7 thoughts on “Suing Twitter

  1. He is suing in state court, which is a venue that some legal practitioners have discussed as a possible avenue for this type of action.

  2. I suspect the argument he’ll attempt to bring is that Twitter, by favouring and encouraging particular kinds of speech whilst silencing others – curation of content in effect – has stopped being a service provided and edged into being a publisher, at which point it loses safe harbor protections and becomes open to libel suits.

    • It hasn’t edged into that territory, it’s dove in head first. They’ve leapfrogged becoming a publisher and landed squarely in being ideological activists and censoring with a political agenda.

      I haven’t seen Murphy’s suit, but I’m really waiting to see Nicholas Sandmann’s. As soon as one of these tech behemoths is pushed off the provider immunity pedestal, the game changes considerably.

      That said, Congress ought to have dealt with this.

  3. Undisclosed “shadow banning” is little less than an act of fraud. There is an implicit contract of enduring tedious monetization efforts in exchange for the opportunity to use the megaphone in the public square. If that megaphone knowingly doesn’t work that’s fraud.

Leave a Reply