Login

Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

social.quodverum.com is part of the decentralized social network powered by Mastodon.
Those who label words as violence do so with the sole purpose of justifying violence against words.

Administered by:

Server stats:

449
active users
Learn more

social.quodverum.com: AboutProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.2.10

Dar ul Harb 🇺🇸 🟠

My latest long-form Gab post, examining the complaints in President Trump's class action lawsuits against Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S BIG TECH CLASS ACTIONS
by Dar ul Harb, Esq.

[Part 1]:
gab.com/darulharb/posts/106654
[Part 2]:
gab.com/darulharb/posts/106654
[Part 3]:
gab.com/darulharb/posts/106654
{Part 4]
gab.com/darulharb/posts/106654

gab.comDar ul Harb 🇺🇸 on Gab: ''Dar ul Harb 🇺🇸 on Gab: 'PRESIDENT TRUMP'S BIG TECH CLASS ACTIONS by Dar ul Harb, Esq. [1/4] I've now had a chance to read the three class-action complaints filed earlier this month in the Southern District of Florida by President Trump and other plaintiffs against defendants Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube, alleging that the social media giants are acting as agents of the government in censoring constitutionally protected speech. Trump, et al. v. Twitter, Inc, et al. https://www.wsj.com/media/TrumpvTwitter.pdf?mod=article_inline Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment holding that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is unconstitutional. "Section 230(c)(1) and 230(c)(2) were deliberately enacted by Congress to induce, encourage, and promote social medial companies to accomplish an objective—the censorship of supposedly 'objectionable' but constitutionally protected speech on the Internet—that Congress could not constitutionally accomplish itself." p. 28 of Twitter complaint. 230(c)(2) provides that: "No provider or User of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— A. any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or User considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected..." From the language of the law itself, it does look like it's prima facie unconstitutional, or at least unconstitutional "as applied." Congress provided a broad, vague standard "otherwise objectionable" which applies "whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." The federal government shielded these social media companies from liability for censoring "otherwise objectionable" constitutionally protected speech, and has used threatened revocation of the Section 230 protection as a "stick" to coerce the social media companies to exercise censorship in ways which government could not constitutionally do itself. Also, plaintiffs allege, based upon public statments, at least one agency of the federal government, the CDC, has specifically coordinated with social media companies to limit speech that the government deems "misinformation." In the Twitter lawsuit, plaintiffs specifically cite as one example of coordination Twitter's suppression of viewpoints about the COVID pandemic which the federal Centers For Disease Control viewed as "misinformation" and the CDC's public statements that they were coordinating with social media companies to "contain the spread of misinformation." This direct coordination is further supported by evidence filed in the Facebook complaint. (cont'd)'
Dar ul Harb 🇺🇸 🟠

The Facebook complaint is very interesting concerning the CDC's efforts to combat what it deemed COVID "misinformation" during the pandemic by coordinating with (at least) Facebook and Twitter. This clearly appears to be government action by proxy, and continues into the Biden Administration. The evidence the plaintiffs allege in the Facebook complaint concerning coordination between Facebook and Twitter over editorial (i.e. censorship) decisions is also quite revealing...

Jul 27, 2021, 20:15 · · Web · 6 · 5
Dar ul Harb 🇺🇸 🟠

Perhaps in discovery the plaintiffs can tie in Youtube for coordinating such editorial decisions, too. These ostensibly competitive and independent companies may soon regret such coordination if it exposes them to each others' liability.

Explore
About