Judge Rules Twitter Can Be Sued For Falsely Advertising They Allow Free Speech

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

A California judge has ruled that social media giant Twitter can be sued for falsely advertising free speech. As Bloomberg reports, the judge said that Twitter’s policy of banning users “at any time, for any reason or for no reason” may constitute an “unconscionable contract” for a company which advertises free speech.

The judge rejected Twitter’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit from Jared Taylor, who was banned by the platform in December last year, according to Breitbart.  Taylor, a self-described “white activist” may proceed with his lawsuit against Twitter because the social media company falsely advertises free speech, yet bans users for “any or no reason.”  The judge also ruled that Twitter could be sued on the basis of misleading its users, due to the platform’s promise not to ban accounts on the basis of viewpoint or political affiliation, which is frequently violated.

“This ruling has massive implications for the platform going forward,” said Noah Peters, Jared Taylor’s lawyer. “this is the first time that a social media company’s argument that it can censor user speech has been rejected by a court.”

Taylor describes himself as a “race realist” and has defended white separatism, claiming that races are “not equal”, but his attorney says this trial is not about his client’s particular views, and that’s a correct assessment.  The trial is about Twitter’s disallowance of free speech although they use that term to advertise the social media platform.

“Our lawsuit is not about whether Taylor is right or wrong,” Peters said in February. “It’s about whether Twitter and other technology companies have the right to ban individuals from using their services based on their perceived viewpoints and affiliations.”

By now, it should be well understood that the terms “hate facts” and “hate speech” are nothing more than buzzwords used by the left as an excuse to suppress the speech of those with which they disagree.  This is becoming more and more apparent as we devolve quickly toward a fully totalitarian system too.

Breitbart reported that the most high-profile individual to be banned on this basis was Islam critic Tommy Robinson, who received a permanent ban from Twitter after he posted statistics showing that Muslims are vastly overrepresented in child grooming gangs in the UK. Robinson is now taking Twitter to court to prove that “facts are now treated as hate.” SHTFPlan

Twitter employees have also been caught on camera boasting about their actions to keep conservatives and Trump supporters off the platform.  They also, along with YouTube, have scrubbed videos that do not align with the government and mainstream media’s “official narrative” with regards to incidents such as the Parkland, Florida school shooting. 

One employee even discussed shadowbanning political accounts, a practice that Twitter has continually denied using.  Another employee claimed that accounts that expressed an interest in “god, guns, and America” were likely to be flagged as “bots.” Another employee, Mo Norai, explained that Twitter moderators regularly discriminated against accounts deemed to be pro-Trump.

Twitter’s double standards can be seen in the way it handles complaints of abuse against conservatives and individuals linked to conservatives. But it isn’t just Twitter who is attempting to censor and suppress free speech. YouTubeGoogle, and Facebookare on the front lines of the fight for totalitarianism by silencing those with whom they disagree, much like the Nazis of Hitler’s regime.


Zerogenous_Zone pods Tue, 06/19/2018 - 09:47 Permalink

good call...


but we may need to be wary of what is created in the aftermath...


fakebook ring any bells?  


at issue is that the 'users' are not in control of 'their' privacy...or more succinctly, don't get to 'restrict' this data (or make a profit from 'sharing' it)...


it's going to a tough battle...and extremely 'hot' for those easily triggered snowflakes...



In reply to by pods

Antifaschistische pods Tue, 06/19/2018 - 10:11 Permalink

social media sites are the modern equivalent of the restaurant in the 1950's.

If a restaurant (a public place) is not allowed to refuse service to individuals...

...the social websites should not be allowed to refuse access to OR disallow freedom of speech

...they can (perhaps must) provide users with the ability to block users directly, or categorically based on content, words, associations, etc.

In reply to by pods

A Sentinel Antifaschistische Tue, 06/19/2018 - 10:24 Permalink

Not a bad start. They’ll counter that political action is not like race (not a choice) 

But then they’re in trouble: Because how much different is political “choice” than “choice” of sexual orientation? I couldn’t “choose” to be a lib. 

So if they win that, no more protection for sexual orientation — and that would muck up their plan (next big goal) to legitimize pedophilia.

In reply to by Antifaschistische

lookslikecraptome A Sentinel Tue, 06/19/2018 - 10:46 Permalink

K. I gotta go there. How could I not?  This is twitter related to Mr. Jack Dorsey correctomundo? Who pumped the bitcoin jump (smile, (I am trying to tone it down or I would have said, LOL all day long) yesterday. 

So this guy cannot keep his ass out of court because he is too stupid to see that his terms of service place him in a legally stupid position with his marketing hype. 

and people actually thanked him for hyping btc or something that gave coin a .00005% bump. as compared to its all time high. 

In reply to by A Sentinel

snblitz Antifaschistische Tue, 06/19/2018 - 13:54 Permalink

I like the restaurant comparison.  Most of the internet giants have argued in court at one time or another that they are "Common Carriers".

Common Carrier is a very old set of laws that exempted transport companies from liability related to what was inside the packages they transported for people.

The law basically says:

  1. If you do not look inside the package
  2. and you offer your service equally to all

you are exempt from any liability related to what may be in the package.

The Internet Giants used this argument to keep from being sued over defamation.

Later the Internet Giants ran into a the problem that a fortune could be made looking inside the "packages".  That is they found the could monetize the data that was flowing through their system but that required that they look.

Not only did the Internet Giants start looking inside the packages they started acting upon what they saw.  Once they looked they were no longer exempted from defamation suits. (at least as the law is written).

Now not only do they look inside the packages, but they act on what they see, **and** they do not offer the service equally to all.

Yet, if you sue one of them for defamation you will find them arguing they are common carriers.

And the liability goes much further than just defamation.  The Internet Giants become a party to every conspiracy or other crime they come across in the data that they do not report to the police. 

The Internet Giants are working on AI so hard because they intend to argue in the near future that AI's do not constitute "looking" inside the package.

In reply to by Antifaschistische

MoreFreedom Stan522 Tue, 06/19/2018 - 13:20 Permalink

"And that's what happens when you elect squishy Republicans who then don't pay attention to who they select to be a judge...... "

Those Republicans aren't "squishy", they're just lying RINO establishment politicians who claim to be conservative to get elected.  Their votes tell us who they are really are: big government liberals.  After all, didn't every one promise to repeal Obamacare, then didn't enough vote against it to ensure Obamacare stayed, when it mattered?   And they've never cut spending, except under Obama but then that was only temporary as they then increased it to higher than before, within the year.

In reply to by Stan522

Help Is Not Coming Nameshavebeenc… Tue, 06/19/2018 - 09:14 Permalink

No. Don't beat the shit out of the CEOs. That will just get you arrested. Better yet is to buy one share of stock in the company and have it properly registered to you. Then wait for them to do something stupid and then start a shareholder lawsuit against the board for acts against the greater shareholder interest. Things like shadow banning people, etc. Actually owning the stock also allows you entrance to shareholder meetings where the board has to take questions from shareholders. You can ask very pressing questions that might even pertain to the creation of your future shareholder lawsuit. If the board answers your question with a lie and you find out later then you have even more of a right to sue.

I know i'm over simplifying things here. But this is the way you'll get their attention. By costing them money....

In reply to by Nameshavebeenc…

gregga777 Jim in MN Tue, 06/19/2018 - 08:56 Permalink

All that the maroons at Twitter need do is change their name to Litter, LIberaltwiTTER, that explicitly censors everyone except for the CommProg (Communinist Progressive) Liberals and voila no grounds for a lawsuit. But, no! They advertised Free Speech to all comers while explicitly practicing censorship. Based on empirical observations, the stupidest people that I've ever known have been the highly educated like PhDs. Looks like that fact of life is alive and well with the maroons at Twitter. 

In reply to by Jim in MN

Calculus99 Tue, 06/19/2018 - 08:20 Permalink

It must suck to be in business in the US, lawsuits being slung at you every fucking day.

No doubt some are legit, but most of them are nothing short of a legal shakedown for cash.