeks later.

Now, some of what's described in the complaint goes beyond speech, and includes what could be considered harassing behavior:

Defendant has further followed Mr. Jia while he goes about his daily activities, including investor meetings Mr. Jia attends and the Los Angeles-area restaurants he has visited. Finally, Defendant has identified and publicized sensitive personal information, including Mr. Jia's current address and photos of his family.

I'm not sure if that's enough to constitute "harassing" behavior, but maybe. If the restraining order were limited to that, perhaps it would be acceptable. But it appears the real target of the gag order is to silence Gu and his criticism of Jia. Here's the crux of Jia's complaint:

Defendant has been publishing defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff on social media platforms and to journalists, in an effort to harm Mr. Jia's reputation and sow distrust among potential investors and employees of Faraday while Mr. Jia is in the process of trying to raise capital to fund Faraday's continued growth. These defamatory statements include claims that Plaintiff has engaged in money laundering, cheated investors as part of a Ponzi scheme, attempted to evade Chinese authorities by relocating to the United States, created shelters to protect assets from creditors, and raised money from Chinese-national investors in a purported racist scheme to transfer wealth to non-Chinese individuals. The publication of these false statements has harmed Mr. Jia's and Faraday's reputation at a critical time for the company as it continues to raise capital needed to begin mass production of its vehicles.

The filing in Washington follows on a similar filing Jia made against Gu in California, in which another temporary restraining order was put in place against Gu's apparent "harassing, harmful activities." Jia's complaint in Washington claims that Gu is violating that order because he "continued to publish defamatory statements." But, again, speech and actions are not the same. Publishing criticism is not harassment, and if the content has not yet been judged to be defamatory, a court can't block it.

But it did.

The restraining order is quite broad. Rather than just barring any harassing activities it orders Gu to remove content he's posted:

Defendant, including his agents, employees, or representatives or anyone acting on their behalf, are required to immediately remove posts on WeChat.com that contain defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff and/or reveal private information concerning Plaintiff and his family...

And it blocks him from writing more:

Defendant including his agents, employees or representatives or anyone acting on their behalf, are further enjoined from publishing or causing to be published any posts or commentary concerning Plaintiff or his family on WeChat.com, TouTiao.com or any other internet location or website.

That language was in the requested TRO. There's a handwritten, barely legible, exception which states that he can post "objective facts from public records" but "may not include any commentary, editorial comments, or other statements that attack plaintiff's credibility or reputation."

That already appears to be unconstitutional. Commentary and editorial comments that attack someone's credibility or reputation can be perfectly protected free speech -- such as if they are true or are based on stated evidence. It is blatantly unconstitutional for a judge to order someone to stop attacking someone's credibility if those attacks are not defamatory. Even worse, in the preliminary injunction, the judge even removes the exception for posting "objective facts from public records."

As Volokh notes, this is problematic. While some courts will allow injunctive relief against defamatory speech, it first has to be shown to be defamatory, and then can only apply to that specific speech. The order here goes way beyond that:

Here, there was no trial, no "final determination" and no "decision on the merits" — only a judgment of likelihood of success on the merits following a 15-to-20-minute-long hearing. I don't think it's permissible to order someone in such a situation to take down criticism of a prominent businessman's business practices (criticism that might ultimately be proved false, proved true, or found to be opinion).

And this is concerning a well known public figure. We've talked a lot about how the powerful and wealthy are abusing the court systems to silence critics. The courts should not be helping.

Filed Under: criticism, first amendment, free speech, gag order, injunction, jia yueting, temporary restraining order, yingqiong gu
Companies: faraday future, leeco