CA Judge: Twitter Can Be Sued For Falsely Advertising They Allow Free Speech
Posted by Mac Slavo on June 18, 2018 8:00 pm
Tags: attorney, banning, california, censorship, Court, facebook, Free Speech, Headline News, Jared Taylor, judge, lawsuit, lawyers, Noah Peters, political accounts, pro-Trump, ruling, shadow banning, Tommie Robinson, Twitter, white activist. social media, YOUTUBE
Categories: attorney banning california Censorship court facebook Free Speech Headline News Jared Taylor Judge Lawsuit lawyers Noah Peters political accounts pro-Trump ruling shadow banning Tommie Robinson Twitter US News white activist. social media World News YouTube
A California judge has ruled that social media giant Twitter can be sued for falsely advertising free speech. 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. YouTube, Google, and Facebook are on the front lines of the fight for totalitarianism by silencing those with whom they disagree, much like the Nazis of Hitler’s regime.