Courts are unlikely to be receptive to Dump's claims of social media bias

[fleur-de-lisa]

Appeals court ruling suggests little legal traction for Trump's anti-Twitter campaign - D.C. Circuit decision spurns claims that social media giants broke the law by banning a conservative provocateur

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/27/trump-twitter-court-ruling-284632

A ruling that emerged from a powerful federal appeals court in Washington on Wednesday morning is strong evidence that the courts are unlikely to be receptive to President Donald Trump’s claims that he and his political supporters are being silenced by social media platforms like Twitter. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit resoundingly rejected a lawsuit the conservative legal organization Freedom Watch and right-wing provocateur Laura Loomer filed in 2018 against four major technology companies: Google, Facebook, Twitter and Apple.

Facebook, Twitter and other platforms have banned Loomer, citing anti-Muslim statements.

The unanimous court decision from a three-judge panel runs to only four pages, but is dismissive of a wide range of legal claims some conservatives and liberals have leveled at social media firms in recent months. The appeals court judges said that, despite the companies’ power, they cannot violate the First Amendment because it regulates only governments, not the private sector.

“Freedom Watch’s First Amendment claim fails because it does not adequately allege that the platforms can violate the First Amendment. In general, the First Amendment ‘prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech,'” the court said.

[Laelth]

1. Precisely. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[PJMcK]

2. Do Republican lawyers actually have law degrees?

So often, their positions are so manifestly wrong that you have to wonder if they know their arguments are bullshit or they really don't know the law.