Trump to sue Facebook, Twitter, Google over alleged censorship

[EvilCat Breath]

When the class is certified will the lunatics shut up about nonsense or will they rattle on about how they know more than the judge and the lawyers.

When the class is certified will the lunatics shut up about nonsense or will they rattle on about how they know more than the judge and the lawyers.

The class hasn't been certified. In fact, 90% of such cases never make it pass the motion to dismiss phase.

You've been played again, Tipsy.

It's just being prepared now. You should wait and see. Motions to dismiss do not come before class certification. Motions to dismiss come after service of the summons and complaint.

 

[Skylar]

When the class is certified will the lunatics shut up about nonsense or will they rattle on about how they know more than the judge and the lawyers.

When the class is certified will the lunatics shut up about nonsense or will they rattle on about how they know more than the judge and the lawyers.

The class hasn't been certified. In fact, 90% of such cases never make it pass the motion to dismiss phase.

You've been played again, Tipsy.

It's just being prepared now. You should wait and see. Motions to dismiss do not come before class certification. Motions to dismiss come after service of the summons and complaint.

There have been more than 60 lawsuits just like it. And every single one, without exception, failed. 90% failed to make it past the initial motion to dismiss. The arguments being made aren't new.

This is just another con to part morons from their money. Its a marketing pitch to a subsection of our nation that has fetishized failure.

Which is why the pleas for money from a loser ex-president began about 90 seconds after the marketing pitch.

 

[colfax_m]

Apparently the lawsuit is alleging that these social media companies are state actors by virtue of working with the government (specifically with the CDC which was under the purview of Trump) on messaging for COVID.

I am shocked to see that a lefty from this board actually looked into what the lawsuit is actually about, instead of just promoting censorship and expressing hate for Trump. You went a step deeper than the rest of the commies here.

“Today, in conjunction with the America First Policy Institute, I’m filing as the lead class representative, a major class-action lawsuit against the Big Tech giants Facebook, Google, and Twitter, as well as their CEOs,” Trump said.

“There is no better evidence that Big Tech is out of control than the fact that they banned the sitting president of the United States earlier this year,” Trump said, adding, “If they can do it to me, they can do it to anyone, and, in fact, that is exactly what they’re doing.”

I always try to read the lawsuits. Seems like I’m the only one because no one else has brought up state action doctrine, including Trump.

It’s a bogus argument, by the way. The lawsuit is virtue signaling.

 

[schmidlap]

...Trump on Tuesday is announcing that he will lead a lawsuit over alleged censorship against Twitter, Facebook and Google -- three tech companies that removed him from their platforms after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by a mob of his supporters.

After trump®blog went the way of trump®university, trump®casinos, trump®airlines, trump®steak, trump®vodka, a couple of trump®trophy wives, and the trump®presidency (during which he lost the GOP the Executive, House, and Senate in a single term) he needs to go with his strength: whining that everybody is being mean to him.

With over 80 dismissed frivolous election challenges to boast about, he'll miss one devoted fart catcher.

BOGUS LAWSUITS Я US!

I'm a loser
I'm a loser
And I'm not what I appear to be...​

 

[Faun]

It is certainly curious how this collection of ignorant internet posters know so much more than experience class action litigators.

'experienced litigators' will argue whatever they are paid to.

Just like they did for all of Trumps other failed lawsuits.

Who do you think pays them? It's a class action lawsuit. Who pays? Who paid James Coale when he represented dirt poor Indian peasants against Union Carbide? Who paid James Kelly when he represented dying plaintiffs against the tobacco companies?

The poor saps that donated to Trump's 'legal fund'. Over 200 million raised in Trump's fraudulent 'stop the steal' con.

Where do you think that money went? In Trump's pocket. You rubes are paying for this class action lawsuit. With plenty left over to line Trump's pockets yet again. This entire legal farce is just theater for dipshits, parting them from their money one more time.

You're been played, Tipsy. Sigh....again. You're kind of an easy mark.

They never learn.

Kind of a guilty pleasure though watching them get fleeced by Trump over and over again.

 

[Magnus]

who will be his lawyer? lin wood? orly taitz? sidney krackhead?

John Coale and John Kelly are putting together the team. Coale was the successful litigator in the Bhopal case and Kelly won against the tobacco companies.

With the solid case they have, this will be a match worth watching.

LOL. Hope the lawyers get money upfront from the grifter. Knowing Rump, he will stiff them like he stiffed Guilliani. He always does.

Trump doesn't need any money for this one.

Maybe not. But that isn't going to stop him from hitting upon his ever-credulous trumptards. In fact, solicitations are already underway. Expect a request in your mailbox very soon.

 

[Magnus]

They did not infringe on anyone's right to free speech. Only the government can do that

Once again you are conflating free speech with the First Amendment.

Businesses can and do infringe on freedom of speech with censorship and banning.

First Amendment applies to the Federal government. But it is possible for non-government entities to violate people’s civil liberties, and be held accountable. There are anti-discrimination laws that corporations must follow. If they discriminate against white people for example, they can be held accountable.

Yup, you are getting warm. If they discriminate against all white people, they can be held accountable.

I am sure you know some white men on FB, amIright? So, evidently, FB is not discriminating against all white people. Try again.

Oooooh! I guess that means we can discriminate against some black people if we want, as long as we don’t discriminate against ALL of them! Brilliant!

Sure thing, sport. Go ahead. Discriminate against some black people. And if you own a business, I hope they sue and make you pay.

So, sure, go ahead. Because, unlike your orange douche bag's case which is going nowhere, the case against you will have merit and you will pay. But hey, take the challenge. Go for it. But do let us know how it turns out, ok? Will love to enjoy your pain. LOL

Apparently that went right over your head. A little weird, considering that is exactly what you were arguing.

Actually, it isn't. I even helpfully bolded keywords in my post. I could explain it to you but then where would the fun be in that? Read it again. When you are done, read it a few more times. Eventually, you will get it. Good luck.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

At least I can grasp the principles at issue.

Ah, get caught making stuff up, change lanes to talking about me.

You dont understand shit about "principles". Your only contribution has been to declare that Facebook and Twitter are government, because they made a deal for immunity to censor criticism of government. That's a bold claim for which you have never seen a shred of evidence. I wonder if you even understand why you believe such baseless nonsense? I don't think you are self aware enough to see the processes that fool people like you into believing nonsense.

So let me help you out: when your entire argument rests on a fantasy for which you have no evidence....it's not a very good argument.

Even worse in a court of law.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When the class is certified will the lunatics shut up about nonsense or will they rattle on about how they know more than the judge and the lawyers.

We will watch it get laughed out of court when the lawyers turn tail for lack of evidence. Just like every other bit of theater the mentally ill orange slob has tried to foist on America for the last year. You poor cultists are like pinballs, being bounced from desperate fantasy to desperate fantasy.

The people conning you know better.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

When the class is certified will the lunatics shut up about nonsense or will they rattle on about how they know more than the judge and the lawyers.

We will watch it get laughed out of court when the lawyers turn tail for lack of evidence. Just like every other bit of theater the mentally ill orange slob has tried to foist on America for the last year. You poor cultists are like pinballs, being bounced from desperate fantasy to desperate fantasy.

The people conning you know better.

When you are wrong, then what?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When the class is certified will the lunatics shut up about nonsense or will they rattle on about how they know more than the judge and the lawyers.

We will watch it get laughed out of court when the lawyers turn tail for lack of evidence. Just like every other bit of theater the mentally ill orange slob has tried to foist on America for the last year. You poor cultists are like pinballs, being bounced from desperate fantasy to desperate fantasy.

The people conning you know better.

When you are wrong, then what?

Then i will be surprised and admit it, and i wont have a choice, because the objective facts will exist that show i was wrong. (Court decision, evidence of your little fantasy conspiracy)


Compare that to you being wrong about 100s of fantasies over the last 5 years and never admitting you were wrong, and instead moving on to a new fantasy.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The part about this farce that makes me laugh the most:

Trump's team of grifters is alleging "the government", of which HE was the chief executive at the time, was censoring people for criticizing the government. And that they specifically targeted the supporters of the head of the government, up to and including the head of the government himself. They censored the people who were licking the butt of the head of the government for...criticizing the government. Then the government censored its own boss. Because fucking derp.

It's hard even to unpack such a mind numbingly stupid set of claims. It is a good illustration of how the mentally ill old freak can claim ANYTHING and immediately have a small army of willing rubes go on the march to support it.

 

[pknopp]

Shortly after the news conference wrapped, Trump’s political entities started sending out fundraising messages that touted the lawsuits in their appeals for money.

Trump sues Twitter, Facebook, Google – and immediately begins fundraising off the effort

 

[Magnus]

Odd. I did not get a request for money.

When the judge certifies the class he or she will also set the amount of the fund. This isn't the only such case.

And you can help our legal case and own the libs by sending us some money!

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

Its the Nigerian Prince scam all over again. Only dumber.

Trump doesn't need any money for this.

Oh, he's not paying. He's getting paid. All you rubes are going to send in 'donations' to his 'class action litigation'. And a small fraction will go to pay the 'experienced litigators' saying whatever Trump tells them to say. The rest will go in his pocket.

Dipshits are gonna dip, Tipsy. At this point, its hard to feel sympathy for you poor suckers getting fleeced yet again by the same con man.

No one sends in donations. This is a class action lawsuit. The judge will set the amount to go in the pool and the defendants will fund it. Fees and costs will be paid out of that fund. Trump doesn't even need to kick in a dime.

So the lawyers are working for free? Of course not. They're getting paid.

And this silly piece of meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish is just a fundraising operation to part more money from you poor, guillable souls.

You're being played. Again.

The lawyers will be paid out of the legal fund the judge will order.

This is a fascinating case to discuss. If only there was someone who really understood the issues.

Trump announced the 'class action lawsuits' at 12:01. At 12:03.....the pleas for donations started.

View attachment 510187

Trump announces lawsuits against Facebook and Twitter, immediately starts fundraising off it

Within minutes of his announcement, Trump began fundraising off of his lawsuits against Facebook and Twitter, promising a 5x matching donation.

www.businessinsider.com

This is just another grift to part gulliable dipshits from yet more of their money. The first word of the 1st amendment puts Trump's entire pseudo-legal argument to bed.

And no one noticed that but you. All those legal minds, two lawsuits and you are the only one to figure it out.

Laughing....everyone noticed but you. You still refuse to even read the 1st amendment....as it obliterates Trump's entire legal argument in its first word. Among actual legal experts....this is yet another laughing stock piece of pseudo-legal nonsense.

Legal scholars suggest former president’s complaint may bring the attention he craves but doesn’t present a serious legal argument

“Trump has the first amendment argument exactly wrong,” said Paul Barrett, the deputy director of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. “The first amendment applies to government censorship or speech regulation. It does not stop private sector corporations from regulating content on their platforms.”....

.....Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University in California, has studied more than 60 similar, failed lawsuits over the past few decades that sought to take on internet companies for terminating or suspending users’ accounts. He says Trump’s lawsuits are unlikely to go far.

“They’ve argued everything under the sun, including first amendment, and they get nowhere,” Goldman said. “Maybe he’s got a trick up his sleeve that will give him a leg up on the dozens of lawsuits before him. I doubt it.”

......

Trump plunges GOP’s anti-tech crusade deeper into the courts

"This lawsuit is a stunt," one legal expert said. It's also the latest in a growing Republican trend of asking judges to rein in Silicon Valley's policing of online speech.

www.politico.com

“This lawsuit is a stunt, and it's unlikely to find traction in the courts,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University — adding that Trump’s legal claims are “not at all persuasive” and run afoul of his own record as president.

......

“Trump and his lawyers need to read the first line of the First Amendment,” Barbara McQuade, a professor from practice at the University of Michigan law school, tweeted. “His lawsuit complaining of censorship against private social media companies and their leaders is going nowhere.”
......

Trump Battles Facebook, Twitter Without Aid of Free Speech Pros

Former President Donald Trump’s free speech fight with Twitter, Facebook, and Google rests on a pair of trial lawyers best known for their work in major personal injury cases—not First Amendment disputes.

news.bloomberglaw.com

“Public relations seems a greater motivation than actual legal analysis,” Martha Minow, a Harvard Law professor who is among several constitutional law scholars that have questioned the argument, told Bloomberg Law.

.......

Constitutional law scholar Erwin Chemerinsky called the suits “frivolous.”

“Facebook, Google, and Twitter are private entities and the First Amendment does not apply to them,” Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, told Bloomberg Law. “This is not an open question.”

.......

“I think the lawsuit has almost no chance of success,” Vanderbilt University law professor Brian Fitzpatrick told CNBC, given that the companies are privately controlled and are not beholden to the same speech laws that public platforms are. “I think this is just a public relations lawsuit, and I’ll be honest with you, I wouldn’t be surprised if it ends with sanctions against the lawyers for filing a frivolous lawsuit,” Fitzpatrick concluded.


But 'no one noticed', Tipsy? You've been played again, rube.

You know what the most important thing of all? This suit against FB & Twitter has been filed in Florida but...

Facebook's terms of service requires that "any claim, cause of action, or dispute you have against us" be filed in federal court in northern California or San Mateo County state court.

Twitter's terms of service - which courts generally enforce - require that "all disputes related to these Terms or the Services will be brought solely in the federal or state courts located in San Francisco County."

So, either the trumpy lawyers are incompetent (no surprises there) or the whole case is frivolous and has been filed just to grift money from his mouth-breathing idiotic ever-gullible trumptards. Knowing full well that it will be dismissed.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Odd. I did not get a request for money.

When the judge certifies the class he or she will also set the amount of the fund. This isn't the only such case.

And you can help our legal case and own the libs by sending us some money!

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

Its the Nigerian Prince scam all over again. Only dumber.

Trump doesn't need any money for this.

Oh, he's not paying. He's getting paid. All you rubes are going to send in 'donations' to his 'class action litigation'. And a small fraction will go to pay the 'experienced litigators' saying whatever Trump tells them to say. The rest will go in his pocket.

Dipshits are gonna dip, Tipsy. At this point, its hard to feel sympathy for you poor suckers getting fleeced yet again by the same con man.

No one sends in donations. This is a class action lawsuit. The judge will set the amount to go in the pool and the defendants will fund it. Fees and costs will be paid out of that fund. Trump doesn't even need to kick in a dime.

So the lawyers are working for free? Of course not. They're getting paid.

And this silly piece of meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish is just a fundraising operation to part more money from you poor, guillable souls.

You're being played. Again.

The lawyers will be paid out of the legal fund the judge will order.

This is a fascinating case to discuss. If only there was someone who really understood the issues.

Trump announced the 'class action lawsuits' at 12:01. At 12:03.....the pleas for donations started.

View attachment 510187

Trump announces lawsuits against Facebook and Twitter, immediately starts fundraising off it

Within minutes of his announcement, Trump began fundraising off of his lawsuits against Facebook and Twitter, promising a 5x matching donation.

www.businessinsider.com

This is just another grift to part gulliable dipshits from yet more of their money. The first word of the 1st amendment puts Trump's entire pseudo-legal argument to bed.

And no one noticed that but you. All those legal minds, two lawsuits and you are the only one to figure it out.

Laughing....everyone noticed but you. You still refuse to even read the 1st amendment....as it obliterates Trump's entire legal argument in its first word. Among actual legal experts....this is yet another laughing stock piece of pseudo-legal nonsense.

Legal scholars suggest former president’s complaint may bring the attention he craves but doesn’t present a serious legal argument

“Trump has the first amendment argument exactly wrong,” said Paul Barrett, the deputy director of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. “The first amendment applies to government censorship or speech regulation. It does not stop private sector corporations from regulating content on their platforms.”....

.....Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University in California, has studied more than 60 similar, failed lawsuits over the past few decades that sought to take on internet companies for terminating or suspending users’ accounts. He says Trump’s lawsuits are unlikely to go far.

“They’ve argued everything under the sun, including first amendment, and they get nowhere,” Goldman said. “Maybe he’s got a trick up his sleeve that will give him a leg up on the dozens of lawsuits before him. I doubt it.”

......

Trump plunges GOP’s anti-tech crusade deeper into the courts

"This lawsuit is a stunt," one legal expert said. It's also the latest in a growing Republican trend of asking judges to rein in Silicon Valley's policing of online speech.

www.politico.com

“This lawsuit is a stunt, and it's unlikely to find traction in the courts,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University — adding that Trump’s legal claims are “not at all persuasive” and run afoul of his own record as president.

......

“Trump and his lawyers need to read the first line of the First Amendment,” Barbara McQuade, a professor from practice at the University of Michigan law school, tweeted. “His lawsuit complaining of censorship against private social media companies and their leaders is going nowhere.”
......

Trump Battles Facebook, Twitter Without Aid of Free Speech Pros

Former President Donald Trump’s free speech fight with Twitter, Facebook, and Google rests on a pair of trial lawyers best known for their work in major personal injury cases—not First Amendment disputes.

news.bloomberglaw.com

“Public relations seems a greater motivation than actual legal analysis,” Martha Minow, a Harvard Law professor who is among several constitutional law scholars that have questioned the argument, told Bloomberg Law.

.......

Constitutional law scholar Erwin Chemerinsky called the suits “frivolous.”

“Facebook, Google, and Twitter are private entities and the First Amendment does not apply to them,” Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, told Bloomberg Law. “This is not an open question.”

.......

“I think the lawsuit has almost no chance of success,” Vanderbilt University law professor Brian Fitzpatrick told CNBC, given that the companies are privately controlled and are not beholden to the same speech laws that public platforms are. “I think this is just a public relations lawsuit, and I’ll be honest with you, I wouldn’t be surprised if it ends with sanctions against the lawyers for filing a frivolous lawsuit,” Fitzpatrick concluded.


But 'no one noticed', Tipsy? You've been played again, rube.

You know what the most important thing of all? This suit against FB & Twitter has been filed in Florida but...

Facebook's terms of service requires that "any claim, cause of action, or dispute you have against us" be filed in federal court in northern California or San Mateo County state court.

Twitter's terms of service - which courts generally enforce - require that "all disputes related to these Terms or the Services will be brought solely in the federal or state courts located in San Francisco County."

So, either the trumpy lawyers are incompetent (no surprises there) or the whole case is frivolous and has been filed just to grift money from his mouth-breathing idiotic ever-gullible trumptards. Knowing full well that it will be dismissed.

This case does not involve terms of service.

 

[Skylar]

Odd. I did not get a request for money.

When the judge certifies the class he or she will also set the amount of the fund. This isn't the only such case.

And you can help our legal case and own the libs by sending us some money!

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

Its the Nigerian Prince scam all over again. Only dumber.

Trump doesn't need any money for this.

Oh, he's not paying. He's getting paid. All you rubes are going to send in 'donations' to his 'class action litigation'. And a small fraction will go to pay the 'experienced litigators' saying whatever Trump tells them to say. The rest will go in his pocket.

Dipshits are gonna dip, Tipsy. At this point, its hard to feel sympathy for you poor suckers getting fleeced yet again by the same con man.

No one sends in donations. This is a class action lawsuit. The judge will set the amount to go in the pool and the defendants will fund it. Fees and costs will be paid out of that fund. Trump doesn't even need to kick in a dime.

So the lawyers are working for free? Of course not. They're getting paid.

And this silly piece of meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish is just a fundraising operation to part more money from you poor, guillable souls.

You're being played. Again.

The lawyers will be paid out of the legal fund the judge will order.

This is a fascinating case to discuss. If only there was someone who really understood the issues.

Trump announced the 'class action lawsuits' at 12:01. At 12:03.....the pleas for donations started.

View attachment 510187

Trump announces lawsuits against Facebook and Twitter, immediately starts fundraising off it

Within minutes of his announcement, Trump began fundraising off of his lawsuits against Facebook and Twitter, promising a 5x matching donation.

www.businessinsider.com

This is just another grift to part gulliable dipshits from yet more of their money. The first word of the 1st amendment puts Trump's entire pseudo-legal argument to bed.

And no one noticed that but you. All those legal minds, two lawsuits and you are the only one to figure it out.

Laughing....everyone noticed but you. You still refuse to even read the 1st amendment....as it obliterates Trump's entire legal argument in its first word. Among actual legal experts....this is yet another laughing stock piece of pseudo-legal nonsense.

Legal scholars suggest former president’s complaint may bring the attention he craves but doesn’t present a serious legal argument

“Trump has the first amendment argument exactly wrong,” said Paul Barrett, the deputy director of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. “The first amendment applies to government censorship or speech regulation. It does not stop private sector corporations from regulating content on their platforms.”....

.....Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University in California, has studied more than 60 similar, failed lawsuits over the past few decades that sought to take on internet companies for terminating or suspending users’ accounts. He says Trump’s lawsuits are unlikely to go far.

“They’ve argued everything under the sun, including first amendment, and they get nowhere,” Goldman said. “Maybe he’s got a trick up his sleeve that will give him a leg up on the dozens of lawsuits before him. I doubt it.”

......

Trump plunges GOP’s anti-tech crusade deeper into the courts

"This lawsuit is a stunt," one legal expert said. It's also the latest in a growing Republican trend of asking judges to rein in Silicon Valley's policing of online speech.

www.politico.com

“This lawsuit is a stunt, and it's unlikely to find traction in the courts,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University — adding that Trump’s legal claims are “not at all persuasive” and run afoul of his own record as president.

......

“Trump and his lawyers need to read the first line of the First Amendment,” Barbara McQuade, a professor from practice at the University of Michigan law school, tweeted. “His lawsuit complaining of censorship against private social media companies and their leaders is going nowhere.”
......

Trump Battles Facebook, Twitter Without Aid of Free Speech Pros

Former President Donald Trump’s free speech fight with Twitter, Facebook, and Google rests on a pair of trial lawyers best known for their work in major personal injury cases—not First Amendment disputes.

news.bloomberglaw.com

“Public relations seems a greater motivation than actual legal analysis,” Martha Minow, a Harvard Law professor who is among several constitutional law scholars that have questioned the argument, told Bloomberg Law.

.......

Constitutional law scholar Erwin Chemerinsky called the suits “frivolous.”

“Facebook, Google, and Twitter are private entities and the First Amendment does not apply to them,” Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, told Bloomberg Law. “This is not an open question.”

.......

“I think the lawsuit has almost no chance of success,” Vanderbilt University law professor Brian Fitzpatrick told CNBC, given that the companies are privately controlled and are not beholden to the same speech laws that public platforms are. “I think this is just a public relations lawsuit, and I’ll be honest with you, I wouldn’t be surprised if it ends with sanctions against the lawyers for filing a frivolous lawsuit,” Fitzpatrick concluded.


But 'no one noticed', Tipsy? You've been played again, rube.

You know what the most important thing of all? This suit against FB & Twitter has been filed in Florida but...

Facebook's terms of service requires that "any claim, cause of action, or dispute you have against us" be filed in federal court in northern California or San Mateo County state court.

Twitter's terms of service - which courts generally enforce - require that "all disputes related to these Terms or the Services will be brought solely in the federal or state courts located in San Francisco County."

So, either the trumpy lawyers are incompetent (no surprises there) or the whole case is frivolous and has been filed just to grift money from his mouth-breathing idiotic ever-gullible trumptards. Knowing full well that it will be dismissed.

This is another money con. The 'lawsuits' were announced at 12:01. The pleas for cash donations to support the lawsuits started flooding phones at 12:03.

 

[Skylar]

Odd. I did not get a request for money.

When the judge certifies the class he or she will also set the amount of the fund. This isn't the only such case.

And you can help our legal case and own the libs by sending us some money!

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

Its the Nigerian Prince scam all over again. Only dumber.

Trump doesn't need any money for this.

Oh, he's not paying. He's getting paid. All you rubes are going to send in 'donations' to his 'class action litigation'. And a small fraction will go to pay the 'experienced litigators' saying whatever Trump tells them to say. The rest will go in his pocket.

Dipshits are gonna dip, Tipsy. At this point, its hard to feel sympathy for you poor suckers getting fleeced yet again by the same con man.

No one sends in donations. This is a class action lawsuit. The judge will set the amount to go in the pool and the defendants will fund it. Fees and costs will be paid out of that fund. Trump doesn't even need to kick in a dime.

So the lawyers are working for free? Of course not. They're getting paid.

And this silly piece of meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish is just a fundraising operation to part more money from you poor, guillable souls.

You're being played. Again.

The lawyers will be paid out of the legal fund the judge will order.

This is a fascinating case to discuss. If only there was someone who really understood the issues.

Trump announced the 'class action lawsuits' at 12:01. At 12:03.....the pleas for donations started.

View attachment 510187

Trump announces lawsuits against Facebook and Twitter, immediately starts fundraising off it

Within minutes of his announcement, Trump began fundraising off of his lawsuits against Facebook and Twitter, promising a 5x matching donation.

www.businessinsider.com

This is just another grift to part gulliable dipshits from yet more of their money. The first word of the 1st amendment puts Trump's entire pseudo-legal argument to bed.

And no one noticed that but you. All those legal minds, two lawsuits and you are the only one to figure it out.

Laughing....everyone noticed but you. You still refuse to even read the 1st amendment....as it obliterates Trump's entire legal argument in its first word. Among actual legal experts....this is yet another laughing stock piece of pseudo-legal nonsense.

Legal scholars suggest former president’s complaint may bring the attention he craves but doesn’t present a serious legal argument

“Trump has the first amendment argument exactly wrong,” said Paul Barrett, the deputy director of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. “The first amendment applies to government censorship or speech regulation. It does not stop private sector corporations from regulating content on their platforms.”....

.....Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University in California, has studied more than 60 similar, failed lawsuits over the past few decades that sought to take on internet companies for terminating or suspending users’ accounts. He says Trump’s lawsuits are unlikely to go far.

“They’ve argued everything under the sun, including first amendment, and they get nowhere,” Goldman said. “Maybe he’s got a trick up his sleeve that will give him a leg up on the dozens of lawsuits before him. I doubt it.”

......

Trump plunges GOP’s anti-tech crusade deeper into the courts

"This lawsuit is a stunt," one legal expert said. It's also the latest in a growing Republican trend of asking judges to rein in Silicon Valley's policing of online speech.

www.politico.com

“This lawsuit is a stunt, and it's unlikely to find traction in the courts,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University — adding that Trump’s legal claims are “not at all persuasive” and run afoul of his own record as president.

......

“Trump and his lawyers need to read the first line of the First Amendment,” Barbara McQuade, a professor from practice at the University of Michigan law school, tweeted. “His lawsuit complaining of censorship against private social media companies and their leaders is going nowhere.”
......

Trump Battles Facebook, Twitter Without Aid of Free Speech Pros

Former President Donald Trump’s free speech fight with Twitter, Facebook, and Google rests on a pair of trial lawyers best known for their work in major personal injury cases—not First Amendment disputes.

news.bloomberglaw.com

“Public relations seems a greater motivation than actual legal analysis,” Martha Minow, a Harvard Law professor who is among several constitutional law scholars that have questioned the argument, told Bloomberg Law.

.......

Constitutional law scholar Erwin Chemerinsky called the suits “frivolous.”

“Facebook, Google, and Twitter are private entities and the First Amendment does not apply to them,” Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, told Bloomberg Law. “This is not an open question.”

.......

“I think the lawsuit has almost no chance of success,” Vanderbilt University law professor Brian Fitzpatrick told CNBC, given that the companies are privately controlled and are not beholden to the same speech laws that public platforms are. “I think this is just a public relations lawsuit, and I’ll be honest with you, I wouldn’t be surprised if it ends with sanctions against the lawyers for filing a frivolous lawsuit,” Fitzpatrick concluded.


But 'no one noticed', Tipsy? You've been played again, rube.

You know what the most important thing of all? This suit against FB & Twitter has been filed in Florida but...

Facebook's terms of service requires that "any claim, cause of action, or dispute you have against us" be filed in federal court in northern California or San Mateo County state court.

Twitter's terms of service - which courts generally enforce - require that "all disputes related to these Terms or the Services will be brought solely in the federal or state courts located in San Francisco County."

So, either the trumpy lawyers are incompetent (no surprises there) or the whole case is frivolous and has been filed just to grift money from his mouth-breathing idiotic ever-gullible trumptards. Knowing full well that it will be dismissed.

This case does not involve terms of service.

If it involves a lawsuit, it involves the Terms of Service. As Trump already agreed to "any claim, cause of action, or dispute you have against" FB has to be filed in northern California courts.

Its yet another example of this not being a serious legal effort. And instead being theater for dipshits and yet another money con.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Odd. I did not get a request for money.

When the judge certifies the class he or she will also set the amount of the fund. This isn't the only such case.

And you can help our legal case and own the libs by sending us some money!

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

Its the Nigerian Prince scam all over again. Only dumber.

Trump doesn't need any money for this.

Oh, he's not paying. He's getting paid. All you rubes are going to send in 'donations' to his 'class action litigation'. And a small fraction will go to pay the 'experienced litigators' saying whatever Trump tells them to say. The rest will go in his pocket.

Dipshits are gonna dip, Tipsy. At this point, its hard to feel sympathy for you poor suckers getting fleeced yet again by the same con man.

No one sends in donations. This is a class action lawsuit. The judge will set the amount to go in the pool and the defendants will fund it. Fees and costs will be paid out of that fund. Trump doesn't even need to kick in a dime.

So the lawyers are working for free? Of course not. They're getting paid.

And this silly piece of meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish is just a fundraising operation to part more money from you poor, guillable souls.

You're being played. Again.

The lawyers will be paid out of the legal fund the judge will order.

This is a fascinating case to discuss. If only there was someone who really understood the issues.

Trump announced the 'class action lawsuits' at 12:01. At 12:03.....the pleas for donations started.

View attachment 510187

Trump announces lawsuits against Facebook and Twitter, immediately starts fundraising off it

Within minutes of his announcement, Trump began fundraising off of his lawsuits against Facebook and Twitter, promising a 5x matching donation.

www.businessinsider.com

This is just another grift to part gulliable dipshits from yet more of their money. The first word of the 1st amendment puts Trump's entire pseudo-legal argument to bed.

And no one noticed that but you. All those legal minds, two lawsuits and you are the only one to figure it out.

Laughing....everyone noticed but you. You still refuse to even read the 1st amendment....as it obliterates Trump's entire legal argument in its first word. Among actual legal experts....this is yet another laughing stock piece of pseudo-legal nonsense.

Legal scholars suggest former president’s complaint may bring the attention he craves but doesn’t present a serious legal argument

“Trump has the first amendment argument exactly wrong,” said Paul Barrett, the deputy director of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. “The first amendment applies to government censorship or speech regulation. It does not stop private sector corporations from regulating content on their platforms.”....

.....Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University in California, has studied more than 60 similar, failed lawsuits over the past few decades that sought to take on internet companies for terminating or suspending users’ accounts. He says Trump’s lawsuits are unlikely to go far.

“They’ve argued everything under the sun, including first amendment, and they get nowhere,” Goldman said. “Maybe he’s got a trick up his sleeve that will give him a leg up on the dozens of lawsuits before him. I doubt it.”

......

Trump plunges GOP’s anti-tech crusade deeper into the courts

"This lawsuit is a stunt," one legal expert said. It's also the latest in a growing Republican trend of asking judges to rein in Silicon Valley's policing of online speech.

www.politico.com

“This lawsuit is a stunt, and it's unlikely to find traction in the courts,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University — adding that Trump’s legal claims are “not at all persuasive” and run afoul of his own record as president.

......

“Trump and his lawyers need to read the first line of the First Amendment,” Barbara McQuade, a professor from practice at the University of Michigan law school, tweeted. “His lawsuit complaining of censorship against private social media companies and their leaders is going nowhere.”
......

Trump Battles Facebook, Twitter Without Aid of Free Speech Pros

Former President Donald Trump’s free speech fight with Twitter, Facebook, and Google rests on a pair of trial lawyers best known for their work in major personal injury cases—not First Amendment disputes.

news.bloomberglaw.com

“Public relations seems a greater motivation than actual legal analysis,” Martha Minow, a Harvard Law professor who is among several constitutional law scholars that have questioned the argument, told Bloomberg Law.

.......

Constitutional law scholar Erwin Chemerinsky called the suits “frivolous.”

“Facebook, Google, and Twitter are private entities and the First Amendment does not apply to them,” Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, told Bloomberg Law. “This is not an open question.”

.......

“I think the lawsuit has almost no chance of success,” Vanderbilt University law professor Brian Fitzpatrick told CNBC, given that the companies are privately controlled and are not beholden to the same speech laws that public platforms are. “I think this is just a public relations lawsuit, and I’ll be honest with you, I wouldn’t be surprised if it ends with sanctions against the lawyers for filing a frivolous lawsuit,” Fitzpatrick concluded.


But 'no one noticed', Tipsy? You've been played again, rube.

You know what the most important thing of all? This suit against FB & Twitter has been filed in Florida but...

Facebook's terms of service requires that "any claim, cause of action, or dispute you have against us" be filed in federal court in northern California or San Mateo County state court.

Twitter's terms of service - which courts generally enforce - require that "all disputes related to these Terms or the Services will be brought solely in the federal or state courts located in San Francisco County."

So, either the trumpy lawyers are incompetent (no surprises there) or the whole case is frivolous and has been filed just to grift money from his mouth-breathing idiotic ever-gullible trumptards. Knowing full well that it will be dismissed.

This case does not involve terms of service.

If it involves a lawsuit, it involves the Terms of Service. As Trump already agreed to "any claim, cause of action, or dispute you have against" FB has to be filed in northern California courts.

Its yet another example of this not being a serious legal effort. And instead being theater for dipshits and yet another money con.

You will just have to live and learn.

 

[Skylar]

Odd. I did not get a request for money.

When the judge certifies the class he or she will also set the amount of the fund. This isn't the only such case.

And you can help our legal case and own the libs by sending us some money!

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

Its the Nigerian Prince scam all over again. Only dumber.

Trump doesn't need any money for this.

Oh, he's not paying. He's getting paid. All you rubes are going to send in 'donations' to his 'class action litigation'. And a small fraction will go to pay the 'experienced litigators' saying whatever Trump tells them to say. The rest will go in his pocket.

Dipshits are gonna dip, Tipsy. At this point, its hard to feel sympathy for you poor suckers getting fleeced yet again by the same con man.

No one sends in donations. This is a class action lawsuit. The judge will set the amount to go in the pool and the defendants will fund it. Fees and costs will be paid out of that fund. Trump doesn't even need to kick in a dime.

So the lawyers are working for free? Of course not. They're getting paid.

And this silly piece of meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish is just a fundraising operation to part more money from you poor, guillable souls.

You're being played. Again.

The lawyers will be paid out of the legal fund the judge will order.

This is a fascinating case to discuss. If only there was someone who really understood the issues.

Trump announced the 'class action lawsuits' at 12:01. At 12:03.....the pleas for donations started.

View attachment 510187

Trump announces lawsuits against Facebook and Twitter, immediately starts fundraising off it

Within minutes of his announcement, Trump began fundraising off of his lawsuits against Facebook and Twitter, promising a 5x matching donation.

www.businessinsider.com

This is just another grift to part gulliable dipshits from yet more of their money. The first word of the 1st amendment puts Trump's entire pseudo-legal argument to bed.

And no one noticed that but you. All those legal minds, two lawsuits and you are the only one to figure it out.

Laughing....everyone noticed but you. You still refuse to even read the 1st amendment....as it obliterates Trump's entire legal argument in its first word. Among actual legal experts....this is yet another laughing stock piece of pseudo-legal nonsense.

Legal scholars suggest former president’s complaint may bring the attention he craves but doesn’t present a serious legal argument

“Trump has the first amendment argument exactly wrong,” said Paul Barrett, the deputy director of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. “The first amendment applies to government censorship or speech regulation. It does not stop private sector corporations from regulating content on their platforms.”....

.....Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University in California, has studied more than 60 similar, failed lawsuits over the past few decades that sought to take on internet companies for terminating or suspending users’ accounts. He says Trump’s lawsuits are unlikely to go far.

“They’ve argued everything under the sun, including first amendment, and they get nowhere,” Goldman said. “Maybe he’s got a trick up his sleeve that will give him a leg up on the dozens of lawsuits before him. I doubt it.”

......

Trump plunges GOP’s anti-tech crusade deeper into the courts

"This lawsuit is a stunt," one legal expert said. It's also the latest in a growing Republican trend of asking judges to rein in Silicon Valley's policing of online speech.

www.politico.com

“This lawsuit is a stunt, and it's unlikely to find traction in the courts,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University — adding that Trump’s legal claims are “not at all persuasive” and run afoul of his own record as president.

......

“Trump and his lawyers need to read the first line of the First Amendment,” Barbara McQuade, a professor from practice at the University of Michigan law school, tweeted. “His lawsuit complaining of censorship against private social media companies and their leaders is going nowhere.”
......

Trump Battles Facebook, Twitter Without Aid of Free Speech Pros

Former President Donald Trump’s free speech fight with Twitter, Facebook, and Google rests on a pair of trial lawyers best known for their work in major personal injury cases—not First Amendment disputes.

news.bloomberglaw.com

“Public relations seems a greater motivation than actual legal analysis,” Martha Minow, a Harvard Law professor who is among several constitutional law scholars that have questioned the argument, told Bloomberg Law.

.......

Constitutional law scholar Erwin Chemerinsky called the suits “frivolous.”

“Facebook, Google, and Twitter are private entities and the First Amendment does not apply to them,” Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, told Bloomberg Law. “This is not an open question.”

.......

“I think the lawsuit has almost no chance of success,” Vanderbilt University law professor Brian Fitzpatrick told CNBC, given that the companies are privately controlled and are not beholden to the same speech laws that public platforms are. “I think this is just a public relations lawsuit, and I’ll be honest with you, I wouldn’t be surprised if it ends with sanctions against the lawyers for filing a frivolous lawsuit,” Fitzpatrick concluded.


But 'no one noticed', Tipsy? You've been played again, rube.

You know what the most important thing of all? This suit against FB & Twitter has been filed in Florida but...

Facebook's terms of service requires that "any claim, cause of action, or dispute you have against us" be filed in federal court in northern California or San Mateo County state court.

Twitter's terms of service - which courts generally enforce - require that "all disputes related to these Terms or the Services will be brought solely in the federal or state courts located in San Francisco County."

So, either the trumpy lawyers are incompetent (no surprises there) or the whole case is frivolous and has been filed just to grift money from his mouth-breathing idiotic ever-gullible trumptards. Knowing full well that it will be dismissed.

This case does not involve terms of service.

If it involves a lawsuit, it involves the Terms of Service. As Trump already agreed to "any claim, cause of action, or dispute you have against" FB has to be filed in northern California courts.

Its yet another example of this not being a serious legal effort. And instead being theater for dipshits and yet another money con.

You will just have to live and learn.

Or....I can actually read the first word in the 1st amendment to glean why Trump's lawsuit is pseudo-legal nonsense.

Or I could look at any of the other 60+ cases filed on similar grounds and how they all failed.

Again, Tipsy.....its a shit legal argument. There's a reason the Supreme Court has never accepted a single appeal on any of the failed cases.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Odd. I did not get a request for money.

When the judge certifies the class he or she will also set the amount of the fund. This isn't the only such case.

And you can help our legal case and own the libs by sending us some money!

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

Its the Nigerian Prince scam all over again. Only dumber.

Trump doesn't need any money for this.

Oh, he's not paying. He's getting paid. All you rubes are going to send in 'donations' to his 'class action litigation'. And a small fraction will go to pay the 'experienced litigators' saying whatever Trump tells them to say. The rest will go in his pocket.

Dipshits are gonna dip, Tipsy. At this point, its hard to feel sympathy for you poor suckers getting fleeced yet again by the same con man.

No one sends in donations. This is a class action lawsuit. The judge will set the amount to go in the pool and the defendants will fund it. Fees and costs will be paid out of that fund. Trump doesn't even need to kick in a dime.

So the lawyers are working for free? Of course not. They're getting paid.

And this silly piece of meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish is just a fundraising operation to part more money from you poor, guillable souls.

You're being played. Again.

The lawyers will be paid out of the legal fund the judge will order.

This is a fascinating case to discuss. If only there was someone who really understood the issues.

Trump announced the 'class action lawsuits' at 12:01. At 12:03.....the pleas for donations started.

View attachment 510187

Trump announces lawsuits against Facebook and Twitter, immediately starts fundraising off it

Within minutes of his announcement, Trump began fundraising off of his lawsuits against Facebook and Twitter, promising a 5x matching donation.

www.businessinsider.com

This is just another grift to part gulliable dipshits from yet more of their money. The first word of the 1st amendment puts Trump's entire pseudo-legal argument to bed.

And no one noticed that but you. All those legal minds, two lawsuits and you are the only one to figure it out.

Laughing....everyone noticed but you. You still refuse to even read the 1st amendment....as it obliterates Trump's entire legal argument in its first word. Among actual legal experts....this is yet another laughing stock piece of pseudo-legal nonsense.

Legal scholars suggest former president’s complaint may bring the attention he craves but doesn’t present a serious legal argument

“Trump has the first amendment argument exactly wrong,” said Paul Barrett, the deputy director of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. “The first amendment applies to government censorship or speech regulation. It does not stop private sector corporations from regulating content on their platforms.”....

.....Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University in California, has studied more than 60 similar, failed lawsuits over the past few decades that sought to take on internet companies for terminating or suspending users’ accounts. He says Trump’s lawsuits are unlikely to go far.

“They’ve argued everything under the sun, including first amendment, and they get nowhere,” Goldman said. “Maybe he’s got a trick up his sleeve that will give him a leg up on the dozens of lawsuits before him. I doubt it.”

......

Trump plunges GOP’s anti-tech crusade deeper into the courts

"This lawsuit is a stunt," one legal expert said. It's also the latest in a growing Republican trend of asking judges to rein in Silicon Valley's policing of online speech.

www.politico.com

“This lawsuit is a stunt, and it's unlikely to find traction in the courts,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University — adding that Trump’s legal claims are “not at all persuasive” and run afoul of his own record as president.

......

“Trump and his lawyers need to read the first line of the First Amendment,” Barbara McQuade, a professor from practice at the University of Michigan law school, tweeted. “His lawsuit complaining of censorship against private social media companies and their leaders is going nowhere.”
......

Trump Battles Facebook, Twitter Without Aid of Free Speech Pros

Former President Donald Trump’s free speech fight with Twitter, Facebook, and Google rests on a pair of trial lawyers best known for their work in major personal injury cases—not First Amendment disputes.

news.bloomberglaw.com

“Public relations seems a greater motivation than actual legal analysis,” Martha Minow, a Harvard Law professor who is among several constitutional law scholars that have questioned the argument, told Bloomberg Law.

.......

Constitutional law scholar Erwin Chemerinsky called the suits “frivolous.”

“Facebook, Google, and Twitter are private entities and the First Amendment does not apply to them,” Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, told Bloomberg Law. “This is not an open question.”

.......

“I think the lawsuit has almost no chance of success,” Vanderbilt University law professor Brian Fitzpatrick told CNBC, given that the companies are privately controlled and are not beholden to the same speech laws that public platforms are. “I think this is just a public relations lawsuit, and I’ll be honest with you, I wouldn’t be surprised if it ends with sanctions against the lawyers for filing a frivolous lawsuit,” Fitzpatrick concluded.


But 'no one noticed', Tipsy? You've been played again, rube.

You know what the most important thing of all? This suit against FB & Twitter has been filed in Florida but...

Facebook's terms of service requires that "any claim, cause of action, or dispute you have against us" be filed in federal court in northern California or San Mateo County state court.

Twitter's terms of service - which courts generally enforce - require that "all disputes related to these Terms or the Services will be brought solely in the federal or state courts located in San Francisco County."

So, either the trumpy lawyers are incompetent (no surprises there) or the whole case is frivolous and has been filed just to grift money from his mouth-breathing idiotic ever-gullible trumptards. Knowing full well that it will be dismissed.

This case does not involve terms of service.

If it involves a lawsuit, it involves the Terms of Service. As Trump already agreed to "any claim, cause of action, or dispute you have against" FB has to be filed in northern California courts.

Its yet another example of this not being a serious legal effort. And instead being theater for dipshits and yet another money con.

You will just have to live and learn.

Or....I can actually read the first word in the 1st amendment to glean why Trump's lawsuit is pseudo-legal nonsense.

Or I could look at any of the other 60+ cases filed on similar grounds and how they all failed.

Again, Tipsy.....its a shit legal argument. There's a reason the Supreme Court has never accepted a single appeal on any of the failed cases.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. You can't recognize the issues so you can't discuss the case. At all.