Trump sues tech firms for blocking him, and fund-raises off it.

The New York Times ^ | July 7, 2021 | Shane Goldmacher

[definitelynotaliberal]

Former President Donald J. Trump on Wednesday sued three tech giants — Facebook, Twitter and Google — and the firms’ chief executives after the platforms took various steps to ban him or block him from posting.

Mr. Trump, speaking from his Bedminster, N.J., golf club, announced that he would serve as the lead plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit, arguing that he has been censored wrongfully by the tech companies. Speaking about “freedom of speech” and the First Amendment — which applies to the government, not to private-sector companies — Mr. Trump called his lawsuit, which was filed on Wednesday in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, a “very beautiful development.”

His political operation immediately began fund-raising off it.

At the event and in court documents, Mr. Trump’s legal team argued that the tech firms amounted to state actors and thus the First Amendment applied to them.

Legal experts said similar arguments had repeatedly failed in the courts before.

“Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t work for the government, Jack Dorsey doesn’t work for the government,” Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University School of Law and a co-director of the High Tech Law Institute, said of the Facebook and Twitter chief executives. “The idea that somehow, magically, we can treat them as an extension of the government is illogical.”

[definitelynotaliberal]

I checked, but nothing came up. My apologies if this has been posted already.

[SamAdams76]

I would hate to think there is more than one Freeper posting articles from the discredited NYT here.

[LIConFem]

Good. Trump is a fighter, and a smart one at that. And I don’t think the Slimes has ever compaimed about the Marxist Party’s fundraising.

[Steven Tyler]

Heh, President Trump sues Fake News for robbing everyone of their first amendment rights, and Fake News responds by making up stuff about the lawsuit.

Yes, the gubmint cannot censor and cannot block first amendment rights.
Yes, the gubmint cannot delegate to fake news and the social medias that which gubmint cannot do.

Every time fake news spikes stories or socials cancel someone, is another layer in this class action lawsuit

Durham was investigating gubmint leaks to the media and socials.
Russia, Russia, Russia.
Just how much evidence does Durham have that can be used by this class action lawsuit to bankrupt the global and local deep state?

Enjoy the show!

[Brian Griffin]

The Internet is a US government creation.

[Adder]

Waiting for the dismissal because he has no standing in 3...2..1...

[Brian Griffin]

"A version of the CDA had passed through the Senate pushed by Senator J. James Exon (D-NE). A grassroots effort in the tech industry reacted to try to convince the House of Representatives to challenge Exon's bill. Based on the Stratton Oakmont decision, Congress recognized that requiring service providers to block indecent content would make them be treated as publishers in the context of the First Amendment and thus become liable for other illegal content such as libel, not set out in the existing CDA. Cox and fellow Representative Ron Wyden (D-OR) wrote the House bill's section 509, titled the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act, designed to override the decision from Stratton Oakmont, so that service providers could moderate content as necessary and did not have to act as a wholly neutral conduit. The new Act was added the section while the CDA was in conference within the House."

"The overall Telecommunications Act, with both Exon's CDA and Cox/Wyden's provision, passed both Houses by near-unanimous votes and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton by February 1996. Cox/Wyden's section became Section 509 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and became law as a new Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

[Brian Griffin]

https://www.ionos.com/digitalguide/online-marketing/social-media/the-best-facebook-alternatives/

[MayflowerMadam]

“The idea that somehow, magically, we can treat them as an extension of the government is illogical.”

Except there are emails between tech hotshots and Democrat politicians proving that they ARE extensions of the government.

[Brian Griffin]

https://www.starterstory.com/tools/twitter/alternatives

https://www.lifewire.com/best-twitter-alternatives-5114545

[Brian Griffin]

https://respectinvestment.com/news/square-jack-dorseys-pay-service-is-withholding-money-merchants-say-they-need/

[gr8eman]

First Amendment — which applies to the government, not to private-sector companies

There ya go! They say so!

[LIConFem]

Bingo.

[MtnClimber]

[zeestephen]

So, the Tech Trio are allowed to profit from public Web platforms that openly discriminate against politically Conservative speech?

However, it is against the law if those same platforms discriminate on the basis of race or sexual orientation?

Yeah - that definitely sounds like the USA judicial system.

By the way - I briefly saw Trump's social media lawyer on Laura Ingraham.

He is elderly and low energy.

[duckman]

What is the name of the law suit web site? Linky please.

[1Old Pro]

His political operation immediately began fund-raising off it.

Good, he needs as much $$$ as possible to elect real conservatives in 2022 and to fight the Big 3 with deep pockets and thousands of lawyers.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

“Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t work for the government, Jack Dorsey doesn’t work for the government,” Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University School of Law and a co-director of the High Tech Law Institute, said of the Facebook and Twitter chief executives. “The idea that somehow, magically, we can treat them as an extension of the government is illogical.”

Helloooooooo, Section 230, anyone? They can't ban ordinary speech they don't agree with under Section 230.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I'll see your Zuckerberg and raise you one Jack.

[patriotspride]

Waiting for the dismissal because he has no standing in 3...2..1...

—————

So true. The Robert’s special response . Pols on both sides will not touch them as they more than likely have benefited from political contributions

Will be interesting to see how Trump weaves in Zuckerbergs contributions to state elections as he tries to seperate himself from FB and claim he is an individual in that effort and not a corporate entity/ representative