Anything Trump does the media will call a joke. This lawsuit they all claim Trump will lose. But their bias blinds them to two important points one of which he makes which is that they are acting under the color of law which means that the First Amendment would apply to a private person or entity. Big Tech is claiming they can do as they like because the constitution only applies to the government – not them. This may be true ordinarily, but not if someone is acting with the sanction of the government. In other words, you hire someone to kill somebody and they claim you did not kill anyone. The assassin did so under your orders so you are still liable for the murder.
This is a very loose example of what would be acting under the color of law. The central claim in Mr. Trump’s class-action lawsuit states that the defendants should be treated as state actors (under color of law) and are bound by the First Amendment when they engage in selective political censorship. This is a valid claim. Their censorship constitutes state action because the government granted them immunity from legal liability. They have clearly engaged in selective censorship nullifying free speech. That is not a frivolous claim, but I question if Trump’s lawyers have really done a good job on this issue.
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
Secondly, Trump has sued Facebook and Twitter for violating his First Amendment rights. If you actually look at Section 230, it does NOT authorize censorship of political speech or canceling someone because they were against vaccines or Fauci. We typically hear that Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 preempts any such state laws and shields Big Tech 100% from any lawsuits. However, that line of thought is what Big Tech wants people to believe, and it benefited Democrats sho they pretended they were correct.
However, read the statute and you will see that this is one massive misapplication of Section 230. This section only shields Big Tech from civil liability suits regarding the censorship of sexually obscene or excessively violent material. They have embarked on a political agenda that is the same method of the Communist revolutions to silence all opposition. In the vast majority of cases, political speech and cultural commentary are not sexually obscene or excessively violent.
Trump has challenged Section 230 as unconstitutional. I would argue that it is unconstitutional as applied and the censorship is in violation of 230(b)
The “intent” of Congress was NOT to allow censorship of free speech. Therefore, how Big Tech is using Section 230 is unconstitutional as applied to their practices. Most people do not know that back in 2019, BEFORE Covid, a settlement was reached in a lawsuit brought against YouTube by the state of New York and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which required YouTube to pay $170 million for violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA). The settlement not only resulted in the fine but a bunch of new rules that content creators must comply with.
- Western Australia has passed legislation authorizing COVID-19 officers to remove people from their homes and force them into a quarantine facilities.
- 97.7 Million Birds Are Already Dead As The Worst Bird Flu Outbreak Ever Sweeps Across North America And Europe
- The Collapse Of Rome 2.0 Incoming
- Multiple sources: Weird yellow light seen above Belgorod, Russia. What is it?
- PayPal goes full 1984 in November…
- Warning: the Fed Didn’t Pivot Yesterday… If Anything It Doesn’t Need to Anymore
- Banks are over leveraged 2 QUADRILLION dollars in derivatives. This will be the worst financial collapse EVER.
- Confirmation of a Totally Decimated Global Economy: Massive Rally in the Stock Market
- Moscow Says We’re Heading Toward Open War
- The seabed internet cable between Henningsvær and Svolvær in Lofoten, Norway has been broken.