Trump is suing Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey. Here's why they shouldn't worry

[hookaleft]

*snip*

Trump's suits continue a trend that began during his presidency: Throwing the book against companies he perceives to be a threat to his political brand. Last spring, while he was still in office, Trump signed an executive order aimed at "preventing online censorship" and seeking to expand legal liability for tech companies.

But the tech companies are legally permitted to run their platforms as they see fit, and courts have dismissed a string of similar lawsuits. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube all cited the potential for future incitement of violence or risks to public safety following the Capitol riot in announcing their decisions to remove Trump's accounts.

*snip*

The push to bring legal action against tech platforms over bias allegations has spread nationwide. In May, Florida passed a law allowing politicians that have been suspended or removed from social media to sue those companies.

But the effort has run up against the realities of current law — and the Constitution. Last week, a federal judge blocked Florida's law from going into effect, saying government attempts to force social media companies to host political speech violates the First Amendment. (Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has vowed to appeal.)

*snip*

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/07/tech/trump-zuckerberg-dorsey-lawsuit/index.html

[Faux pas]

1. Lol

I doubt that they're worried, how many billions would they have to fight with? It's just the hump's usual modus operandi, lying and grifting.

[SergeStorms]

2. I thought republicans....

were all about private enterprise and the free market?

Not so much, I guess, when private enterprise decides to withhold their service from chronic abusers of their service. It's not like TFG would rein himself in and behave like a human being. He believes he's somehow owed everything because he's wealthy (on paper only).

TFG's worst mistake was allowing his ego to go completely unchecked, and deciding to run for president. He's drawn too much attention to his illegal and amoral enterprises. Dumb ass.

[Phoenix61]

6. They also aren't so fond of it when it forces employers

to increase salaries to get people to go to work for them. All that trash talk about improving your lot in life by gaining job skills etc sounded great until people actually did it. Now nobody is willing to work for wages that aren’t anything more than spending money for a high-school kid and repukes are whining about how unfair it is.

[tymorial]

3. Trump has no case.

Being a blithering idiot, lying sack of republican shit is only protected by the constitution from being silenced by federal law. There is no such protection from private business, even publicly traded ones from choosing to not extend services to said individual or individuals. Private business can pretty much do what they want in this case because there is no protection of discrimination based upon political affiliation. Publicly traded companies can do the same so long as their shareholders allow it. If they don't, they can fire the board and fill it with like minded racist regressive assholes like the plaintiff. Case dismissed.

There, I just saved the judge time and tax payer dollars by writing his/her reasons for dismissal.

[Blue Owl]

4. I bet t***p is insanely jealous of Zuckkkerberg's fortune

He's worth something like $127 billion, whereas The Slobfather is *supposedly* worth a paltry $2 billion -- and in reality, probably a lot less than that...

[LetMyPeopleVote]

5. Why Trump's 'class-action lawsuit' is so hard to take seriously

I agree with Steve Benen/ This is a fundraising stunt

Link to tweet

Complicating matters just a bit more, there have been related cases along these lines, and they've all failed: private social-media companies are not arms of the government, judges have ruled, and they have the authority to regulate content. Similarly, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects companies from such lawsuits, still exists, Trump's incessant whining about the provision notwithstanding.

So why bother? Why go through the motions with a misguided public-relations stunt, rooted entirely in dubious claims and conspiracy theories that don't make any sense?

There's no great mystery here: "Before Mr. Trump was done speaking, both the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee had sent text messages about the lawsuit and asked for contributions. Mr. Trump's political action committee sent its own solicitation shortly after the event ended. 'Donate NOW,' it said."

I don't doubt that many will fall for this. Republican voters who've been conditioned to believe that Twitter and Facebook are big meanies toward conservatives will likely grab their credit cards to show their support for Trump and this pointless exercise.

But that doesn't mean this lawsuit has merit; it means the opposite