Trump to sue Facebook, Twitter, Google over alleged censorship

[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.

This case does not involve terms of service.

Do you know what terms of service mean?

 

[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.

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.

I'm not quoting me. I'm quoting the legal experts and judges that have laughed this pseudo-legal gibberish out of court.



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.


Tipsy, there have been 60+ cases on the same grounds. Every single one of them has failed. The last, less than 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."


Its a shit legal argument. It fails on the 1st amendment. It fails on Terms of Service. It fails on Section 230. And every single case that used these arguments has failed. Without exception.

 

[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.

Do you know what terms of service mean?

She still refuses to read the 1st amendment. So 'terms of service' might be a bit of an ask.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Don't rely on Politico so much.

 

[Skylar]

Don't rely on Politico so much.

In comparison to what....your imagination?

I'm quoting actual legal experts and actual judges. You're quoting Trump's lawyers who are being paid to say whatever he tells them.

Our sources are not equal. 60 of 60 times Trump's legal arguments have failed. Every single time they've been presented in court, they've failed.

You've been played again, Tipsy.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Don't rely on Politico so much.

In comparison to what....your imagination?

I'm quoting actual legal experts and actual judges. You're quoting Trump's lawyers who are being paid to say whatever he tells them.

Our sources are not equal. 60 of 60 times Trump's legal arguments have failed. Every single time they've been presented in court, they've failed.

You've been played again, Tipsy.

You're quoting Politico.

 

[Skylar]

Don't rely on Politico so much.

In comparison to what....your imagination?

I'm quoting actual legal experts and actual judges. You're quoting Trump's lawyers who are being paid to say whatever he tells them.

Our sources are not equal. 60 of 60 times Trump's legal arguments have failed. Every single time they've been presented in court, they've failed.

You've been played again, Tipsy.

You're quoting Politico.

I'm quoting legal experts and judges.

Constitutional law scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, Judge Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Vanderbilt University law professor Brian Fitzpatrick, Barbara McQuade, a professor from practice at the University of Michigan, Martha Minow, a Harvard Law professor, Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University in California, Paul Barrett, the deputy director of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights.

And you ignore them all, along with the 1st amendment, contract law, Section 230 protections, and every of the 60+ cases on similar grounds that have been laughed out of court. The last one less than 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."


And you ignored that too. Closing your eyes won't change a thing about Trump's shit legal argument.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The only claims Trump may have against these clearly Democrat-controlled organizations is breach of contract and deceptive trade.

I am not certain either will pan out, but at least he is taking action.

 

[Skylar]

The only claims Trump may have against these clearly Democrat-controlled organizations is breach of contract and deceptive trade.

I am not certain either will pan out, but at least he is taking action.

Nope. The Terms of Service grant broad powers to FB and other tech companies to curate their own content.

Trump didn't even manage to accurately submit his lawsuit in the court he's agreed to use in the TOS.

Its a shit legal argument that has little to no chance in court....and exists solely as a fundraising effort to separate more rubes from even more of their money.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I have been trying to find ONE person who is not a paid Trump shill to say this lawsuit has a nonzero chance of succeeding.


I can't find a single one.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The only claims Trump may have against these clearly Democrat-controlled organizations is breach of contract and deceptive trade.

I am not certain either will pan out, but at least he is taking action.

So he has no grounds or good argument... But at least he is "taking action".

That is called "a tantrum". That is his action. A bit of theater to separate more of his cultists from their money.

 

[WEATHER53]

Not disclosing that you will vanquish comments favorable to Trump or negative to Biden is of course wrong and illegal. You cant invite people in and then implement a one way only form of communication.

 

[colfax_m]

The only claims Trump may have against these clearly Democrat-controlled organizations is breach of contract and deceptive trade.

He’s not claiming that.

 

[colfax_m]

Not disclosing that you will vanquish comments favorable to Trump or negative to Biden is of course wrong and illegal. You cant invite people in and then implement a one way only form of communication.

Why not?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not disclosing that you will vanquish comments favorable to Trump or negative to Biden is of course wrong and illegal.

Neato! But since that didn't happen, nor does the mentally ill orange slob's team of grifters have a shred of evidence of that, we can file your post in the useless bin.

 

[Rambunctious]

 

[surada]

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.

I'm not quoting me. I'm quoting the legal experts and judges that have laughed this pseudo-legal gibberish out of court.



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.


Tipsy, there have been 60+ cases on the same grounds. Every single one of them has failed. The last, less than 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."


Its a shit legal argument. It fails on the 1st amendment. It fails on Terms of Service. It fails on Section 230. And every single case that used these arguments has failed. Without exception.

The lawsuit is a stunt and Trump expects his silly cows to pay for it.

Donald Trump Jr. was mocked for trying to crowdfund legal fees for his dad to sue Facebook, Twitter, and Google

Donald Trump Jr. asked his followers on Telegram to donate to his father's PAC. Some people mocked the request considering his family's wealth.

www.yahoo.com

 

[EvilCat Breath]

A school teacher joined. He got kicked off for questioning whether children have to wear masks.

Fenton 1st-grade teacher joins Trump's lawsuit against Facebook, Zuckerberg

Jenn Horton, a teacher in Fenton, appeared in New Jersey with the former president as part of his class action lawsuit alleging censorship.

www.freep.com

There will be thousands of people joining this lawsuit. Even private businesses cannot act on the government's behalf doing for the government what the government is prohibited from doing.

 

[surada]

Rudy Giuliani’s Legal Fund Was a Bust. Now, Its Donation Page Has Disappeared.

The Fundly account raised $9,798 before the page disappeared—far short from its goal of raising $5 million in two months.

www.thedailybeast.com

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A school teacher joined. He got kicked off for questioning whether children have to wear masks.

I would bet that is not what he got kicked off for, and that he is being a lying weasel.