Posted on 09/24/2021 11:48:27 AM PDT by RandFan
Former President Trump in a late Thursday court filing expressed opposition to YouTube’s motion to move the case regarding the former president’s removal from the platform from Florida to California.
The filing, submitted on behalf of Trump and others opposing the decision by YouTube to suspend him from the platform in the wake of the Jan. 6 capitol riot, argued that YouTube’s Terms of Service, including its clause on appropriate forums to resolve disputes, “do not apply to government entities,” including Trump himself.
Trump’s team argued that the case should remain in the Southern District of Florida, and not be relocated to the Northern District of California, asserting that the “federal government recognizes that federal entities using social media platforms do not have the authority to bind themselves to the standard choice of forum, choice of law, or choice of venue terms that the major social media platforms have in their terms of service.”
The filing went on to say that there was “a strong public interest in keeping the claims” within the jurisdiction of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
The filing came a day after Trump gave similar arguments in another filing opposing Twitter’s motion to have the former president’s lawsuit against the platform moved from Florida to California.
Trump filed a class-action lawsuit against YouTube’s parent company, Google, as well as Twitter and Facebook, in July, arguing that their decisions to ban and suspend him after the mob attack at the Capitol amounted to unconstitutional censorship.
John Coale, the lead counsel for Trump and the additional plaintiffs, told The Hill this week following his filing in the Twitter case that Trump could not be bound by the social media platforms’ terms of agreement, since he was serving as the president and was not a private citizen at the time of the suspensions.
YouTube and Alphabet, Inc., CEO Sundar Pichai had argued in its change of venue motion last week that Trump agreed to YouTube’s Terms of Service by creating an account on the platform, which “includes an express forum-selection clause requiring litigation in California.”
“Here, as in ‘all but the most unusual cases,’ 'the interest of justice’ is served by holding parties to their bargain,” the company added.
The Hill has reached out to Google for comment on Trump’s Thursday filing.
Both Republicans and Democrats have argued that Trump’s actions on Twitter, which the former president’s legal team identified in court filings as “a key channel for official communication,” helped to incite the deadly violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6 as his supporters attempted to stop Congress from certifying President Biden’s 2020 election win.
Trump was impeached by the House over his role in the riot, making him the only president in U.S. history to be impeached twice. He was, however, acquitted by the GOP-controlled Senate in both cases.
When Trump gets re-elected, if he doesn’t remove the section 230 exemption for these internet platforms, I’ll be done with him.
[When Trump gets re-elected, if he doesn’t remove the section 230 exemption for these internet platforms, I’ll be done with him.]
He should have done that from the get go...
He isn’t King.
The Northern District of California regularly overrules the US Supreme Court...
The Congress is the only entity that can do a thing about that.
That's like Jim Rob saying, “If Kevmo doesn't give me the winning ticket to the Powerball, I'm done with him.” It is completely capricious. Like you.
LOL!
I posted #5 after I read the headline, and before I read the article.
Going for the Northern District of California!! LOLOL!
If the case is to have a jury trial, it would behoove the plaintiff to say that getting an unbiased jury in California would be difficult to impossible.
The 9th Circuit is now only slightly liberal.
Trump had appointed so many Judges to the Circuit that he almost neutralized the Court
Idiotic? Kiss off. Both Biden AND Trump have put section 230 in their sights. By your standards, everyone who disagrees with you is “idiotic”.
Trump has broadly backed Republican efforts to change the law in Congress. Following Joe Biden’s election, he’s gone further and pushed for complete Section 230 abolition — threatening to veto the National Defense Authorization Act unless it includes a repeal of the law and packaging it into the ongoing push for $2000 direct stimulus payments.
HOW MIGHT JOE BIDEN CHANGE SECTION 230?
President-elect Joe Biden is less vocal than Trump about Section 230. But he’s also not a fan of the law. In January 2020, Biden proposed revoking Section 230 completely.
Agreed.
He should also have yanked the FCC licenses of the 3 biggest networks since they are no longer unbiased, and that was the original agreement when they were granted guvmint monopoly over their frequencies.
That’s like
***You haven’t got a clue how to set up a good analogy. One could say you’re... idiotic.
Never mind. They're on a roll.
All it takes is the political will to do it. He DOES have that will, and courage is contagious, infecting all those spineless republicans Trump is surrounded by.
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.