Donald Trump’s First Amendment Rights Supersede Sec 230, or Facebook’s Terms of Service Contract

Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube share 85% of the social media market, Facebook a whopping 72% https://gs.statcounter.com/…/all/united-states-of-america

Facebook is such a convenient multi-platform media that over half of Americans get their news there (Forbes, Pew Research).

Therefore, banning Pres. Donald J. Trump from Facebook is a targeted violation of 1st Amendment Rights unprecedented in U.S. history.

Facebook claims that their right to block Trump content is legal, and controlled by terms of service. One issue Facebook claims is that Trump’s insistence that the 2020 Election was ‘stolen’ through ballot fraud provokes violence and insurrection. Yet, when evidence and testimony ballot fraud occurred, that content is blocked as well (ex. Michael Yon’s eyewitness testimony the January 6th ‘insurrection’ was not MAGA supporters, or Capital Police Captain Sund’s Letter to Nancy Pelosi were purged, or ‘edited’ out as False Information by Facebook ‘fact checkers’), it is more political than public interest.

Considering the statistics of Facebook’s market penetration and public reliance for information and news, the 1st Amendment supersedes Section 230 and Facebook’s Terms of Service. Facebook has to prove Donald Trump’s ‘speech’ has instigated insurrection and riots, creating a ‘clear and present danger, not just present evidence that may be unpopular, or result in controversy and lawsuits.

It has to be ‘untrue’ and libelous. See, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), and Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). So, when Facebook claims Donald Trump is promoting imminent violence (there is ZERO evidence Trump incited January 6th’s riot at the Capitol), or can be sued for slander (by accusing Pennsylvania of unconstitutional ballot rules, Georgia of abuse of Mail Ballot scanning, Michigan of Corrupted Dominion Machine results, etc.) . . . nor can Donald Trump be sued for claiming Arizona relied on invalid voter registrations, fraudulently and negligently, to flip the 2020 election.

Not one subject of these accusations has succeeded suing Donald Trump, while all of the lawsuits Trump and Trump supporters (and states) have had their cases blocked by the courts. This ‘blanket’ ban of Donald Trump from Facebook for two years, well past the 2022 election, is a distinct and irrefutable violation of his constitutional rights . . . and those 1st Amendment Rights overrule any statute or contract.

Appeals court tosses panel ruling endorsing Section 230 Big Tech protections

4 responses to “Donald Trump’s First Amendment Rights Supersede Sec 230, or Facebook’s Terms of Service Contract”

  1. arnash Avatar
    arnash

    Those statistics are mighty impressive and the courts had better acknowledge the new ‘speech’ reality of the internet age. But here’s a thought to mull over; is not President Trump on solid ground to sue the colluding media companies for slander? They slandered him by their implications that were so strong and unbending that they’ve blocked him indefinitely.
    That indicates that they are not merely labeling him as a potential threat to some constituency, but an actual, on-going threat of a insurrectionist and criminal nature. That sure looks like a slanderous assertion to me. And it was all done in a conpiring and pre-meditated manner…no mistaken choice but one well considered and probably pre-planned.

    Reply
    1. paraleaglenm Avatar
      paraleaglenm

      Hey, Arnash. Trump’s 1st Amendment case is looking better and better, especially now that the Biden West Wing has admitted to collusion with Facebook . . . also, here is a reversal of a panel that supported Sec 230, so that is going to trial as well. The case is a church that discussed LBGT returning to Christianity and forsaking the immoral lifestyle. https://www.wnd.com/2021/07/appeals-court-tosses-panel-ruling-endorsing-section-230-big-tech-protections/?utm_medium=wnd&utm_source=jeeng

      As for Slander, that is very difficult in the case of public figures. The legal standard to prove ‘malice and forethought’ is ridiculously high.

      Reply
  2. Faili Avatar
    Faili

    This is a stretch of a legal argument that would not stand against any arguments, such as Trump inciting the insurrection as being without fact. It’s obvious to the layman that Trump organized, encouraged, and incited at that rally, and the logical conclusion of violence.

    Reply
    1. paraleaglenm Avatar
      paraleaglenm

      The Big Tech Social Sites have evolved into excellent News Aggregators. However, without evidence, stories have been blocked with the excuse being, ‘Disinformation.’ However, almost every First Amendment abuse of discretion by YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook have been proven wrong, denying critical news and information, for political purposes.
      As for January 6th, two statements from Capitol Police Captain Sund, and eyewitness observations by War Correspondent Michael Yon . . . and now new stories about agents provacateur from the FBI instigating movement into the Capitol, give credence to the theory that it was Antifa and the Democrats who organized the attack on the Capitol with direct motive (and modus operandi) to DISRUPT THE TITLE 3 SEC 15 filings of an unprecedented six states, objecting to Biden’s electors and demanding counting, instead, of Alternative Electors for Trump. This was accomplished, the late reconvening of congress tabling the planned Title 3 submissions and certifying Biden instead.
      And, yes, Pence did have the constitutional power to decide, regardless of congressional vote, to count the Alternates for Trump, the veracity of the six states’ claims to be adjudicated in a more deliberative venue.

      Reply

Leave a reply to paraleaglenm Cancel reply