Yesterday, Wednesday, Donald Trump announced that he had filed a major class action lawsuit against social media companies Facebook, Google and Twitter and their directors Mark Zuckerberg, Sunder Pichai and Jack Dorsey.
Speaking to reporters at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, Trump said, “They are three good men.”
However, Trump says there are thousands of Americans behind him who have experienced the same thing: they are banned after they end up filtering on social media because of something they wrote, thereby reducing their freedom of speech.
– In which universe?
Jameel Zafar, a lawyer and non-profit Civil Rights Agency regional US chairman, hopes the case will stumble from the start. Trump and plaintiffs believe he should be on par with a state actor because of the influence of Facebook and other private actors. Therefore, they have no right to restrict the freedom of expression of users.
– Jaffar asks if in any universe when Donald Trump blocked critics from his social media account he was not a state actor, but when they blocked Trump the social media company was a state actor Twitter, Mentions that he was actually the President of the United States.
– மர Death upon arrival
Eric Goldman, a law professor at the University of California, Santa Clara, and Paul Barrett, deputy director of the Department of Human Rights at New York University, refer to Trump’s case as “DOA” – “visit on the dead” or “visit on the dead.”
Goldman has read more than 60 similar, failed cases, the Associated Press writes, and says the case has not contributed anything new.
– Those who came before called everything under the sun, and they came no way, Goldman says.
– Misunderstand the Constitution
The case, like many others, alleges that Facebook, Twitter and YouTube were unconstitutional when they blocked Trump’s account. Previously, social media referred to Section 230 of the Communications Code of Conduct of 1996, which allows social media sites to moderate users.
However, Trump’s case believes that the law is unconstitutional because it is an obstacle to the freedom of expression guaranteed in the constitution, and that social media abuses this moderate power in any case.
Barrett believes Trump’s lawyers misunderstand the First Amendment. It compels the authorities not to impose unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of expression of citizens.
– This applies to government censorship or speech regulation. This does not prevent private companies from regulating content on their sites, he tells the AP.
– In fact, Facebook and Twitter have freedom of expression, and according to the constitution, Barrett says, they can choose which statements they want to allow on their sites. “That right includes eliminating incitement to violence, as Trump did in connection with the January 6 capital uprising,” he said.
Evan Greer, head of the organization for digital rights, says “fight for the future.” Defender It is naive to believe that large corporations did not play a role in restricting the freedom of expression of citizens, but there is still little left to the case.
– This is not a case, it is a fundraising stunt.
Within minutes of the lawsuit being filed, Trump and Republican election campaigns RNC and NRSC began sending out newsletters and text messages to their members asking for donations.