President Trump this week filed a class action lawsuit against tech giants Facebook, Twitter and Google, claiming he was the victim of their censorship.
We may remember Trump was banned from his social media accounts in January for so-called “public safety” reasons in the wake of the Capitol protest on January 6.
In a statement regarding the lawsuit, Trump said that “we demand an end to the shadow ban, an end to the silence and an end to the blacklisting, banning and cancellation that you know so well “.
If these tech giants can censor a president (and thousands of prominent conservative social media accounts), they can censor you and me, which is why millions of Americans don’t trust national media. nor to social media.
The trial allegations will be easy to substantiate as examples of censorship abound:
Recall that the New York Post, one of the oldest and largest newspapers in the world, published an article ahead of last year’s presidential election regarding the discovery of credible evidence in the form of emails. revealing that Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, clearly took advantage of his father’s post of vice president at the time by securing favors from his father that benefited Ukrainian energy company Burisma. There was also evidence that the then presidential candidate himself was directly involved in and profited from the arrangement. Suppress and silence.
In fact, a post-election poll found that one in six Biden voters (17%) would not have voted for him had they been aware of just one of the stories suppressed by big tech and media platforms. social media.
Some of these stories include former Biden employee Tara Reade and her sexual assault allegations against Biden, the Hunter Biden, then-Sen laptop scandal. Kamala Harris’ record left-wing Senate votes, the US economic leap in the third quarter with millions of new jobs added, America’s energy independence, Operation Warp’s COVID vaccination success Speed and the achievement by Trump of several peace agreements in the Middle East. Suppress and silence.
As I have done before, let me clarify again that I do this as so-called “private” companies. Twitter, Facebook and Google are not limited by the First Amendment, which is a constraint on government actors.
But the truth is, these tech giants really aren’t private companies in the traditional sense because they enjoy a huge and lucrative federal advantage: immunity from legal liability for defamatory content that may be posted on their websites. sites by third parties.
This benefit is contained in section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, and it is a game-changer. (I note that if ever the United States Supreme Court considers Facebook, Google and Twitter to be “state” or “government” actors and, therefore, subject to the 1st Amendment ban on removing the freedom of expression, their censorship policies will be deemed unconstitutional and invalidated).
Big tech has shown a clear (left-wing) ideological bias, and Congress and regulators are expected to take action soon to ensure that the great legal and economic benefits of these social media platforms are given in 1996 – when these fledgling companies have promised to be just clearinghouses and all talk and content is reduced until a real market of ideas returns. They should not be allowed to selectively censor.
Social media in America has truly become to free speech and free speech what public parks, radio, newspapers, television stations, and the neighborhood pamphleteer were in decades past. As such, powerful, private, unregulated but legally isolated actors like these social media giants are just as capable of censorship as public censorship.
This is why the United States Supreme Court has generally ruled that Congress cannot use private actors to accomplish something (i.e. censorship) that the Constitution prohibits Congress from doing itself. .
I don’t know if President Trump’s trial will be successful because these companies will pretend they are private actors and can choose the speeches and expressions they allow on their sites.
However, whether it succeeds or not, it will bring a careful examination of the legal status and immunity from legal liability that these giant corporations unfairly enjoy and this will hopefully lead to a change in federal law on this matter.