Words of Advice:

"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

"Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground
Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It." -- Unknown

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level
and then beat you with experience.” -- Mark Twain

"Colt .45s; putting bad guys underground since 1873." -- Unknown

"Stay Strapped or Get Clapped." -- probably not Mr. Rogers

"Let’s eat all of these people!” — Venom

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Thursday, July 8, 2021

The Tubbo of Mar-a-Largo's Legal Strategery

[Electorially trounced] former President Donald Trump is suing Facebook, Twitter and Google's YouTube over their suspensions of his accounts after a mob of his supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol in January. Trump filed class action complaints in federal court in Florida, alleging the tech giants are censoring him and other conservatives — a long-running complaint on the right for which there is little evidence and that the companies deny. ... In Tuesday's lawsuits, the former president accuses the companies of violating his First Amendment rights and of behaving like "state actors" rather than private companies in putting restrictions on what people can post.

It's basic First Amendment law that publishers can print/air whatever they choose to. Facebook and Twitter are no different, in they eyes of the law, from Fox News or Newsmax or the New York Times. They are not "state actors".

Were I the judge, I'd read the pleadings, toss out the case, enter an order deeming the Tangerine Menace to ve a vexatious litigant and warn his lawyers that further baseless pleadings will result in sanctions. But I'm not the judge.

The only strategy that makes any sense is that the Rotting Yam is trying to get to the Supreme Court, in the hope that his pet justicies (in his mind) will see things his way.

10 comments:

dinthebeast said...

There are those who hope the lawsuit goes forward and gets Fergus to testify...

-Doug in Sugar Pine

B said...

But are Facebook andor Twitter "publishers"?
I;m asking, not for argument like most folks here, but rather in an honest question.

Comrade Misfit said...

I think the answer is yes and no. No because they can be platforms, hosting content. GoDaddy's probably not legally responsible if someone posts objectionable stuff. But yes, in that they all have terms of service that permit them to remove content that doesn't comply with their TOS.

Think of it like the classified ads. The newspapers have the right not to run objectionable ads, but they generally didn't edit them.

In either event, Trump's argument fails, as the companies are not state actors. For example, you have the right to stand on a street corner and spew QAnon bullshit. You have the right to publish a newspaper devoted to QAnon bullshit. You don't have the right make a newsstand, supermarket or bookstore carry your paper. You don't have the right to make other newspapers print your articles.

I don't see how Trump's argument passes muster.

Comrade Misfit said...

By the way, B, the backhanded slap at the other regulars didn't go unnoticed.

Knock that shit off.

Dark Avenger said...

Some of the commentators are Tellurians? News to me.

dinthebeast said...

Facebook's TOS specifies that if you use their service and bring legal action against them, it has to be in California, state or federal, so I doubt the lawsuit is going to amount to anything other than a fundraising tool for Fergus.

-Doug in Sugar Pine

dan gerene said...

It seems like a lot of people believe in free enterprise and no regulations as long as it doesn't affect them. Could it be that a public restroom wall is also a publisher?

Dark Avenger said...

I love how some folks believe in free enterprise and freedom of speech until it gets in the way of their favorite wannabe tinpot dictator, and then not imitating Russia or China is doubleplus ungood.

B said...

COmrade: Warning noted.
I see it as a provate eneterprise, so they can choose or not....sorta. They are also like broadcasters, so sorta not.
There might ahve been an argument while he was a candidate and a president, but now he's just a private citizen, so under current aw, he can be banned until the laws change.

BTW, why is it that other commenters can say snarky and or insulting shit about me and other less-liberal commenters, and you allow it, but give me warnings?

Dark Avenger said...

BTW, why is it that other commenters can say snarky and or insulting shit about me and other less-liberal commenters, and you allow it, but give me warnings?

Funny, B, I thought you believed in private property. That means CM gets to run her blog as she sees fit. Having been Red Carded in the past for comments directed towards you, I call bullshit.