{"id":585889,"date":"2021-07-08T10:06:11","date_gmt":"2021-07-08T14:06:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=585889"},"modified":"2021-07-08T10:06:14","modified_gmt":"2021-07-08T14:06:14","slug":"opinion-is-trumps-big-tech-lawsuit-a-dead-on-arrival-media-stunt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/opinion-is-trumps-big-tech-lawsuit-a-dead-on-arrival-media-stunt\/","title":{"rendered":"OPINION: Is Trump\u2019s Big Tech Lawsuit A \u2018Dead On Arrival\u2019 Media Stunt?"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">24<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fopinion-is-trumps-big-tech-lawsuit-a-dead-on-arrival-media-stunt%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=585889&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><div><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/GettyImages-1233853395-e1625683871863.jpg?w=1200&amp;h=800&amp;ixlib=react-9.0.3\" class=\"ff-og-image-inserted\" \/><\/div>\n<p><span>On Wednesday, former President Donald Trump filed class-action lawsuits against Facebook, Google, and Twitter \u2014 and their respective CEOs, Mark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai, and Jack Dorsey \u2014 over the \u201ccensorship\u201d of conservatives.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>Speaking at a news conference, Trump said the lawsuits would demand that the court prevent ongoing censorship.&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>\u201cWe\u2019re demanding an end to the shadow-banning, a stop to the silencing, and a stop to the blacklisting, banishing, and canceling that you know so well,\u201d Trump <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/technology\/2021\/07\/07\/trump-lawsuit-social-media\/\"><span>said<\/span><\/a><span>, calling the lawsuits <\/span><span>\u201ca very important game-changer for our country.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>The lawsuits, filed in the Southern District of Florida, argue that Big Tech giants violated Trump\u2019s First Amendment rights when they suspended his social media accounts. In addition, they claim that many such platforms should be considered as \u201cstate actors\u201d who should be limited by \u201cFirst Amendment restrictions on government limitations on free speech.\u201d Finally, the lawsuits look to strike down Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, as well as <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/technology\/2021\/07\/07\/trump-lawsuit-social-media\/\"><span>seeking<\/span><\/a><span> \u201cunspecified punitive damages.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>There\u2019s just one problem: this is going absolutely nowhere.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>First, courts have repeatedly rejected the claim that social media \u201ccensorship\u201d \u2014 of any form \u2014 violates the First Amendment. The basic reason for this is that Big Tech giants are private entities and not government actors:<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote readability=\"10\">\n<p><em><span>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><span>Because of this important detail, Trump\u2019s lawsuit makes the claim that Facebook and other companies are \u201cstate actors.\u201d&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>\u201cDefendant Facebook has increasingly engaged in impermissible censorship resulting from threatened legislative action, a misguided reliance upon Section 230 of the Communications Act \u2026 and willful participation in joint activity with federal actors,\u201d the lawsuit states. \u201cDefendant Facebook\u2019s status thus rises beyond that of a private company to that of a state actor. As such, Defendant is constrained by the First Amendment right to free speech in the censorship decisions it makes regarding its Users.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>This is simply illogical. Even if the accusation \u2014 that Facebook \u201chas increasingly engaged in impermissible censorship resulting from threatened legislative action\u201d and willfully participated \u201cin joint activity with federal actors\u201d \u2014 is assumed to be true, it has nothing to do with the subsequent conclusion that Facebook is a \u201cstate actor.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>According to United States constitutional law, a \u201cstate actor\u201d is a person or entity acting on behalf of a governmental body. Even <em>if<\/em> the preceding accusation leveled against Facebook is true, \u201cjoint activity\u201d is not synonymous with \u201cacting on behalf\u201d of a government.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>The lawsuits claim that these companies became state actors both because of their powerful status as platforms of communication and because Congress has pushed for forms of censorship. There is no legal precedent for the use of such \u201clegislative coercion\u201d as a justification to sue these companies.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>Second, the attempt to strike down Section 230 as unconstitutional is somewhat bizarre given that Trump \u2014 incorrectly \u2014 justified the lawsuits against Big Tech by referring to Section 230, claiming that \u201c<\/span><span>once they got Section 230 they\u2019re not private companies.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>In reality, Section 230 has nothing to do with whether or not a company is \u201cprivate.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>The legislation <\/span><span>was passed into law as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and regulates Internet content. Specifically, it was drafted to regulate online pornography by providing website publishers with immunity from prosecution over third-party content placed on their sites.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>As The Daily Wire explained in January, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.dailywire.com\/news\/understanding-section-230-everything-you-need-to-know\"><span>Section 230<\/span><\/a><span> is reasonably concise and contains several key elements.<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote readability=\"46\">\n<p><b><i>Section 230(b)<\/i><\/b><span> includes three relevant passages regarding the policy of the United States, namely,<\/span><\/p>\n<p><i><span>(1) \u201cto promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media,\u201d<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p><i><span>(2) \u201cto preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation,\u201d and<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p><i><span>(3) \u201cto encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services.\u201d<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p><b><i>Section 230(c)<\/i><\/b><span> provides \u201cprotection for \u2018Good Samaritan\u2019 blocking and screening of offensive material\u201d and remains the focus of critics and supporters alike. It reads as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><i><span>(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p><i><span>No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p><i><span>(2) Civil liability<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p><i><span>No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of \u2013<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p><i><span>(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; or<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p><i><span>(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><span>While there is a valid ongoing debate regarding elements of Section 230 \u2014 such as the \u201cgood faith\u201d factor \u2014 and whether it should be updated or removed entirely, the notion that Section 230 is \u201cunconstitutional\u201d is over-simplistic and likely to fail.&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>Not only that, the argument that Section 230 is invalidated by the scale of these companies \u2014 with the suit arguing that Section 230 \u201chas accomplished and exceeded its original purpose in terms of promoting the growth and development of social media platforms\u201d \u2014 ignores that the intent behind Section 230 \u2014 to protect against liability for third-party content <\/span><i><span>on<\/span><\/i><span> platforms \u2014 is crucial to the internet\u2019s very existence in a legal sense.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>In simple terms, without Section 230, third-party content on any website will cease to exist \u2014 regardless of the size of the website or the underlying company.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>While legal arguments will certainly be made in support of Trump\u2019s legal efforts, most experts agree that this attempt will likely fail.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>\u201cThere\u2019s no way<\/span> <span>a plaintiff has been able to get traction in the past, and there\u2019s no way that Trump is going to be able to get traction either,\u201d said Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University Law School in California.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>\u201cTrump has the First Amendment argument exactly wrong,\u201d Paul Barret, the deputy director of the New York University Stern Center for Business and Human Rights said. \u201cIn fact, Facebook and Twitter themselves have a First Amendment free speech right to determine what speech their platforms project and amplify.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>This isn\u2019t to say that Big Tech giants were correct to censor or suspend Trump from their platforms. Their actions were demonstrably absurd and arguably dangerous. However, those who care about this debate must demand that their representatives in the legislative and judicial sphere take this issue seriously.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>If this legal move is anything to go by, this appears to be more of a media stunt than a serious effort to move the needle in the direction of online liberty.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><i><span>Ian Haworth is an Editor and Writer for The Daily Wire. Follow him on Twitter at<\/span><\/i><a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/ighaworth\"><i><span> @ighaworth<\/span><\/i><\/a><i><span>.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p><i><span>The views expressed in this piece are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p><i><span>The Daily Wire is one of America\u2019s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a<\/span><\/i><a href=\"https:\/\/www.dailywire.com\/subscribe\"><i><span> member<\/span><\/i><\/a><i><span>.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On Wednesday, former President Donald Trump filed class-action lawsuits against Facebook, Google, and Twitter \u2014 and their respective CEOs, Mark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai, and Jack Dorsey \u2014 over the \u201ccensorship\u201d &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2314235,"comment_status":"close","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/GettyImages-1233853395-e1625683871863.jpg?w=1200&h=800&ixlib=react-9.0.3","fifu_image_alt":"OPINION: Is Trump\u2019s Big Tech Lawsuit A \u2018Dead On Arrival\u2019 Media Stunt?","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-585889","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/GettyImages-1233853395-e1625683871863.jpg?w=1200&h=800&ixlib=react-9.0.3","fifu_image_alt":"OPINION: Is Trump\u2019s Big Tech Lawsuit A \u2018Dead On Arrival\u2019 Media Stunt?","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/585889","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=585889"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/585889\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2314235"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=585889"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=585889"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=585889"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}