News/Commentary

Federal judge rules on Trump’s lawsuit against Twitter

May 7, 2022 | | Print Article

U.S. District Court Judge James Donato in San Francisco granted Twitter’s motion Friday to dismiss former President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the company for permanently banning him and others from the social media platform allegedly squelching their freedom of speech.

Trump, the American Conservative Union, and five other individuals sued Twitter and its co-founder Jack Dorsey in 2021 on behalf of themselves and a class of other Twitter users who had been banned from the site.

The former president’s attorneys argued in their court filing that Twitter “exercises a degree of power and control over political discourse in this country that is immeasurable, historically unprecedented, and profoundly dangerous to open democratic debate.”

After dismissing the suit, the judge said he will allow Trump’s attorneys to file an amended complaint that is “consistent with this order” by May 27. The complaint is not allowed to contain any new claims or defendants without prior permission from the court, according to Fox Business.

Trump’s lawsuit contended that Twitter violated the First Amendment, asserted that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is unconstitutional, and accused the social media platform of “deceptive and misleading practices” that are in violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Donato declared in his order that since Twitter is a private company, the First Amendment is not applicable to the suit. He also commented in his 17-page ruling that the former president was “not starting from a position of strength” by using the First Amendment argument.

“Twitter is a private company, and ‘the First Amendment applies only to governmental abridgments of speech, and not to alleged abridgments by private companies,’” the judge noted.

Donato rejected the argument that Twitter’s ban was attributable to the government’s actions and therefore violated the First Amendment.

“Overall, the amended complaint does not plausibly allege that Twitter acted as a government entity when it closed plaintiffs’ accounts,” Donato wrote.

The judge dismissed the claim that the federal Communications Decency Act was unconstitutional after finding that the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to challenge it. Donato stated that the only way they could have such standing was to show that Twitter “would not have de-platformed the plaintiff” or others but for the legal immunity conferred by the CDA when it came to content.

Donato dismissed the third claim asserting that Twitter had violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices because Trump and the other plaintiffs agreed that California law would govern disputes between Twitter and its users, as Twitter’s terms of service state.

He also dismissed a fourth claim in the suit, made under Florida’s Stop Social Media Censorship Act.

Donato remarked that only one named plaintiff in the case, Dominick Latella, had an active Twitter account at the time Florida’s law took effect on July 1, 2021, and therefore is the only plaintiff who could conceivably have a claim under the law.

“There is also a major concern about the enforceability of the SSMCA,” the judge said.

“Florida government officials were enjoined from enforcing the SSMCA on June 30, 2021, the day before the law was to take effect, in a well-reasoned decision issued by the Northern District of Florida,” which found the law violated the First Amendment, he wrote.

Twitter permanently banned Trump from the platform in January 2021. The company alleged that he somehow contributed to the Jan. 6 protest and the violence that ensued.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida but then was transferred to Donato’s court.

Donato’s ruling comes almost two weeks after Trump stated that he had no interest in returning to Twitter even if his ban were to be lifted by Tesla CEO Elon Musk who is purchasing the social media platform with the stated goal of restoring free speech on it.

Trump was an avid Twitter user who tweeted an average of more than 30 posts per day according to CNBC. The former president had nearly 90 million followers on Twitter when he was banned from the platform.

Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE

DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW

Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

$10
$15
$25
$50
Other
$
Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
Latest posts by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton (see all)

Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

BPR INSIDER COMMENTS

Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!

4 thoughts on “Federal judge rules on Trump’s lawsuit against Twitter”

  1. Quote: “Donato declared in his order that since Twitter is a private company, the First Amendment is not applicable to the suit.” Not true, at least up until Elon Musk bought all the outstanding shares of stock. Obama judge so what can you expect. By the way, Psaki stated that the “White House had flagged comments they wanted banned.” White House, last time I looked, was generally considered to be part of the governmet.

    1. Well, Twitter was private before Musk bought it, in the sense that it wasn’t a government owned company. Not that that really helps, since, as you rightly observed, Twitter was acting on the government’s behalf.

  2. Amazed at the “lawyers” in this country. To avail themselves of Section 230 protections, Twitter must show it has exercised good faith. Itr is obvious they have not done so and have no such protections. Likewise, “signing” twitter’s TOU assumes a future good faith dealing by twitter. Thus, BOTH “protections” are voided by twitter’s bad faith dealings. Proceed with the lawsuit and quit the song and dance allowing twitter to skate.

    IANAL

  3. Trump needs to fire his lawyer. All of the reasons stated by the Judge are pretty much a slam dunk.

    This was essentially a slam dunk before it was filed.

Comments are closed.

Latest Articles