Select Page

THIS IS ‘HUGE’ – Big Tech COMPANIES TREATED AS “State Actors” in Trump’S Lawsuit

THIS IS ‘HUGE’ – Big Tech COMPANIES TREATED AS “State Actors” in Trump’S Lawsuit

The top lawyer representing former President Donald Trump in his lawsuit against Facebook, Twitter, and Google says the tech companies will be treated as “state actors” because they are acting in concert with the federal government. This means the companies will be held to legal standards normally reserved for governments, including prior restraint.

Trump filed a class-action lawsuit against Facebook, Twitter, and Google in July over the platforms’ censorship of conservative content (including himself).

Critics insist the tech companies cannot violate a person’s constitutional rights because the Constitution does not apply to private companies, but Trump says the sites are acting as “government subsidies” that have been “co-opted, coerced, and weaponized by government actors to become the enforcers of illegal, unconstitutional censorship.”

Speaking to Fox News this week, Trump lawyer John Coale agreed that social media companies are being utilized by the federal government to censor Americans.

“The basis for all of this case is that private companies cannot be empowered by the government via Congress, via [Section] 230,” says Coale. “The Biden Administration and members of Congress can’t delegate what they cannot do themselves…The issue will in the end be decided in the Supreme Court, it’s that important.”

There are three tests to determine if Facebook, Twitter, and Google are government actors, says Coale:

  1. Have government officials threatened these companies?
  2. Is the government encouraging unconstitutional censorship? 
  3. Are the private companies doing the bidding of the government?

I think my readers know the answer to all three of these questions is a resounding “Yes.”

Included in Trump’s lawsuit is a motion for a preliminary injunction that would force Google to allow Trump back on YouTube. The motion sites several examples wherein lawmakers have pressured or encouraged the social media sites and highlights the companies’ inconsistent application of standards (i.e. censoring conservative content while allowing hate speech from Democrats). 

Key examples include: 

  1. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asking why there aren’t “uprisings all over the country” regarding the treatment of children at the US-Mexico border. 
  2. Then-Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) saying that protests over police brutality “should not” let up. 

——-

Facebook, Twitter, and Google banned Trump from their platforms in January following the incident at the US Capitol. Facebook says its ban will last for two years pending the former president’s behavior, while Twitter’s ban is permanent. 

YouTube (owned by Google) says it will allow Trump back on the platform when it “determines the risk of real-world violence has decreased.”

As the lawsuit proceeds, Coale says he will file motions to allow Trump back on Facebook and Twitter. Any appeals will be sent to the 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta, GA.

Sources:

Trump big tech suit lawyer predicts case headed to Supreme Court, says gov’t pressure made firms state actors 

Donald Trump is Suing Facebook, Will You Join Him? 

About The Author

6 Comments

  1. Ben

    Trump is a whinny c unt of a snow flake. Seriously, my teenage daughters don’t complain about how unfair life is as much as trump. And they weren’t born with a silver spoon

    Reply
    • Barry

      Your bimbo daughter didn’t get cheated out of an election. But she’s probably a whiny little snowflake

      Reply
    • Mac Ewing

      Take your daughters to Joe Biden and let him cop a feel.

      Reply
    • Lee MCKINNEY

      Your daughters are being raised to be dumbasses like their idiot daddy

      Reply
    • Anonymous

      Obviously you are misinformed! Trump is the best President we have had in years! Biden will not last to much longer as was there plan !

      Reply
  2. Joseph S. Bruder

    Oh, Alice, Alice, Alice… I just complimented you in one of your other articles for sticking to the facts, and here you go with a 180-degree turn…

    First of all, it’s not “HUGE”, it’s not even real – it’s just part 60-something of Trump’s never-ending lawsuits with no evidence whatsoever. It’s more bluster by Trump and his lawyers, and means nothing. In fact, it’s just one more way to con the Trump-rubes out of more money.

    Secondly, you ask three questions, and without any discussion you decide an answer and impose it on your readers.
    – Have government officials threatened these companies? No, they have not… unless you want to count McCarthy threatening the telecom companies because they have been subpoena’ed to keep their records.
    – Is the government encouraging unconstitutional censorship? No. The only constitutional mention of free speech is that the government can’t censor speech (under most circumstances). Companies can do whatever they like, so it’s not “unconstitutional”.
    – Are the private companies doing the bidding of the government? No, private companies are doing what’s best for their businesses. The government has not asked.

    Horist would call these “strawmen”, I call it just poor journalism. Did you actually think these things up yourself, or did PBP tell you to start with these “facts” and write something around it?

    Third, your “key examples” have nothing to do with free speech or censorship. Encouraging people to be outraged at the treatment of others is not the same as encouraging gun nuts to take up arms against the government or some other group that a fascist can use to divide people.

    Fourth, Trump was banned from those platforms because he violated their terms of service. Companies can be liable for printing knowingly false statements and/or encouraging violence, so it’s in their best interests to limit that kind of speech ON THEIR OWN PLATFORMS. They have that right. And they also recognize that a functional stable democracy is in their best interests too, and Trump was certainly not promoting that.

    Fifth, just because Trump’s lawyer-du-jour files a motion doesn’t mean it will go anywhere. See: the results of his last 60-something lawsuits.

    Alice, if you keep this up, you’ll never graduate to writing for real news organisations. I know it’s what PBP wants, but you’ve shown that you can also write factual essays with restraint.

    Reply

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.

  1. Trump constantly antagonized the Chinese during his term of office (except when his daughter could make money from Chinese patents),…