The world is changing fast and to keep up you need local knowledge with global context.
In January 2021, Twitter announced that it would be suspending Former President Donald Trump from the platform, blocking his account from further interaction online. The social media company said in a statement that they “have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.” This announcement followed the Capitol Riots, where pro-Trump rioters stormed the Capitol in Washington DC. More than 140 people were injured and four died. Many are of the opinion that Former President Trump incited the violence at a speech that happened just before the violent eruption. Facebook and Google have also suspended Trump’s accounts, effectively banning him from a number of platforms. However, he is striking back. In a press conference held earlier this week, Trump said the effort was a move to defend First Amendment rights. Some may argue that social media platforms have no right to suspend people indefinitely, as it can be seen as a form of censorship. Just because one doesn’t agree with what’s being said, doesn’t mean it needs to be taken down. BizNews has first hand experience with this – earlier in the year, a speech given by Nick Hudson at the BizNews Investment Conference was taken down by YouTube. The reason? According to the video sharing company, “YouTube doesn’t allow content that explicitly disputes the efficacy of local health authorities or World Health Organisation guidance on social distancing and self isolation.” While it may not be fair to share all sides of the story, Facebook, Twitter and Google – as big as they may be – are privately owned companies who reserve the right to decide what does (and does not) get posted on their sites. – Jarryd Neves
Trump sues Facebook, Twitter, Google over social media bans
By Mark Niquette and Naomi Nix
(Bloomberg) – Former President Donald Trump sued Facebook, Twitter, Alphabet’s Google and their chief executives, raising the stakes in his battle against social media giants who have blocked him.
Billing the effort during a Wednesday press conference as a move to defend First Amendment rights, Trump filed three separate class-action lawsuits in federal court in Florida against the tech giants and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter’s Jack Dorsey and Google’s Sundar Pichai.
The lawsuits seek court orders to restore his social-media accounts, along with punitive damages, to ensure other users can’t be banned or flagged by the tech giants. The legal team is being led by John P. Coale, a trial attorney involved in lawsuits against big tobacco companies.
“We’re going to hold big tech very accountable,” Trump said during the press conference at his Trump National Golf Club Bedminster in New Jersey. “If they can do it to me, they can do it to anyone.”
Twitter permanently banned Trump in January for his role in stoking the mob that attacked the US Capitol Jan. 6 in a deadly riot to stop the counting of Electoral College votes for President Joe Biden. Facebook last month said Trump would remain suspended from its networks for at least two years, with the possibility of being reinstated in 2023 if risk to public safety has subsided.
YouTube, Google’s giant video service, also froze Trump’s account following the Jan. 6 riot. The former president’s videos are still accessible, but he isn’t permitted to post new videos. Susan Wojcicki, YouTube’s chief executive, has said that the company will reverse its policy when it decides that the “risk of violence has decreased,” without providing details.
Facebook, Google and Twitter declined to comment on the suits, which were criticised by tech-funded advocacy groups. NetChoice, whose members include Amazon and other tech companies, said the action shows a “deliberate misunderstanding of the First Amendment” and is without merit.
“President Trump has no case,” NetChoice CEO Steve DelBianco said in a release. “The First Amendment is designed to protect the media from the President, not the other way around.”
The Computer & Communications Industry Association, whose members include Facebook, Twitter and Google, said in a statement that digital services have the right to enforce their terms of service and “frivolous class action litigation will not change the fact that users – even U.S. presidents – have to abide by the rules they agreed to.”
Joshua Davis, a professor at University of San Francisco’s law school, agreed Trump’s legal argument was “weak” but said politics may inspire some judges to rule differently.
Trump is very likely to lose the cases “on the legal merits,” he said. “Having said that, there are political movements afoot that probably make it attractive to conservative judges who I think are concerned about the effects of social media on conservative causes and also more liberal judges who are concerned about the power that social media commands.”
Twitter closed down 2% in New York, while Facebook fell 0.7% and Google rose less than 1%.
Trump and the Republican National Committee began blasting fundraising solicitations almost immediately, including one appeal seeking donations “to show your support for President Trump’s lawsuit against Big Tech.”
Trump is seeking to overturn a federal law that shields internet companies from liability for content posted by users. Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act protects social media platforms from lawsuits accusing them of unfairly removing posts or accounts, among other legal challenges. The First Amendment prohibits the government from forcing tech companies to leave up or take down certain categories of posts.
The companies are private and therefore not subject to First Amendment claims from users and have liability protections under Section 230. But in his lawsuits, Trump is arguing that the tech giants worked with the government to censor Americans and thus are “state actors” who can be sued.
The banishment of Trump by major tech platforms reignited Republican calls to revoke the legal shield, arguing that it has enabled social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to censor conservative viewpoints.
The lawsuits aren’t the first time Trump has taken aim at Section 230. While in office, he tried to get Congress to repeal it by threatening to veto a Defence Department spending bill. Democrats have also proposed bills to curtail the legal shield to encourage tech companies to more aggressively rid their platforms of bigotry, abuse, and harassment.
Tech companies have largely resisted changes to the law, fearing that the proliferation of lawsuits will force them to clamp down on the free-flowing user-generated content. However, both Zuckerberg and Dorsey have expressed openness in recent months to Section 230 reforms.
Without access to the broad reach afforded by social media giants, Trump has struggled to maintain an online presence. He shut down his blog-like “From the Desk of Donald J. Trump,” though he frequently sends out several press statements a day – often targeting fellow Republicans he believes are insufficiently loyal.
Trump recently stepped up his public activity by restarting rallies and making a trip to the southern US border last week to criticise Biden’s immigration policies. He’s backing candidates in the 2022 midterm elections and actively opposing others. He has also held out the prospect of running again for president in 2024.
The former president has been teasing that he’ll launch a new platform that can’t remove him. He said on Dave Rubin’s “Rubin Report” podcast on June 25 that “there’s a lot of platforms out there, that’s what we’re looking at, getting the right platform, a perfect platform, and I think you’ll see something fairly soon.”
During his presidency, Trump used Twitter for everything from insulting rivals to major policy announcements, and he relied on Facebook especially to raise money from small-dollar donors.
A Florida law that was supposed to go into effect July 1 prohibiting social media platforms from suspending the accounts of political candidates was blocked by a federal judge. Likening the state’s law to “burning the house to roast a pig,” U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle in Tallahassee said the legislation passed by a Republican legislature and a priority of Governor Ron DeSantis, violates the companies’ free speech rights.
The cases are: Trump et al v Twitter et al, 21-cv-22441, Trump et al v Facebook et al, 21-cv-22440, US District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami) and Trump et al v YouTube et al, 21-cv-61384, US District Court, Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale).
– With assistance from Mark Bergen, Nico Grant and Malathi Nayak.
- Covid-19 censorship boom – With insights from The Wall Street Journal
- Facebook ends ban on posts stating Covid is man-made – With insights from The Wall Street Journal
- Angry SAs speak: YouTube’s removal of Nick Hudson video is censorship
Cyril Ramaphosa: The Audio Biography
Listen to the story of Cyril Ramaphosa's rise to presidential power, narrated by our very own Alec Hogg.