A federal judge in San Francisco has stopped Donald Trump’s crusade against Twitter, ruling Friday that allegations of the former president’s impeachment twice that the social media giant has violated his rights under the First Amendment are mainly BS.
In a 17-page warrant issued Friday, U.S. District Judge James Donato upheld the company’s decision in January 2021 to expel the former president from office to prevent him from inciting supporters to oppose the 2020 election by force. d. Therefore, Twitter has no obligation to allow Trump back into the platform.
Last year, Trump sued Twitter after being suspended from tweeting for violating the application’s rules against “glorifying violence” with tweets widely believed to ignite the flames just after the deadly January 6 Capitol uprising. After launching his own Twitter clone, the confusing Truth Social, Trump said in an interview that he would not return to Twitter even if the ban was lifted by new owner Elon Musk.
“I was disappointed with the way I was treated by Twitter,” Trump told CNBC. “I will not return to Twitter.”
Rejecting the Trump case, which was filed with the Conservative American Union and five individual users, including conspiracy theorists Naomi Wolfe and Wayne Alin Route, Donato dismissed each of the former commander-in-chief’s arguments one by one.
“The main claim of the plaintiffs is that the defendants have” censorship “.[ed]”The plaintiffs’ Twitter accounts in violation of their right to freedom of expression under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Donato wrote in the order. “The plaintiffs do not start from a position of force.”
Simply put, the First Amendment “applies only to government cuts in speech, not to alleged cuts from private companies,” the order said, noting that Twitter “is a private company.” The amended complaint, filed by Trump, “simply offers a package of allegations that some Democrats, members of Congress, wanted Mr. Trump and” his views “to be banned by Twitter,” the order continued. because such “content and views” are “contrary to the views preferred by these legislators”. “
But even if some lawmakers, such as Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), spoke out against the rude and potentially dangerous online behavior of Trump and then Sen. Kamala Harris called on Twitter to suspend Trump’s account, and Donato said government officials were completely free to express their views without being considered the official voice of the state. The government in our republic of elected representatives would be impossible otherwise. “
Donato ruled that Trump’s position was “insufficient” and even gave him “any benefit from doubt.” In addition, Donato writes, quotations from the case quoted by Trump’s lawyers managed to undermine their own arguments.
In his initial complaint, Trump also argued that section 230, a law that protects online platforms such as Twitter from suing for content posted by users, is unconstitutional. As president, Trump launched a full-scale attack on Section 230 in an attempt to counter Twitter’s alleged “left-wing bias.” Prior to the ban, Trump’s account had nearly 90 million followers.
“Trump’s attacks on Section 230 follow a familiar pattern: social media companies seem to always follow neglect,” the non-profit Electronic Frontier Foundation said in December 2020.
In his lawsuit, Trump said there were “examples of Democrat lawmakers threatening new regulations, breaking antitrust rules and lifting immunity under section 230 for defendants and other social media platforms if Twitter does not censor views and content.” these members of Congress disagree. However, Donato wrote on Friday: “The real quotes do not correspond to this account.”
The applicants propose only the vague and speculative assertion that[u]according to information and convictions, the defendants would not have deplatformed the plaintiff or alleged members of the class in a similar situation if it were not for the immunity allegedly offered by section 230 (c) ‘, the judgment states. “Why this may be plausible is not said. The Court refuses to accept such speculative and concluding allegations as grounds for an action for a conviction. “
Donato also thwarted Trump’s attempt to hold Twitter accountable for alleged violations of the Florida Fraudulent and Unfair Commercial Practices Act. But even though Trump lives in Florida, he and others have long agreed, “under the Twitter Terms of Use (TOS), that California law will settle all disputes that arise between Twitter and its users,” Donato wrote, adding that there “there is no reasonable doubt that California has a significant connection to this case,” thanks to Twitter’s “main place of business” is San Francisco.
“Although this is enough to reject the third claim, some additional observations are useful,” the ruling said. “… TOS explicitly states that Twitter may suspend or terminate an account at any time for any reason or no reason.” It also states that Twitter may remove or refuse to distribute any content. There is nothing hidden or misleading in these provisions, and the plaintiffs’ assumption that Twitter may have applied them inconsistently … or at the behest of the government does not change that. “
A fourth request under the so-called Florida Social Media Censorship Act was also rejected, as Trump’s Twitter account was already closed by the time the law went into effect in July 2021. Despite the fact that A federal judge banned Florida from enforcing the statute, a move currently being appealed by the state, Donato wrote: “It is therefore unclear what the plaintiffs claim is the potential application of the statute to their case.”
Trump, who has lost dozens of lawsuits in an attempt to undo the loss of his 2020 election, will be allowed to re-appeal. However, Donato said in his order that he was forbidden to add new claims.
Add Comment