Posted on 05/17/2021 10:24:55 AM PDT by NobleFree
A federal judge in Massachusetts is going to make Twitter explain whether or not it is a “state actor” or a truly private company, and the effects could be significant in reigning in Big Tech’s oppression of conservative views.
Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, the man who invented email, ran for US Senate in Massachusetts as a Republican and made allegations of voter fraud on Twitter. These tweets were then deleted by the far-left tech giant. Later it was discovered that they were deleted at the direction of government employees of the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s office.
Discovering this, Dr. Ayyadurai filed a federal lawsuit by himself, alleging that his federal civil rights were violated when the government silenced his political speech in order to affect an election.
Federal Judge Mark L. Wolf, a 1985 Reagan Appointee, has set a hearing on pending motions for May 20, 2021 at 9:30AM EST. His court orders make it quite clear he is taking this case seriously and the court is highlighting several relevant cases that should give Twitter and its Big Tech bully buddies some pause.
By quoting these two cases, legal observers note, the judge is signaling that Twitter’s days of claiming it is a private company so as to avoid it’s clear oppression of conservative speech, banning scores of conservative journalists, and promotion of liberal views, may be coming to a close end:
Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1928 (2019)
“A private entity can qualify as a state actor in a few limited circumstances-including, for example, … when the government compels the private entity to take a particular action…”
Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982)
“a State normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State”
This case could spell the end of CDA 230. CDA 230 is the provision of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that gives internet and social media companies legal immunity from lawsuits due to the content they publish.
This provision in law gives companies like Facebook and Twitter a way to dismiss lawsuits, but it also gives them the ability to act with impunity so that their actions cannot be legally challenged. These companies have, according to their detractors, abused this immunity by suppressing dissident, and specifically conservative, views, viewpoints and journalism.
Because Dr. Ayyadurai did not argue about Twitter’s “Terms of Service” everything will instead hinge on the degree of interaction between Twitter and the state government of Massachusetts.
And according to Dr. Ayyadurai, those links have already been proven in testimony, since Twitter has built a special portal offered to certain governmental entities so that government officials can flag and delete content they dislike for any reason, as part of what they call “Twitter Partner Status.”
This sets the stage for this court asking whether CDA 230 can be used to violate someone’s civil rights by letting the government do something via a private company what it could not otherwise do: silence their political speech. Dr. Ayyadurai is claiming that the Constitution trumps CDA 230 and the government cannot outsource to private actors to silence people’s speech they disagree with, and that the government and Twitter are acting together as one: that Twitter is essentially a state actor.
Conservative journalist Charles Johnson was the first journalist banned off Twitter in 2015. Conservative journalist James O’Keefe was the first to reveal that Twitter “shadow banned” political views it disagreed with in 2018, O’Keefe was later permanently banned from Twitter.
Gateway Pundit Publisher Jim Hoft was permanently banned off of Twitter after posting video evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 election in Michigan in February this year.
Almost every court that has looked at CDA 230 immunity since 2001 has preserved the immunity of social media companies. This is the first time in over 20 years where there has ever been a potential to strike it down or to suggest the Constitution is superior to the law and an ISP under the act could be a ‘state actor’ for purposes of civil rights law.
This is the first case of its kind to even have a chance according to legal observers.
There is some concern expressed among some that Twitter and Facebook may welcome the end of CDA 230, so as to remove all competition for social media dominance by increasing state regulation. This tactic is known in economic circles as “rent seeking” and “moat building” where dominant corporate entities seek to increase the regulatory burden on others to preclude competition and innovation among upstarts who might challenge their market dominance.
The hearing is set for Thursday, May 20th.
** You can donate to support Dr. Shiva here.
** You can watch the hearing live on Zoom on May 20.
** To register for Zoom hearing, visit https://forms.mad.uscourts.gov/courtlist.html and then select the date Thursday May 20, 2021, and Judge Wolf.
Shiva is a weird guy and it’s a bit creepy how he’s selling his products and services as part of a supposed political movement, but he’s a smart dude. Would be fantastic if he really nailed Twitter here. (And I’d guess Facebook, etc., have similar backdoors for government hands in their operations?)
No matter what this judge does, the far left liberal 1st Circuit is going to protect Twatter.
Trump twiddled his thumbs on this stuff for 4 years. Unfortunately.
it wasn’t his to change
Trump had swamp AGs thanks to Mitch.
I agree. I know they're private companies, but their relationships to society is similar, though not exact, to the relationships of electric companies and water companies. I'm for free enterprise but you just can't let the electric companies say no to someone who wants electricity.
Twitter,Facebook,Youtube,etc should have two options when reviewing a post: let it pass (even if the reviewer thinks it's crazy), or call the cops because someone made a threat.
This is a stretch.
“A private entity can qualify as a state actor in a few limited circumstances-including, for example, … when the government compels the private entity to take a particular action…”
The very definition of Fascism.
Here’s to hopes that Twatter gets smacked down - hard!
Sorry...
It is not “breaking” or “huge” until he actually does something...
it will be overturn on appeal and the conservatives at SCOTUS will fold like a bad hand.
Trump is responsible for his hundreds and hundreds of swamp appointments.
I don’t think so.
Again, the progressives don’t care. They’ll just keep doing it and basically challenge anyone to stop them.
This will be limited to this one signal case.
The real news: This judge is signaling that he may in fact find that the USA is a fascist state where, like China, large industry is a tool of the state and used to enforce state policies.
BOOM.🤔
What’s a Branford?
This is what I kept telling you would happen if you allowed private corporations to censor public speech. The government will always use influence or pressure to get speech they don't like suppressed.
Wake up and smell the behind the scenes hand of government.
Ummm, a town.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.