Trump Files Lawsuit Against Big Tech Over Censorship (Poll)

[Skylar]

Clearly the 1st amendment prohibits the government from censoring the private press. It does not compel private industry to print the copious lies of a few lunatics, no matter how powerful they are.

Copious lies? You mean like CRT and the 1619 Project?
Here are 5 examples of the MSM (private industry) lies that unfairly hurt the Trump presidency:
1. The loser of the 2016 presidential election Hillary Clinton, along with her Democrat apologists, pushed on this narrative from the beginning. Trump was an illegitimate president due to his collusion with Russia leading up to the election, they said, an infraction so malicious he may have actually been guilty of treason and deserving of the death penalty. There have been instances of political malice between parties in our nation’s past, but never one quite like this.

2. Last week, over a year after most Americans became familiar with the medication, a new study out of New Jersey, the hardest hit state by COVID, shows that if used in conjunction with a regimen of zinc, hydroxychloroquine can give COVID patients upwards of a 200% better survival rate against COVID. Hydroxychloroquine is indeed a miracle drug.

3. We also became aware last week via a report from the Interior Department’s Inspector General that the actions by Park Police near Lafayette Square and St. John’s Church in Washington D.C. last June were not due to directives by President Trump in order to provide him with a “photo op,” as the media originally asserted. We were told that peaceful protesters were gathered near the recently burned church and the cops came and shot rubber bullets and tear gas at them just so Trump could have his picture taken in front of the church holding a bible.

4. During an appearance on 60 Minutes with Leslie Stahl in late-October, President Trump pointed to the younger Biden and correctly observed that Joe Biden was embroiled in a scandal over his son Hunter, but Stahl was defiant, insisting “He’s not. He’s not.” Oh Leslie, he is. He is.

5. The media is now trying to act surprised and put forth the façade that their misreporting on COVID’s origins was just an honest mistake. It wasn’t. The likelihood that COVID originated in China’s Wuhan Laboratory of Virology was clear from the beginning, but again, since Trump and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were beating this drum, they had to take the opposite position. But now that Biden has been elected and his administration is well under way, it is becoming increasing clear that COVID did indeed originate at the Wuhan lab, and was almost definitely manmade. And once again, it is obvious that the media lied to us. Did Fauci pay the Wuhan Lab for "gain of function" research on bat viruses, that killed 600,000 Americans? The MSM is covering that up.

What do any of those dubious allegations have to do with Trumpybear getting booted from the social media clubs and suing them?

So if the democrat's and their MSM lie about Trump, that's fair game, aka "free speech"

The 'MSM' isn't a company. The Media is hundreds of different companies. If you count websites, thousands.

You can't have THOUSANDS of options and claim a monopoly. The 'mono' in monopoly means 'one'. And there are thousands.

But Trump or conservatives don't have that same right to "free speech"?

You don't have a right to the use of someone else's website. Or their printing presses. Or their living room walls to spray paint your message.

You can't be stripped of a 'right' you don't possess. And the 'freedom' to seize someone else's private property and force them to promote YOUR political beliefs against their will....simply doesn't exist.

Ok, I see you're an idealist.

Or....I reject your idea that forcing someone to promote your political beliefs against their will is 'freedom'.

FB is supposed to be a "public platform", that's why they have Section 230 protection, it is NOT supposed to be "private property", that's the issue.

If FB was "private property" why would they get Section 230 legal protection?

Wrong.

Section 230 doesn't change the private status of social media.

Can you sue big tech now if they slander you? Think hard.

Yep. You can. Any other misconceptions you'd like cleared up?

Yeah, okay, they can be sued, but they have protections most companies don't have.

Section 230 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Section 230 is a section of the United States Communications Decency Act that generally provides immunity for website platforms from third-party content. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users.
The statute in Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the removal or moderation of third-party material they deem obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good faith.

No. Most company have the same protections. If you own a restaurant, for example, you're not liable for crimes committed by your customers. That's the only "protection" 230 affords. It just makes a clear distinction between the content generated by the company, and that generated by its customers.

Again, you don't a fuck about any actually arguments here. This is about Trump getting his revenge on the companies that defied him. And you, clinging to his scabby scrotum, are along for the ride. So spin up whatever excuses make it feel better - but it's embarrassingly obvious what you're up to.

As 'revenge' goes, its pretty slow pitch. As 60+ other cases on similar grounds have already been laughed out of court.

Its a fundraising con.....a shit legal argument that people who don't understand a thing about the actual law will donate to.

Apparently the engine rebuilds on Trump's 737 are more expensive than first reported.

 

[ClaireH]

I'm curious if the USMB progs/dems will side with Trump on this important censorship issue, Should big tech be broken up? Should Section 230 be repealed? Should censorship end? Should Parler be reactivated? Should the "Fairness Doctrine" be revised and tried again? What do you recommend. I recommend "all of the above".

Trump Files Lawsuit Against Big Tech Over 'Censorship Of The American People'

Former President Donald Trump said he is filing a lawsuit against Big Tech companies — Twitter, Facebook, and Google and their CEOs, over allegations of violating Americans’ First Amendment rights by selectively censoring information and its recent action of banning and suspending his accounts.

floridianpress.com

“We’re asking the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida to order an immediate halt to stop social media companies’ illegal and shameful censorship of the American people. That’s exactly what they’re doing,” Trump said. “We’re demanding an end to the shadow banning, a stop to the silencing, a stop to the blacklisting, banishing, and canceling that you know so well.”

Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi argued the platforms have “increasingly engaged in impermissible censorship resulting from threatened legislative action, a misguided reliance upon Section 230.” Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a 1996 provision that gives social media platforms legal liability shield over content posted on their platform by third parties.

Should big tech be broken up - Yes

Put under regulation? The devil is in the details.

Do I agree with the type of regulation trump is asking for. Not in a million years.

Trump wants to be able to use these large public platforms to lie with impunity. No fucking way. And to promote insurrection.

1. Whatever happened to "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

And you have every right to say it. Just not on someone else's website without their permission. I have the right to free speech too. But I can't come into your home, spray paint 'BLACK LIVES MATTER' on your livingroom wall, and force you to keep it there.

That's not 'free speech'. That's me seizing your private property and turning into my private billboard.

Free speech is freedom from government intervention. And Facebook isn't the government, no matter what pseudo-legal gibberish that Trump has made up.

Totally agree, except that we are dealing with "monopolies" who control the flow of information.
If there were multiple Facebooks, Googles, Instagrams, etc. there would not be an issue, or if Section 230 legal protections weren't there there would be legal remedies.

FB isn't Zuckerberg's living room wall, its like the only newspaper in the country, and its used to present only one viewpoint. Its a monopoly.

FB has the lion's share without question and has acquired over 90 companies since its' conception. It's not the fact they are the dominate lion in the social media market, as there will always be at least one corporation flourishing within free market trade, it's specifically their acquisition strategy.

"Wednesday, Dec. 9, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the attorneys general from 46 states, Washington, D.C., and Guam filed antitrust suits against Facebook, the culmination of a yearlong investigation. The suits allege that Facebook's acquisitions strategy has been designed to eliminate competition, specifically accusing Facebook's acquisitions of Instagram and Whatsapp as being illegal. The suits are also asking courts to prevent Facebook from acquiring anything worth over $10 million while the case is pending. A separate FTC lawsuit is trying to force Facebook to spin-off WhatsApp and Instagram."

Top Facebook (Meta) Shareholders

The largest individual shareholder of Facebook (Meta) is Mark Zuckerberg and the largest institutional shareholder is Vanguard.

www.investopedia.com

The problem with FB is not so much about the fact it bought out/merged with 90 plus other businesses in order to remain on top, it's the "why" factor-to knock out any potential competitors and remain the lion that has caused the lawsuit(s). A fair market allows and encourages competition for all with the determination and means, but this doesn't mean that the domineering lion can eat up all of the meat to intentionally starve out the hungry cubs.

In general, I do not support any measure that increases governmental control over the lives of its citizens nor over private businesses. The role of a government should include establishing guidelines and following its guidelines to support a safe and prosperous nation. Beyond that, the federal government reps should continue on fighting daily, over all issues and non-issues, to keep them busy enough to fail any attempt to increase power (being only half facetious here). States should maintain all possible measures to support the "say so" of their constituents, without adding federal government oversite that could include red, blue, purple, and orange tape to mess it all up.

 

[Skylar]

The SCOTUS will take a very dim view of social media banning a POTUS, shits about to hit the fan.

Think so? I bet they're smarter than that.

It's precisely the type of case the SCOTUS likes to weigh in on. 1st amendment vs corrupt organized censorship. That it was a POTUS who was censored wow, yeah the SCOTUS will take that case.

But they're not idiots. They'll recognize right away that this has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

Big tech's corruption of 1st amendment rights oh big tech is in for a beating.

You have NO first Amendment rights on this forum either.

Take a break from trolling moron, adults are discussing a likely SCOTUS case. I think your mom is calling you run along.

I doubt the SCOTUS will elect to hear this case. The law is very clear. Trump is grandstanding again.

Look up the definition of 'class action lawsuit' this is not just Trump vs big tech.

This bunch is just too invested in their own ignorance. They will end up explaining to themselves how the judge is wrong.

Tipsy......a case making the same legal arguments was laughed out of court just two weeks ago:


"Judge Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Tuesday granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss against Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) complaint filed against Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and its fact checkers in August 2020.

In a 45-page decision, the judge opined that CHD’s allegations — that Facebook is effectively a “state actor” on behalf of the federal government and engaged in false advertising and racketeering — failed to state legal claims."


60 of 60 times that these garbage arguments have been presented in court, they lost. Every single time, without exception.

But you've got it all figured out now, huh?

 

[surada]

The SCOTUS will take a very dim view of social media banning a POTUS, shits about to hit the fan.

Think so? I bet they're smarter than that.

It's precisely the type of case the SCOTUS likes to weigh in on. 1st amendment vs corrupt organized censorship. That it was a POTUS who was censored wow, yeah the SCOTUS will take that case.

But they're not idiots. They'll recognize right away that this has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

Big tech's corruption of 1st amendment rights oh big tech is in for a beating.

You have NO first Amendment rights on this forum either.

Take a break from trolling moron, adults are discussing a likely SCOTUS case. I think your mom is calling you run along.

I doubt the SCOTUS will elect to hear this case. The law is very clear. Trump is grandstanding again.

Look up the definition of 'class action lawsuit' this is not just Trump vs big tech.

Have you already forgotten how Trump's blog failed?

First Amendment doesn't apply to a private company. Trump's lawyers know that. This is just more grandstanding.

 

[Skylar]

The SCOTUS will take a very dim view of social media banning a POTUS, shits about to hit the fan.

Doubt it. Unless you think the POTUS has greater rights than the rest of us, this will fail just as previous lawsuits about people being booted from social media.

He doesn’t have special rights. The courts know that.

Yeah, its hard to argue that a guy who had his own press secretary and communications department paid for by the tax payers has no avenue for free speech.

In fact, Trump did get special treatment. Up until he sent a crowd of his supporters to the Capitol where they attacked it. Then told them how special they were and how he loved them.

 

[colfax_m]

Previous cases are not this case and this is a class action lawsuit. Lets see how many more sign on shall we.

Class action is irrelevant if the fundamental legal argument is bogus.

 

[Skylar]

Previous cases are not this case and this is a class action lawsuit. Lets see how many more sign on shall we.

Class action is irrelevant if the fundamental legal argument is bogus.

Yup. A class action lawsuit doesn't magically make a turd sandwich into prime rib. Its still a steaming pile of pseudo-legal nonsense. With a case on the same grounds dismissed on June 29th....like 10 days ago.


"Judge Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Tuesday granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss against Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) complaint filed against Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and its fact checkers in August 2020.

In a 45-page decision, the judge opined that CHD’s allegations — that Facebook is effectively a “state actor” on behalf of the federal government and engaged in false advertising and racketeering — failed to state legal claims."


Dismissed with prejudice. Every single time Trump's nonsense argument has been presented in court, its been laughed out it.

 

[BluesLegend]

Clearly the 1st amendment prohibits the government from censoring the private press. It does not compel private industry to print the copious lies of a few lunatics, no matter how powerful they are.

Copious lies? You mean like CRT and the 1619 Project?
Here are 5 examples of the MSM (private industry) lies that unfairly hurt the Trump presidency:
1. The loser of the 2016 presidential election Hillary Clinton, along with her Democrat apologists, pushed on this narrative from the beginning. Trump was an illegitimate president due to his collusion with Russia leading up to the election, they said, an infraction so malicious he may have actually been guilty of treason and deserving of the death penalty. There have been instances of political malice between parties in our nation’s past, but never one quite like this.

2. Last week, over a year after most Americans became familiar with the medication, a new study out of New Jersey, the hardest hit state by COVID, shows that if used in conjunction with a regimen of zinc, hydroxychloroquine can give COVID patients upwards of a 200% better survival rate against COVID. Hydroxychloroquine is indeed a miracle drug.

3. We also became aware last week via a report from the Interior Department’s Inspector General that the actions by Park Police near Lafayette Square and St. John’s Church in Washington D.C. last June were not due to directives by President Trump in order to provide him with a “photo op,” as the media originally asserted. We were told that peaceful protesters were gathered near the recently burned church and the cops came and shot rubber bullets and tear gas at them just so Trump could have his picture taken in front of the church holding a bible.

4. During an appearance on 60 Minutes with Leslie Stahl in late-October, President Trump pointed to the younger Biden and correctly observed that Joe Biden was embroiled in a scandal over his son Hunter, but Stahl was defiant, insisting “He’s not. He’s not.” Oh Leslie, he is. He is.

5. The media is now trying to act surprised and put forth the façade that their misreporting on COVID’s origins was just an honest mistake. It wasn’t. The likelihood that COVID originated in China’s Wuhan Laboratory of Virology was clear from the beginning, but again, since Trump and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were beating this drum, they had to take the opposite position. But now that Biden has been elected and his administration is well under way, it is becoming increasing clear that COVID did indeed originate at the Wuhan lab, and was almost definitely manmade. And once again, it is obvious that the media lied to us. Did Fauci pay the Wuhan Lab for "gain of function" research on bat viruses, that killed 600,000 Americans? The MSM is covering that up.

What do any of those dubious allegations have to do with Trumpybear getting booted from the social media clubs and suing them?

So if the democrat's and their MSM lie about Trump, that's fair game, aka "free speech"

The 'MSM' isn't a company. The Media is hundreds of different companies. If you count websites, thousands.

You can't have THOUSANDS of options and claim a monopoly. The 'mono' in monopoly means 'one'. And there are thousands.

But Trump or conservatives don't have that same right to "free speech"?

You don't have a right to the use of someone else's website. Or their printing presses. Or their living room walls to spray paint your message.

You can't be stripped of a 'right' you don't possess. And the 'freedom' to seize someone else's private property and force them to promote YOUR political beliefs against their will....simply doesn't exist.

Ok, I see you're an idealist.

Or....I reject your idea that forcing someone to promote your political beliefs against their will is 'freedom'.

FB is supposed to be a "public platform", that's why they have Section 230 protection, it is NOT supposed to be "private property", that's the issue.

If FB was "private property" why would they get Section 230 legal protection?

Wrong.

Section 230 doesn't change the private status of social media.

Can you sue big tech now if they slander you? Think hard.

The SCOTUS will sink its teeth into big tech's BLATANT double standard. If they were banning and censoring on a level playing field there's likely no case. But they are clearly coordinating with Democrats in government and have become a state actor.

Its very unlikely. They'd have to overturn Section 230, which they've never hinted at doing. And apply 1st amendment restrictions to private companies, which they've not indicated they're interested in. And ignore contract law, as the Terms of Service grant broad leeway in curating the content of their own websites.

Worse, these issues have already been litigated again and again. 60+ similar lawsuits. And they have all, without exception, failed. 90% at the 'motion to dismiss' phase.

Its a garbage legal argument.

Things are different now, big tech blatantly censored and rigged a presidential election on behalf of the Dem party. You think the SCOTUS won't take that up? They absolutely will. Common sense says its time for big tech to get a beat down.

A nearly identical case was thrown out of court only 2 weeks ago.


"Judge Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Tuesday granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss against Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) complaint filed against Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and its fact checkers in August 2020.

In a 45-page decision, the judge opined that CHD’s allegations — that Facebook is effectively a “state actor” on behalf of the federal government and engaged in false advertising and racketeering — failed to state legal claims."



The SCOTUS has shown no interest in the silly 'rigged presidential election' fantasy either. Every opportunity they've been given to overturn election results, they've passed on. Without exception.

The right wing echo chamber doesn't do well in actual courts. As imagination and outrage don't replace evidence and a sound legal argument.

Neither of which Trump has with this garbage legal argument. This is just more fundraising theater. The 'lawsuits' were announced at 12:01...and the fundraising messages started flooding phones and Email boxes at 12:03.

Apparently, Trump needs to repair his plane.

Not identical at all, see you in the SCOTUS.

 

[Skylar]

Clearly the 1st amendment prohibits the government from censoring the private press. It does not compel private industry to print the copious lies of a few lunatics, no matter how powerful they are.

Copious lies? You mean like CRT and the 1619 Project?
Here are 5 examples of the MSM (private industry) lies that unfairly hurt the Trump presidency:
1. The loser of the 2016 presidential election Hillary Clinton, along with her Democrat apologists, pushed on this narrative from the beginning. Trump was an illegitimate president due to his collusion with Russia leading up to the election, they said, an infraction so malicious he may have actually been guilty of treason and deserving of the death penalty. There have been instances of political malice between parties in our nation’s past, but never one quite like this.

2. Last week, over a year after most Americans became familiar with the medication, a new study out of New Jersey, the hardest hit state by COVID, shows that if used in conjunction with a regimen of zinc, hydroxychloroquine can give COVID patients upwards of a 200% better survival rate against COVID. Hydroxychloroquine is indeed a miracle drug.

3. We also became aware last week via a report from the Interior Department’s Inspector General that the actions by Park Police near Lafayette Square and St. John’s Church in Washington D.C. last June were not due to directives by President Trump in order to provide him with a “photo op,” as the media originally asserted. We were told that peaceful protesters were gathered near the recently burned church and the cops came and shot rubber bullets and tear gas at them just so Trump could have his picture taken in front of the church holding a bible.

4. During an appearance on 60 Minutes with Leslie Stahl in late-October, President Trump pointed to the younger Biden and correctly observed that Joe Biden was embroiled in a scandal over his son Hunter, but Stahl was defiant, insisting “He’s not. He’s not.” Oh Leslie, he is. He is.

5. The media is now trying to act surprised and put forth the façade that their misreporting on COVID’s origins was just an honest mistake. It wasn’t. The likelihood that COVID originated in China’s Wuhan Laboratory of Virology was clear from the beginning, but again, since Trump and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were beating this drum, they had to take the opposite position. But now that Biden has been elected and his administration is well under way, it is becoming increasing clear that COVID did indeed originate at the Wuhan lab, and was almost definitely manmade. And once again, it is obvious that the media lied to us. Did Fauci pay the Wuhan Lab for "gain of function" research on bat viruses, that killed 600,000 Americans? The MSM is covering that up.

What do any of those dubious allegations have to do with Trumpybear getting booted from the social media clubs and suing them?

So if the democrat's and their MSM lie about Trump, that's fair game, aka "free speech"

The 'MSM' isn't a company. The Media is hundreds of different companies. If you count websites, thousands.

You can't have THOUSANDS of options and claim a monopoly. The 'mono' in monopoly means 'one'. And there are thousands.

But Trump or conservatives don't have that same right to "free speech"?

You don't have a right to the use of someone else's website. Or their printing presses. Or their living room walls to spray paint your message.

You can't be stripped of a 'right' you don't possess. And the 'freedom' to seize someone else's private property and force them to promote YOUR political beliefs against their will....simply doesn't exist.

Ok, I see you're an idealist.

Or....I reject your idea that forcing someone to promote your political beliefs against their will is 'freedom'.

FB is supposed to be a "public platform", that's why they have Section 230 protection, it is NOT supposed to be "private property", that's the issue.

If FB was "private property" why would they get Section 230 legal protection?

Wrong.

Section 230 doesn't change the private status of social media.

Can you sue big tech now if they slander you? Think hard.

The SCOTUS will sink its teeth into big tech's BLATANT double standard. If they were banning and censoring on a level playing field there's likely no case. But they are clearly coordinating with Democrats in government and have become a state actor.

Its very unlikely. They'd have to overturn Section 230, which they've never hinted at doing. And apply 1st amendment restrictions to private companies, which they've not indicated they're interested in. And ignore contract law, as the Terms of Service grant broad leeway in curating the content of their own websites.

Worse, these issues have already been litigated again and again. 60+ similar lawsuits. And they have all, without exception, failed. 90% at the 'motion to dismiss' phase.

Its a garbage legal argument.

Things are different now, big tech blatantly censored and rigged a presidential election on behalf of the Dem party. You think the SCOTUS won't take that up? They absolutely will. Common sense says its time for big tech to get a beat down.

A nearly identical case was thrown out of court only 2 weeks ago.


"Judge Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Tuesday granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss against Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) complaint filed against Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and its fact checkers in August 2020.

In a 45-page decision, the judge opined that CHD’s allegations — that Facebook is effectively a “state actor” on behalf of the federal government and engaged in false advertising and racketeering — failed to state legal claims."



The SCOTUS has shown no interest in the silly 'rigged presidential election' fantasy either. Every opportunity they've been given to overturn election results, they've passed on. Without exception.

The right wing echo chamber doesn't do well in actual courts. As imagination and outrage don't replace evidence and a sound legal argument.

Neither of which Trump has with this garbage legal argument. This is just more fundraising theater. The 'lawsuits' were announced at 12:01...and the fundraising messages started flooding phones and Email boxes at 12:03.

Apparently, Trump needs to repair his plane.

Not identical at all, see you in the SCOTUS.

Its the exact 'state actor' argument Trump is making. And it was laughed out of court. There have been 60+ similar lawsuits and every single one failed.

The SCOTUS hasn't accepted the appeal of ANY of them.

And your legal assessments of what the Supreme Court will do hasn't been great. You're the same guy that lauded the Texas lawsuit trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election. And the Supreme Court refused to hear that too.

You keep equating your desires with a sound legal argument. And they aren't the same thing.

 

[colfax_m]

Not identical at all, see you in the SCOTUS.

The legal argument is the same.

You are aware that the conservative SCOTUS is especially loath to extend state actor status on private companies? Trump’s evidence of their acting on behalf of government is pathetic.

 

[BluesLegend]

Previous cases are not this case and this is a class action lawsuit. Lets see how many more sign on shall we.

Class action is irrelevant if the fundamental legal argument is bogus.

^^^ got his law degree mail order from China.

 

[Skylar]

Not identical at all, see you in the SCOTUS.

The legal argument is the same.

You are aware that the conservative SCOTUS is especially loath to extend state actor status on private companies? Trump’s evidence of their acting on behalf of government is pathetic.

Of course it is. But to his faithful, the accusation is the evidence. These are the same poor souls that lauded the Texas lawsuit that was supposed to overturn the 2020 election results.

They aren't hard to impress or convince as they don't really understand what's going on. Nor do they care to learn.

 

[colfax_m]

^^^ got his law degree mail order from China.

Okay. Go ahead and tell me how a “class action” lawsuit somehow changes the lawsuit.

Go ahead. Let’s hear it.

 

[colfax_m]

Not identical at all, see you in the SCOTUS.

The legal argument is the same.

You are aware that the conservative SCOTUS is especially loath to extend state actor status on private companies? Trump’s evidence of their acting on behalf of government is pathetic.

Of course it is. But to his faithful, the accusation is the evidence. These are the same poor souls that lauded the Texas lawsuit that was supposed to overturn the 2020 election results.

They aren't hard to impress or convince as they don't really understand what's going on. Nor do they care to learn.

He seems to be under the impression that SCOTUS is going to agree with Trump. You know, because they owe him or something? Because they’re on the “same side”? Because that’s how it works in the courts. You do your buddies a favor.

 

[Skylar]

Not identical at all, see you in the SCOTUS.

The legal argument is the same.

You are aware that the conservative SCOTUS is especially loath to extend state actor status on private companies? Trump’s evidence of their acting on behalf of government is pathetic.

Of course it is. But to his faithful, the accusation is the evidence. These are the same poor souls that lauded the Texas lawsuit that was supposed to overturn the 2020 election results.

They aren't hard to impress or convince as they don't really understand what's going on. Nor do they care to learn.

He seems to be under the impression that SCOTUS is going to agree with Trump. You know, because they owe him or something? Because they’re on the “same side”? Because that’s how it works in the courts. You do your buddies a favor.

He was under the same impression with the Texas lawsuit to overturn the 2020 election. Demonstrating elegantly that his assessments of what the Supreme Court will do.....don't really amount to much.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Clearly the 1st amendment prohibits the government from censoring the private press. It does not compel private industry to print the copious lies of a few lunatics, no matter how powerful they are.

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are not the press lol

 

[Skylar]

Clearly the 1st amendment prohibits the government from censoring the private press. It does not compel private industry to print the copious lies of a few lunatics, no matter how powerful they are.

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are not the press lol

They have 1st amendment rights. Arguing that they must be compelled to promote speech that violates their Terms of Service is going to be a heavy lift in court.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

The leader of the Republican Party, Donald J. Trump, "on Wednesday sued three tech giants — Facebook, Twitter and Google — and the firms’ chief executives after the platforms took various steps to ban him or block him from posting," according to the Times.

the Times continued, "Mr. Trump, speaking from his Bedminster, N.J., golf club, announced that he would serve as the lead plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit, arguing that he has been censored wrongfully by the tech companies. Speaking about “freedom of speech” and the First Amendment — which applies to the government, not to private-sector companies — Mr. Trump called his lawsuit a “very beautiful development.”

Almost immediately, Trump made several thousand dollars off the poor suckers who believe him.

CNN reports, "Less than an hour after the event, Trump's team began sending out fundraising appeals related to the lawsuits. The website recruiting participants for the proposed class action suits also featured a link to donate, and the Republican National Committee sent out a fundraising appeal invoking the suit as well.

Maybe Trump forgot he was no longer President. We know he hasn't got over his huge loss in November. On the other hand, he thinks he will be reinstated in August.

Potentially, Trump's lawsuit could provide more information regarding his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection than Pelosi's House committee. Unfortunately, the moment Big Tech asks for depositions from Trump, the lawsuits will be dropped.

This is just another big con. Trump's followers never learn. They don't want to learn.

 

[Skylar]

The leader of the Republican Party, Donald J. Trump, "on Wednesday sued three tech giants — Facebook, Twitter and Google — and the firms’ chief executives after the platforms took various steps to ban him or block him from posting," according to the Times.

the Times continued, "Mr. Trump, speaking from his Bedminster, N.J., golf club, announced that he would serve as the lead plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit, arguing that he has been censored wrongfully by the tech companies. Speaking about “freedom of speech” and the First Amendment — which applies to the government, not to private-sector companies — Mr. Trump called his lawsuit a “very beautiful development.”

Almost immediately, Trump made several thousand dollars off the poor suckers who believe him.

CNN reports, "Less than an hour after the event, Trump's team began sending out fundraising appeals related to the lawsuits. The website recruiting participants for the proposed class action suits also featured a link to donate, and the Republican National Committee sent out a fundraising appeal invoking the suit as well.

Maybe Trump forgot he was no longer President. We know he hasn't got over his huge loss in November. On the other hand, he thinks he will be reinstated in August.

Potentially, Trump's lawsuit could provide more information regarding his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection than Pelosi's House committee. Unfortunately, the moment Big Tech asks for depositions from Trump, the lawsuits will be dropped.

This is just another big con. Trump's followers never learn. They don't want to learn.

All Trump has to do is drop his own suit and the obligation to testify vanishes.

Trump had a similar opportunity with is 'stop the steal' nonsense. He had a trial date, could call witnesses, could present evidence. Everything he ever said he wanted. And the day before the trial was to begin?

Trump dismissed his own case.

This is all just theater for dipshits.

 

[bendog]

I'm curious if the USMB progs/dems will side with Trump on this important censorship issue, Should big tech be broken up? Should Section 230 be repealed? Should censorship end? Should Parler be reactivated? Should the "Fairness Doctrine" be revised and tried again? What do you recommend. I recommend "all of the above".

Trump Files Lawsuit Against Big Tech Over 'Censorship Of The American People'

Former President Donald Trump said he is filing a lawsuit against Big Tech companies — Twitter, Facebook, and Google and their CEOs, over allegations of violating Americans’ First Amendment rights by selectively censoring information and its recent action of banning and suspending his accounts.

floridianpress.com

“We’re asking the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida to order an immediate halt to stop social media companies’ illegal and shameful censorship of the American people. That’s exactly what they’re doing,” Trump said. “We’re demanding an end to the shadow banning, a stop to the silencing, a stop to the blacklisting, banishing, and canceling that you know so well.”

Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi argued the platforms have “increasingly engaged in impermissible censorship resulting from threatened legislative action, a misguided reliance upon Section 230.” Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a 1996 provision that gives social media platforms legal liability shield over content posted on their platform by third parties.

I don't see the connection you apprear to be making between breaking up facebook and others and Trump's lack of any first amendment claim against private companies.