(READ) Trump sues Big Tech over censorship

Former President Donald Trump has filed lawsuits against Big Tech companies Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube (owned by Google), and their owners, over alleged illegal and unconstitutional censorship.

A non-profit organization filed three separate class action lawsuits on behalf of President Trump and all social media users who have had their accounts censored.

Trump critics accused him of inciting riots and he was banned from social media sites following the events of January 6th at the Capitol. Trump had given a speech urging followers to make their views known to members of Congress “peacefully and patriotically.”

Trump alleges that the social media giants use non-existent, broad, vague, and ever-shifting standards to justify politically motivated content-based censorship.

Some experts say that the First Amendment right to free speech only applies to activities regulated by the government and does not apply to those regulated by private companies, like Facebook, Google and Twitter.

Others say that social media sites are essentially the modern-day “public square” and should not be permitted to censor in a blatantly one-sided manner based on the content of the speech.

[The companies have] unprecedented power over the content of public discourse to censor constitutionally protected speech with impunity, resulting in a grave threat to the freedom of expression and to democracy itself;

Trump v. Twitter complaint

Trump is asking that the Big Tech companies be ordered to pay money to class members in sums sufficient to deter them from illegally censoring, and immediately reinstate Trump’s (and other class members’) social media accounts.

Click here to read the complaint against Twitter and CEO Jack Dorsey.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

17 thoughts on “(READ) Trump sues Big Tech over censorship”

  1. Don’t anyone read the Terms of Service Agreement when they sign up for any of these social media platforms? It’s there in black and white as what SM companies can do if violate their TOS. I was suspended once for saying something I thought was totally innocent. However, once I thought about it, I realized I could have worded it better. Now I do.
    Twitter, Facebook, and all the other social media companies are just that, private companies. They can and should set their own rules. Just like I can’t call my boss at work a MFer if I don’t like something he said or does without consequences, social media companies should be able to do the same. First amendment protects us from the government censoring our speech. If you take away the rights of private businesses to monitor and allow what they seem appropriate, you’re opening up a whole new can of worms. Instead, allow the free market of new social media platforms to compete with the established ones. Let those who want a no hold bar speech go to the ones that have a no hold bar platform, like Parler, Gab, Rumble, etc. I for one am very happy that there is less hate speech and conspiracy theories on Twitter, Facebook, and other established platforms!

    1. Unfortunately, this isn’t that simple. Social media sites have special rules under the law because they are considered platforms and not publishers. Once a platform starts to curate user posts because for arbitrary reasons they start to fall into the role of a publisher. Which is what this and other lawsuits are about.

      This is not similar to cases like a cake baker business having the right to refuse what wording they put on a cake.

      The terms of service do not give platforms the right to censor information that they disagree with or don’t want on their platform (with exceptions to illegal or explicit posts). The terms of service does not give a platform the right to be the thought police or political promoters or to stop speech that opposes government actions.

      Additionally, “content producers” have business agreements with the social media sites (different than what average users of the platform have with the terms of service). These agreements are being violated because nothing in the agreement gives the social media sites the ability to arbitrarily censor or kick them off the platform. Social media sites are violating the business agreements with content producers.

      1. Exactly. Furthermore, these sites are protected by the government from lawsuits. That puts it into a more public square than ever. Lawsuits are exactly what is needed. Hope it works

        1. No. Timms does not know what he’s talking about.

          The First Amendment only applies to GOVERNMENT action. Contrary to Timms’ argument, whether you are a publisher or not has ZERO to do with the applicability of the First Amendment. Even if these social media companies were considered to be publishers, they still have the right to not publish material they disagree with because they are PRIVATE companies. The First Amendment applies to limit GOVERNMENT.

          Timms is certainly wrong that the Terms of Service does not give the social media platforms the right to censor information they disagree with. I guarantee you that contained within the lengthy TOS is language that the social media companies have the absolute right to decide what is allowed on their platforms and kick off people they don’t want. But even if such provisions was not included in the TOS, they would have that right because, once again, the First Amendment only applies to government.

          Timms obviously doesn’t have a legal background. A first year law student knows that the First Amendment only applies to limit government action.

          1. You’ve spoken down to Mr Timms, a degreed computer scientist, just like weak attorneys do of people who don’t share the attorney’s opinion.

            Before coming down on Mr Timms, perhaps you should have taken a moment to learn what most CDA attorneys contend with everyday: US and state trial and appellate judges, of varying political views, regulalrly reach varying conclusions about the scope of the CDA and a platform’s responsibilities thereunder.

            I found this article, and the underlying decision, to be well-written and relevant to the issues discussed here. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/second-circuit-vacates-cda-decision-and-6385987/

    2. My two cents. Why should people think big tech are neutral platforms when the the reality of totalitarian governance in the 20th Century and the surveillance networks that have emerged in the first two decades of the 21st suggest otherwise. I think it important to distinguish the brand advertising of government(or business) from actual governance (i.e. domestic/foreign policy, finance, law, .regulations, etc. Reading history for 60+years does not make one an optimist.

    3. You say the TOS state what the company can do IF YOU VIOLATE their TOS. What Trump, and MANY others are saying, is that they have been censored when they did NOT violate the TOS.

      The company interprets their OWN TOS with two standards, “Look the other way” for those they do like; “DEPLATFORM for no reason” for those they do NOT like.

    4. Kaly is that you in the Online Propaganda Department? I thought they transferred you to Wikipedia Entry Editing? They told you not to use the “conspiracy theories” and “hate speech” line and you keep doing it – and on Sharyl Atkisson’s website of all places!. Might as well just say you think China sweatshops are great as well!

      And you know by now that people named Elizabeth were born in the 60s or earlier, making your use of the term MFer seem all the more out of place and contrary to someone who is, clearly over 50, and so easily offended by hate speech.. Do your homework Kaly and leave the pro-censorship, big-tech propaganda to people with some actual skills. Now hava great weekend and get back to rewriting those Wikipedia entries – you can’t mess that up!

    5. They aren’t a “private company” any more than a mall is. And the Supreme Court ruled that a mall cannot shut on people who are handing out literature they they find offensive because they had essentially become an extension of the “public to square” When those three or four companies are basically the only way to reach Americans through social media. Then you have the coordination of this TechOpoly to cut off the lifeblood to their biggest rival, Parler, in order to shut down conservative voices. Now you have emails coming out through foi requests where democrats were emailing the people in those social media giants instructing them to shut down certain people and their affiliated channels. Trumps lawsuit is poorly constructed and will likely fail because once again he’s put his faith in inept or currupt lawyers who ignored Supreme Court Justice Thomas’ road map he laid out in one of his dissenting opinions for conservatives to follow to bring lawsuits that won’t be dismissed. His premise is solid. His legal teams are not.

  2. Marc Maximilien Authier

    Too little and too late. Trump is either bough off clown or the most naive politician in american history. He had 4 years to take action against these CCP pro Chinese tyranny social credit US high tech fascist thugs like Mark Zuckerburg and Co. Where was he and his bunch to protect the 2nd amendment during his mandate ? The GOP is filled with China US high tech puppets.

    1. Marc Maximilien Authier

      I meant the 1st amendment. But the 2nd amendment was also not really protected either. All US Congress for that matter violates the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. No US politician, Trump included not just the other gang, can be trusted. The courts are no protection either, specially the US Supreme Court.

  3. I would like to learn more about how these big tech companies have censored
    I’ve read multiple articles citing emails from FOIA requests that show politicians asking big tech to censor certain topics (like COVID or ELECTION FRAUD), and social media reps responding that they would take care of it. And then seeing it happen.

    If a private company censors an American on behalf of the government, isn’t that the same as if the government did it? And wouldn’t that DEFINITELY be a 1st amendment violation? Regardless of the debate of “private companies can do as they please” vs. “Social media is the modern day public square?”

    I would also

  4. Today twenty years after a personal discovery about my hometown and researching a forgotten history of this hometown something collided in my mind that brings us up to present time. In 1921 The Tulsa Riots occurred. While home caring for my mother in Tulsa early 2000’s I discovered a book about a subject I had never been taught in school. In fact, my hometown high school was already integrated at the time of Civil Rights movement and I felt proud of everyone just functioning normally. My discovery of this hidden history of Tulsa led me on quite a journey. All the way from neighborhood to clients to actual people who lived through some aspect of the Tulsa Riots. I use the term riots but it was a greedy assault and jealousy of successful businessmen.
    Up to present time with media platforms and their suppression of the truth. When I searched for a topic my son could write about for an assignment I started going through micro fish at the local library. Stunned at the articles written by Tulsa Tribune I sent this information and pictures to him to write about as I was in Ok and he wasn’t. Incitement was the language of that day. Fast forward to present time, the Tulsa Tribune had the privilege to write what they wanted to in that era. No censorship. Bias yes, but thinking humans should be able to discern right from wrong. The Tribune is no longer a news company. The one paper in Tulsa, the World is owned by Warren Buffet present time.
    The Tulsa library eliminated The Tribune articles upon my returning to do additional research. Censorship.
    So Tulsa successfully for years suppressed the subject of The Tulsa Riots.
    So eighty years down the road will someone in the NSA or way back machine find the details of when America allowed a foreign nation to control its elections, paid schools to teach the cultural ideas and morals of that foreign country? Then that person reading in shock what was suppressed and not taught realize the villainy of media and its hand in destruction of a prosperous country, just like in Tulsa in 1921?

  5. Law school teaches us to think 360 degrees…let that sink in…so making arguments counter to”common sense” actually may eliminate “common sense”…ok, let’s cut thru this nonsense. Rule 230 has allowed these big tech co’s to operate as they see fit…remember they make bank on our data…their openness becomes focused on their like kind..not open to all..aka censorship. They have created “social media”..this term did not exist before their time. They lobbied for and received section 230 protection..immune for liability…let that sink in. For us who remember and practiced “common sense” its apparent these big tech folks have evolved to platforms large enough, well funded enough that, they no longer need section 230 protection…they have a bias..they are publishers….well that sent sentence is true if you reintroduce “common sense” …enough said.

Scroll to Top