[ Editor’s Note: Trump loses another big court case, this one with Twitter. But from his viewpoint, it’s only a loss if he has to pay for it out of his pocket. The last I heard, he had free rein with his campaign funds to pay all of his legal expenses under the cover that “it’s all political”. He does love being ‘Da Judge’.
I am still waiting for Congress to fund beefing up the federal court infrastructure, i.e., the physical part, with more judges and more staff, otherwise the justice delayed quandary will continue indefinitely, with more people dying of old age before their cases are ever resolved.
The fun part of the Insurrection and The Steal litigation will include seeing the plotters exposed via all of their conspiratorial communications, in paper, audio and video, and live testimony, in quantities that will make Watergate look like a bump in the road. Trump might croak before it is over, which would be a shame.
I watched some campaign video on him yesterday, in Pennsylvania. It was scary, with Trump acting like he was in a dementia comedy movie… saying things about a candidate running for the Senate, Dr. Oz, that his wife was going to make a wonderful ‘first lady’. It went on and on.
One of the best weapons to deal with Trump is to keep getting him in front of campaign crowds. This venue had people leaving in ankle deep mud when it was over, having been an ‘inexpensive venue’ in a field somewhere. We all need to pace ourselves for the long haul here, as I see no end in sight… Jim W. Dean ]
First published May 7, 2022
A federal judge in San Francisco on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed by former President Donald Trump against Twitter over its decision to permanently kick him off the social media platform following the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Last July, Trump filed separate cases against Twitter, Facebook and Google’s YouTube service over similar decisions to limit or eliminate his ability to use their sites to spread his messages about election fraud and other issues.
The suits contended that the social media companies were essentially acting as government agents when they banned his speech and that doing so violated the First Amendment, which applies only to government action, not that of private companies or individuals.
“Plaintiffs offer only ambiguous and open-ended statements to the effect that ‘we may legislate’ something unfavorable to Twitter or the social media sector,” wrote Donato, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.
“There is no way to allege with any degree of plausibility when, if ever, the comments voiced by a handful of members of Congress might become a law, or what changes such a law might impose on social media companies like Twitter. … Much of what plaintiffs challenge fits within the normal boundaries of a congressional investigation, as opposed to threats of punitive state action.”