U.S. judge dismisses Trump's lawsuit challenging his Twitter ban
Source: MSN
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A U.S. judge on Friday dismissed former President Donald Trump's lawsuit against Twitter Inc that challenged his suspension from the platform.
In a written ruling, U.S. District Judge James Donato in San Francisco rejected Trump's argument that Twitter violated his right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Twitter and other social media platforms banned Trump from their services after a mob of his supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol in a deadly riot on Jan. 6, 2021.
That assault followed a speech by Trump in which he reiterated false claims that his election loss in November was because of widespread fraud, an assertion rejected by multiple courts and state election officials.
Trump's lawyers alleged in a court filing last year that Twitter "exercises a degree of power and control over political discourse in this country that is immeasurable, historically unprecedented, and profoundly dangerous to open democratic debate."
Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/u-s-judge-dismisses-trump-s-lawsuit-challenging-his-twitter-ban/ar-AAX0nhR?li=BB141NW3&ocid=mailsignout
Initech
(100,088 posts)Nice try, Trump.
ShazzieB
(16,446 posts)Initech
(100,088 posts)Botany
(70,539 posts)groundloop
(11,520 posts)Raven
(13,897 posts)Justice matters.
(6,936 posts)Or they hope he will pay them??
Oh... that's the definition of being stupid too...
YoshidaYui
(41,833 posts)every penny taken.
riversedge
(70,260 posts)PSPS
(13,605 posts)FakeNoose
(32,678 posts)Thank you Judge!
niyad
(113,474 posts)constitutionally illiterate.
OldBaldy1701E
(5,138 posts)Trump's lawyers alleged in a court filing last year that Twitter "exercises a degree of power and control over political discourse in this country that is immeasurable, historically unprecedented, and profoundly dangerous to open democratic debate."
Which is precisely why that orange gibbon should not be allowed within one IP of any social media platform.
"WAAHHHH! I can't be a pompous ass on the big private media platform so I am going to spend enough money to feed the starving population of Florida to try and make them let me be a big baby on their private media platform! Please make them let me back on! I deserve to be adored by millions! I deserve to be able to overload others accounts with even bigger loads of bullshit than I did before Jan. 8th! I WANT MY AUDIENCE NOW!"
Excuse me, but didn't you start more than one 'answer' to Twitter? Where are they?
"THEY DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS THAT TWITTER HAS! I AM TIRED OF JUST MESSAGING MY SYCOPHANTS, THEY DON'T ARGUE WITH ME SO I CAN INSULT THEM AND THEN CLAIM I WON THE ARGUMENT!"
(That guy is so pathetic.)
yaesu
(8,020 posts)stakes the deal was he would only post there and if he posted on twitter he would be sued for a lot of money, even for him.
LetMyPeopleVote
(145,415 posts)KentuckyWoman
(6,688 posts)Didn't they say Truth Social will drain all the users from Twitter and be the biggliest bestest most miraculous platform that ever was or ever will be?
The entire world is desperate for Truth Social. I swear.
LetMyPeopleVote
(145,415 posts)This was a very dumb lawsuit
Link to tweet
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2022/05/07/judge-rejects-trump-lawsuit-challenging-ban-twitter/9695521002/
U.S. District Judge James Donato said Friday that Trump failed to show Twitter violated his First Amendment right to free speech. Free speech rights dont apply to private companies and Trump failed to show Twitter was working as a state actor on behalf of Democrats, the judge wrote.
In this Thursday, June 18, 2020 file photo, President Donald Trump looks at his phone during a roundtable with governors on the reopening of America's small businesses.
The amended complaint merely offers a grab-bag of allegations to the effect that some Democratic members of Congress wanted Mr. Trump, and the views he espoused, to be banned from Twitter because such content and views were contrary to those legislators preferred points of view, Donato wrote. But the comments of a handful of elected officials are a far cry from a rule of decision for which the State is responsible. Legislators are perfectly free to express opinions without being deemed the official voice of the State.
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)What happened to "business can have their own rules" like, I can refuse service because you are gay. I can refuse service because you are barefoot. I can refuse to fill your prescription because it's against my religion. and on and on and on. Awwwww, don't much like it when your own rules bite you in the ass.
Novara
(5,845 posts)... this would fail. You just have to read the Constitution.
Oh wait.