Posted on 06/19/2021 1:46:03 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Twitter and the Democrat-run government of California are facing a lawsuit alleging that they colluded to suppress the First Amendment rights of Rogan O’Handley, a popular pro-Trump activist who was banned from the platform earlier this year. The complaint includes emails showing California officials directing Twitter to remove political commentary about the 2020 election from its platform.
Twitter banned O’Handley, also known by his online moniker “DC Draino,” after he tweeted the statement “most votes in history.” He had over 440,000 followers on the platform prior to his ban, which was permanent.
According to O’Handley’s lawsuit, brought by Harmeet Dhillon’s legal nonprofit, the Center for American Liberty, Twitter made its decision at the direction of California’s Office of Elections Cybersecurity, a bureau which was set up in 2018 to “educate voters” with “valid information” on elections.
Via the Center for American Liberty:
In 2018, the state government of California created the Office of Elections Cybersecurity to “educate voters” with “valid information” on election laws and procedures. And as any sensible person could predict, this office quickly devolved into a political weapon for censorship by the far-left Secretary of State’s Office, more resembling a Harry Potter like “Ministry of Approved Election Information” than a constitutionally governed state agency.
Leading up to the 2020 election and in the months following it, Twitter, at the direction government employees at the California Office of Elections Cybersecurity, discriminately removed tweets posted by conservative social media influencers criticizing Joe Biden and questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 election. Their objective was simple—censor their political opponents.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Face Book
and all of their executives should be up on charges for illegal in kind campaign contributions in excess of Federal limits.
Case law is unequivocal. The government cannot use private actors to censor others. This should be a slam dunk in a normal courtroom, the key is finding someone from the judiciary who is not scared, blackmailed, bribed or just plain partisan.
bookmark
This is the same thing that happened to Dr. Shiva vs. Massachusetts. Not sure what the latest is on his lawsuit. Last I saw when he was on Bannon two months ago, he said the Judge let the lawsuit go forward.
Slam dunk 1A case. Government censorship, via 3rd party, is still government censorship.
Isn’t this why we Have Civil Rights Laws that when Intentionally violated becomes a CRIMINAL ACT and Federal Prosecution could result in Many Many Years in Federal Prison for Intentionally Violating the Civil Rights of another??
Surprise! democrats in government hate you.
Bet it wasn’t just California...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.