[ad_1]
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A San Francisco judge has dismissed a lawsuit against former President Donald Trump’s permanent ban from Twitter.
US District Judge James Donato said on Friday that Trump had not shown that Twitter violated his right to free speech on the First Amendment. The judge wrote that free speech rights do not apply to private companies, and Trump failed to show that Twitter is working as a state actor on behalf of the Democrats.
“The amended complaint only presents a bag of allegations that some Democratic members of Congress wanted Mr Trump and his ‘opinions’ banned from Twitter because such ‘content and views’ were ‘contrary’. these are the viewpoints preferred by legislators,” Donato wrote. “But the comments of a handful of elected officials are far from being ‘a decision rule for which the State is responsible.’ Legislators are completely free to express their views without being seen as the official voice of ‘State’. ”
Trump sued Twitter, Facebook, and Google’s YouTube in July 2021, alleging that they were illegally censoring him.
Platforms suspended Trump after the January 6, 2021 uprising, when his followers violently stormed the Capitol building in an attempt to prevent Congress from ratifying Joe Biden’s presidential victory. The companies have expressed concerns that it will incite more violence.
The decision came as the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, is in the process of buying Twitter for $44 billion. The deal raised questions about whether Musk, who describes himself as an absolutist for free speech, will reinstate the former president.
Continuing to repeat his 2020 election defeat lies in his speeches, Trump founded his own social network, Truth Social. He said last week that he would not rejoin Twitter if given the chance.
The lawsuit sought to reinstate Trump’s account, which has nearly 89 million followers, and the accounts of five others who claimed to have been censored by Twitter. The group claimed unspecified damages and class action on behalf of others removed from the platform.
Legal experts had predicted the case would fail, but suggested that Trump would do so for political purposes. Trump’s political action committee began raising money soon after the case was announced last year.
The case also sought a declaration that section 230 of the Communications Ethics Act 1996 was unconstitutional.
The law says that providers like Twitter can moderate the services by removing obscene posts that violate their standards and cannot be held responsible for content posted by others.
Donato said Trump made a “vague and speculative claim” to Twitter that he believes would not have been banned had he not been granted immunity by Section 230.
Donato gave Trump another opportunity to change his complaint. Trump’s lawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
[ad_2]
Source link