Trump sues Facebook, Twitter and Google, claiming censorship(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Trump sues Facebook, Twitter and Google, claiming censorship
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-he-is-suing-facebook-twitter-google-claiming-bias-2021-07-07/
12 comments
Very good news, someone also should sue Amazon for Parler. Basically, I don't care about politics in US. I don't live there, but I've been working for US for last 15 years. The freedom of speech matters.
> The freedom of speech matters.
If it matters to you, you should find out what the First Amendment actually says and what it means.
Here is the entire First Amendment:
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Did you notice that it is a restriction on "Congress" and "the Government"? It is not a restriction on private companies banning individuals from their platforms, whether the reasons are ideological or not.
This lawsuit is a marketing tactic for Trump. It will be laughed out of court because it is utterly unconstitutional.
The intended benefit of this lawsuit is to help Trump raise money and to create yet another story to vilify people who dampen his authoritarianism.
If it matters to you, you should find out what the First Amendment actually says and what it means.
Here is the entire First Amendment:
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Did you notice that it is a restriction on "Congress" and "the Government"? It is not a restriction on private companies banning individuals from their platforms, whether the reasons are ideological or not.
This lawsuit is a marketing tactic for Trump. It will be laughed out of court because it is utterly unconstitutional.
The intended benefit of this lawsuit is to help Trump raise money and to create yet another story to vilify people who dampen his authoritarianism.
> It is not a restriction on private companies banning individuals from their platforms, whether the reasons are ideological or not.
So, Rosa Parks should have just started her own bus company too? Discriminating against people based on race was legal after all.
Railroads, telecom, electricity and water companies should be able to refuse service too?
Are you against the FDA, EPA, FCC, FEC, COPPA regulations, regulations of fire insurance rates etc?
How about Net Neutrality? Private businesses should be able to charge whatever they want and for whatever content they want right?
How about the government-forced lockdowns forcing private businesses to shut down and go bankrupt?
And how about the baker who refused to bake cake for the gay couple for religious reasons?
How about the current Administration banning menthol cigarettes, flavoured cigars?
How about government banning incandescent light bulbs?
How about Fauci's emails where he's emailing with Zuckerberg (some of which was also redacted). Fauci is the government and him working together with FB in building their "COVID dashboard" which censored many people, especially those talking about the lab leak theory as well as Ivermectin. Is that not government enforced censorship?
Seems like the "it's a private business" crowd is totally okay with government enforced regulations and lockdowns for their political benefit but when it comes to political speech of their opposition, they suddenly discover the "private" business.
> yet another story to vilify people who dampen his authoritarianism
I love how people who are taking away people's freedom of speech, taking away their guns, taking away state rights, force masks and lockdowns, taking away freedoms from businesses to operate, spying on political candidates using falsified evidence, political persecution, violate castle doctrine, unreasonable prison sentencing & excessive bail call their political opponents "authoritarianism". Sweet irony.
Also based on Justice Clarence Thomas' opinion last month, you are wrong:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27768761
So, Rosa Parks should have just started her own bus company too? Discriminating against people based on race was legal after all.
Railroads, telecom, electricity and water companies should be able to refuse service too?
Are you against the FDA, EPA, FCC, FEC, COPPA regulations, regulations of fire insurance rates etc?
How about Net Neutrality? Private businesses should be able to charge whatever they want and for whatever content they want right?
How about the government-forced lockdowns forcing private businesses to shut down and go bankrupt?
And how about the baker who refused to bake cake for the gay couple for religious reasons?
How about the current Administration banning menthol cigarettes, flavoured cigars?
How about government banning incandescent light bulbs?
How about Fauci's emails where he's emailing with Zuckerberg (some of which was also redacted). Fauci is the government and him working together with FB in building their "COVID dashboard" which censored many people, especially those talking about the lab leak theory as well as Ivermectin. Is that not government enforced censorship?
Seems like the "it's a private business" crowd is totally okay with government enforced regulations and lockdowns for their political benefit but when it comes to political speech of their opposition, they suddenly discover the "private" business.
> yet another story to vilify people who dampen his authoritarianism
I love how people who are taking away people's freedom of speech, taking away their guns, taking away state rights, force masks and lockdowns, taking away freedoms from businesses to operate, spying on political candidates using falsified evidence, political persecution, violate castle doctrine, unreasonable prison sentencing & excessive bail call their political opponents "authoritarianism". Sweet irony.
Also based on Justice Clarence Thomas' opinion last month, you are wrong:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27768761
> So, Rosa Parks should have just started her own bus company too? Discriminating against people based on race was legal after all.
Trump (and others) were banned for specific causes, not for something they were born with and can't control.
It's ludicrous to suggest that ideas should be protected classes in commerce just like race is. No one is born a liberal or conservative, and those labels can change over time. You can also just... not say anything, and no one will know which one of those you are.
Rosa Parks could not hide that she was Black.
> Railroads, telecom, electricity and water companies should be able to refuse service too?
No, they have contracts from the government to use limited public resources (land, for example).
The rest of your examples are nonsensical, too, but I don't have time to rebut each one.
> Also based on Justice Clarence Thomas' opinion last month, you are wrong
Clarence Thomas's opinion is based on the premise that social media companies are the same as utilities like electric companies, which is nonsense. You can start a social media company tomorrow and everyone could switch to it. TikTok started not that long ago. There is a free market of social media.
The same is not true of any utilities in the US. Some are even impossible to compete with (e.g. broadcast networks) because they use limited public resources (e.g. spectrum) granted by the government.
Trump (and others) were banned for specific causes, not for something they were born with and can't control.
It's ludicrous to suggest that ideas should be protected classes in commerce just like race is. No one is born a liberal or conservative, and those labels can change over time. You can also just... not say anything, and no one will know which one of those you are.
Rosa Parks could not hide that she was Black.
> Railroads, telecom, electricity and water companies should be able to refuse service too?
No, they have contracts from the government to use limited public resources (land, for example).
The rest of your examples are nonsensical, too, but I don't have time to rebut each one.
> Also based on Justice Clarence Thomas' opinion last month, you are wrong
Clarence Thomas's opinion is based on the premise that social media companies are the same as utilities like electric companies, which is nonsense. You can start a social media company tomorrow and everyone could switch to it. TikTok started not that long ago. There is a free market of social media.
The same is not true of any utilities in the US. Some are even impossible to compete with (e.g. broadcast networks) because they use limited public resources (e.g. spectrum) granted by the government.
> It's ludicrous to suggest that ideas should be protected classes in commerce just like race is.
Religions are ideas. These companies also protect certain religions and don't protect others. Hypocrisy at its finest. Also based on studies, our political view points are built based on our brain activities (which are built based on experiences).
> Clarence Thomas's opinion is based on the premise that social media companies are the same as utilities like electric companies, which is nonsense. You can start a social media company tomorrow and everyone could switch to it.
Yes, you, a random person on the internet who misses Thomas' view point must know more than the most experienced Supreme Court Justice of the United States. Your "go start your own company" excuse is what Parler & Gab did and they got kicked out by Apple and Google and banks. I guess Parler should just started a phone company and a bank too right? Railroad and telecom companies could have also just "gone and started their own company" right? You would be the type of person few decades ago telling blacks and jews to just "go start your own company".
Fauci, a government employee is working with Facebook to censor valid viewpoints and you are totally cool with it.
> The same is not true of any utilities in the US. Some are even impossible to compete with (e.g. broadcast networks) because they use limited public resources (e.g. spectrum) granted by the government.
You really think one can compete with Google/YouTube's 95%+ monopoly? Wait until the government gets run by your political opponent.
> You can also just... not say anything, and no one will know which one of those you are.
And you call your political opponents authoritarians? Lol. You think Trillion dollar companies are the good guys and the 50%+ population which is censored are just peasants who should go build their own companies. Rich elites must be the good guys! Lol. Wait until the political pendulum swings in the other direction. Only then will you learn your lesson.
Religions are ideas. These companies also protect certain religions and don't protect others. Hypocrisy at its finest. Also based on studies, our political view points are built based on our brain activities (which are built based on experiences).
> Clarence Thomas's opinion is based on the premise that social media companies are the same as utilities like electric companies, which is nonsense. You can start a social media company tomorrow and everyone could switch to it.
Yes, you, a random person on the internet who misses Thomas' view point must know more than the most experienced Supreme Court Justice of the United States. Your "go start your own company" excuse is what Parler & Gab did and they got kicked out by Apple and Google and banks. I guess Parler should just started a phone company and a bank too right? Railroad and telecom companies could have also just "gone and started their own company" right? You would be the type of person few decades ago telling blacks and jews to just "go start your own company".
Fauci, a government employee is working with Facebook to censor valid viewpoints and you are totally cool with it.
> The same is not true of any utilities in the US. Some are even impossible to compete with (e.g. broadcast networks) because they use limited public resources (e.g. spectrum) granted by the government.
You really think one can compete with Google/YouTube's 95%+ monopoly? Wait until the government gets run by your political opponent.
> You can also just... not say anything, and no one will know which one of those you are.
And you call your political opponents authoritarians? Lol. You think Trillion dollar companies are the good guys and the 50%+ population which is censored are just peasants who should go build their own companies. Rich elites must be the good guys! Lol. Wait until the political pendulum swings in the other direction. Only then will you learn your lesson.
> It is not a restriction on private companies
I think this is an irrelevant argument. Why Congress was concerned by foreign interference then? Private companies should have had some social responsibility if they stepped into social area. Or, they should have banned all non-US residents as well. Why Trump only?
Actually, these details aren't interesting to me. A lot was already said about that, no point to say more. I would just like to note that in the global scope, through all my conscious life since 80s, America was great but what's going on nowadays worries me. This reminds me my home country which quickly went through real freedom back to totalitarianism. Maybe, in US things are just slower but the tendency looks the same.
That's a view from my couch, don't take it seriously.
I think this is an irrelevant argument. Why Congress was concerned by foreign interference then? Private companies should have had some social responsibility if they stepped into social area. Or, they should have banned all non-US residents as well. Why Trump only?
Actually, these details aren't interesting to me. A lot was already said about that, no point to say more. I would just like to note that in the global scope, through all my conscious life since 80s, America was great but what's going on nowadays worries me. This reminds me my home country which quickly went through real freedom back to totalitarianism. Maybe, in US things are just slower but the tendency looks the same.
That's a view from my couch, don't take it seriously.
> Why Congress was concerned by foreign interference then?
Congress was concerned because it was foreign interference in an election, not because of the First Amendment. This is totally irrelevant.
> Private companies should have had some social responsibility if they stepped into social area.
Of course. But the First Amendment says that the government cannot compel social media to carry Trump's message if they don't want you. You have it exactly backwards: the First Amendment protects Facebook's right to ban Trump, not Trump's right to use Facebook.
> This reminds me my home country which quickly went through real freedom back to totalitarianism.
So Facebook bans Trump for (in their opinion) inspiring his followers to riot to overturn a free and fair election, and you think that sounds like authoritarianism?
> That's a view from my couch, don't take it seriously.
If you don't fully believe what you're saying and are too lazy to do research, why post about it at all?
Congress was concerned because it was foreign interference in an election, not because of the First Amendment. This is totally irrelevant.
> Private companies should have had some social responsibility if they stepped into social area.
Of course. But the First Amendment says that the government cannot compel social media to carry Trump's message if they don't want you. You have it exactly backwards: the First Amendment protects Facebook's right to ban Trump, not Trump's right to use Facebook.
> This reminds me my home country which quickly went through real freedom back to totalitarianism.
So Facebook bans Trump for (in their opinion) inspiring his followers to riot to overturn a free and fair election, and you think that sounds like authoritarianism?
> That's a view from my couch, don't take it seriously.
If you don't fully believe what you're saying and are too lazy to do research, why post about it at all?
What do you think was happening here during the anti kavanaugh protests at the senate chambers, capitol and who was encouraging it and why was it cool:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=anti+kavanaugh+protest+capitol&t=h...
And I won't even mention the riots from last year. Seems like violence is okay as long as it's from the "protected elites" side.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=anti+kavanaugh+protest+capitol&t=h...
And I won't even mention the riots from last year. Seems like violence is okay as long as it's from the "protected elites" side.
The article in the Register is more interesting:
https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/07/florida_man_sues_soci...
https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/07/florida_man_sues_soci...
It seems like these media companies have abandoned all optics of trying to be unbiased and objective. How they claim to be "Independent news and views for the tech community" is beyond me.
The register's motto is: Biting the hand that feeds IT. That should tell you something about their articles, although they also frequently have substantial articles.
Obvious way to tell this article is biased is that it quotes only one side of the politics (Paul Gowder's twitter clearly shows he's not a fan of Trump or Republicans) and not another law professor or lawyer who might have the opposite view:
> "This complaint is hard to even make sense of," said Paul Gowder, a professor of law at Northwestern University. Gowder said nothing in the lawsuits "even comes close to turning social media companies into government actors."
Plus his take is false. Fauci's emails is a perfect example where he's emailing with Zuckerberg (some of which was also redacted). Fauci is the government and him working together with FB in building their "COVID dashboard" which censored many people, especially those talking about the lab leak theory as well as Ivermectin.
SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas opined couple months ago discussing big tech censorship quite extensively. The case was regarding whether Trump was allowed to block people on Twitter and it being a 1st amendment violation. While the case was declared moot as Trump left office, Justice Clarence Thomas took the opportunity to discuss censorship. How politicians like Trump aren't allowed to block users on big tech but big tech is able to block and ban government employees and how this creates a weird power dynamic. Here's a few excerpts:
> "But whatever may be said of other industries, there is clear historical precedent for regulating transportation and communications networks in a similar manner as traditional common carriers. Candeub 398–405. Telegraphs, for example, because they “resemble[d] railroad companies and other common carriers,” were “bound to serve all customers alike, without discrimination." ... "Internet platforms of course have their own First Amendment interests, but regulations that might affect speech are valid if they would have been permissible at the time of the founding. See United States v. Stevens, 559 U. S. 460, 468 (2010). The long history in this country and in England of restricting the exclusion right of common carriers and places of public accommodation may save similar regulations today from triggering heightened scrutiny—especially where a restriction would not prohibit the company from speaking or force the company to endorse the speech." ... "The similarities between some digital platforms and common carriers or places of public accommodation may give legislators strong arguments for similarly regulating digital platforms. [I]t stands to reason that if Congress may demand that telephone companies operate as common carriers, it can ask the same of ”digital platforms." ... "For example, although a “private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment,” Halleck, 587 U. S., at ___, ___ (slip op., at 6, 9), it is if the government coerces or induces it to take action the government itself would not be permitted to do, such as censor expression of a lawful viewpoint. Ibid. Consider government threats. “People do not lightly disregard public officers’ thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against them if they do not come around.” Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 68 (1963). The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly. See ibid.; Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U. S. 991, 1004–1005 (1982). Under this doctrine, plaintiffs might have colorable claims against a digital plat- form if it took adverse action against them in response to government threats. The Second Circuit feared that then-President Trump cut off speech by using the features that Twitter made available to him. But if the aim is to ensure that speech is not smoth- ered, then the more glaring concern must perforce be the dominant digital platforms themselves."
> "As Twitter made clear, the right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of private digital platforms. The extent to which that power matters for purposes of the First Amendment and the extent to which that power could lawfully be modified raise interesting and important questions. This petition, unfortunately, affords us no opportunity to confront them."
The last 2 points are important as Justice Thomas is basically saying "give us a case which brings up these two questions and then we will have a deep look."
I would highly recommend reading his opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-197_5ie6.pdf
One can even cite Amazon's recent censorship of SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas's own documentary as well as Eli Steele’s documentary as examples:
https://archive.is/aNv3B
> "This complaint is hard to even make sense of," said Paul Gowder, a professor of law at Northwestern University. Gowder said nothing in the lawsuits "even comes close to turning social media companies into government actors."
Plus his take is false. Fauci's emails is a perfect example where he's emailing with Zuckerberg (some of which was also redacted). Fauci is the government and him working together with FB in building their "COVID dashboard" which censored many people, especially those talking about the lab leak theory as well as Ivermectin.
SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas opined couple months ago discussing big tech censorship quite extensively. The case was regarding whether Trump was allowed to block people on Twitter and it being a 1st amendment violation. While the case was declared moot as Trump left office, Justice Clarence Thomas took the opportunity to discuss censorship. How politicians like Trump aren't allowed to block users on big tech but big tech is able to block and ban government employees and how this creates a weird power dynamic. Here's a few excerpts:
> "But whatever may be said of other industries, there is clear historical precedent for regulating transportation and communications networks in a similar manner as traditional common carriers. Candeub 398–405. Telegraphs, for example, because they “resemble[d] railroad companies and other common carriers,” were “bound to serve all customers alike, without discrimination." ... "Internet platforms of course have their own First Amendment interests, but regulations that might affect speech are valid if they would have been permissible at the time of the founding. See United States v. Stevens, 559 U. S. 460, 468 (2010). The long history in this country and in England of restricting the exclusion right of common carriers and places of public accommodation may save similar regulations today from triggering heightened scrutiny—especially where a restriction would not prohibit the company from speaking or force the company to endorse the speech." ... "The similarities between some digital platforms and common carriers or places of public accommodation may give legislators strong arguments for similarly regulating digital platforms. [I]t stands to reason that if Congress may demand that telephone companies operate as common carriers, it can ask the same of ”digital platforms." ... "For example, although a “private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment,” Halleck, 587 U. S., at ___, ___ (slip op., at 6, 9), it is if the government coerces or induces it to take action the government itself would not be permitted to do, such as censor expression of a lawful viewpoint. Ibid. Consider government threats. “People do not lightly disregard public officers’ thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against them if they do not come around.” Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 68 (1963). The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly. See ibid.; Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U. S. 991, 1004–1005 (1982). Under this doctrine, plaintiffs might have colorable claims against a digital plat- form if it took adverse action against them in response to government threats. The Second Circuit feared that then-President Trump cut off speech by using the features that Twitter made available to him. But if the aim is to ensure that speech is not smoth- ered, then the more glaring concern must perforce be the dominant digital platforms themselves."
> "As Twitter made clear, the right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of private digital platforms. The extent to which that power matters for purposes of the First Amendment and the extent to which that power could lawfully be modified raise interesting and important questions. This petition, unfortunately, affords us no opportunity to confront them."
The last 2 points are important as Justice Thomas is basically saying "give us a case which brings up these two questions and then we will have a deep look."
I would highly recommend reading his opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-197_5ie6.pdf
One can even cite Amazon's recent censorship of SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas's own documentary as well as Eli Steele’s documentary as examples:
https://archive.is/aNv3B