Trump sues Twitter, Facebook and YouTube for "violating the First Amendment"

I’m surprised there isn’t a thread about this already.

This morning, Trump filed frivolous lawsuits against Twitter, Facebook and YouTube for banning him.

Like all of the other lawsuits against social media for banning people, these will no doubt be immediately dismissed.

Donate now and join the team for this historic lawsuit!


He will win, Big mistake for sitting members of congress to urge action against him by those companies.



No, he won’t.

1 Like

As things currently stand, this should be laughed out of court.

Which is NOT to say that I don’t think there is a problem with the socials, but the remedy needs to come from the legislature.

Yes, he will.


Censorship by proxy.


No, he won’t. It doesn’t matter what members of Congress have said.

Members of Congress expressing their own freedom of speech does not magically transform Twitter into a state actor.


Ok counselor, we shall see, might want to read that last link of mine…

1 Like


Actually, I think you might want to read it. It doesn’t say what you apparently think it does.

1 Like

Trump filed frivolous lawsuits against Twitter, Facebook and YouTube for banning him.



They aren’t frivolous as it was done at the behest of government officials.


B. Doctrinal Responses to Indirect Sanctions
In reaction to the excesses of the McCarthy era–-as well as the ef- forts by massive resistance in the South to deploy similar indirect sanc- tions against civil rights organizations—the Supreme Court during the late 1950s and early 1960s evolved a series of doctrinal structures to safeguard against the pathologies created by indirect sanctions.99 An awareness of the reluctance of most individuals to risk social sanctions and ostracism in order to challenge censorial interventions during the McCarthy era underpinned both a recognition by the Court of the importance of intermediate associations that might buffer individuals, and a willingness of the Court to accept third party challenges brought by associations or individuals whose situations rendered them more robust. More broadly, the Court rejected the proposition that the First Amendment constrained only official efforts to criminally punish protected speech and association. Against the backdrop of the indirect sanctions of the McCarthy era, the Court recognized the po- tentially drastic effects of indirect gambits directed to vulnerable pres- sure points, and declared that First Amendment freedoms “are pro- tected not only against heavy-handed frontal attack, but also from being stifled by more subtle governmental interference.”100

Glad I could help.

The federal government created the internet. The government has allowed and encouraged oligarchs to create monopolies under the control of the intelligence agencies in alliance with one political party.

As Glenn Greenwald said:
I’m against censorship in all cases. But if you have a government that’s censoring and is democratically accountable you can vote those people out of office and influence what they’re doing. Tech corporations have no democratic accountability at all, they can do whatever they want. Because they are monopolistic entities they are starting to control and police our public discourse. The other aspect I think is very alarming is it’s oftentimes not even these corporations like Facebook and Twitter and Google that are doing it, they’re doing it at the behest of governments. They there are now Democratic Party hearings all the time demanding they censor more. Other governments around the world insisting that dissidence in their country be silenced. It’s really like a union between state and corporate power trying to police and control the Internet which was supposed to be this innovation that liberated us all from centralized control

Or to put it more clearly, same paper

By the beginning of the 1960s, the Supreme Court could unani- mously avow that freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and association were protected against both “heavy-handed frontal attack” and “subtle interference” designed to mobilize private sanctions.107

Democrats weren’t even close to subtle about it.

Oh how ironic it would be if Trump soaks them for millions, doubt he will get anything close to trillions. I can see a few hundred million happening though.

I don’t think you’re completely understanding the arguments made in that paper.

But it’s beside the point, anyway. Law Review articles don’t hold much weight in court - and the legal precedent is pretty clear.

There’s a reason the only lawyers Trump could find to file these suits for him are personal injury lawyers with AOL email addresses.


I see Trump can trigger theleft anytime he wants. Rent free…

Real liberals like our founders liked free speech. Seems toadys not real “liberal” socialists don’t like it…

I like Poland’s solution. That people can sue for violating their constitutional free speech. It’s like the opposite of section 230.

1 Like

Does the prohibition against free speech limitation apply to government entities or private businesses?

#1 If government entities - then Trump** will get laughed out of court.

#2 If Trump** wins, not going to happen, just spit ball’n here - does that mean all the libs that have been banned from this site get their account re-instated and they can say whatever they want here?

Think carefully about that for which you ask.


1 Like