Trump Lawsuits Against Social Media: A Failing Effort

Legal Challenges to Social Media Bans Face Uphill Battle

Former President Trump’s recent legal actions against social media companies – initiated following his removal from their platforms – have garnered significant media coverage. However, the likelihood of these lawsuits achieving a substantive outcome appears minimal.

Similar to Trump’s previous attempts during his presidency to dismantle Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, these new legal challenges appear to be largely symbolic, lacking strong legal foundations.

First Amendment Concerns and Private Industry

The lawsuits contend that Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube infringed upon Trump’s First Amendment rights by suspending his accounts. It’s crucial to understand that the First Amendment safeguards citizens from government censorship, not restrictions imposed by private companies.

The inherent contradiction – that Trump himself held the highest office in the federal government during the time of these actions – is a point likely to be noted by the presiding court.

Trump’s legal filings name Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg, the CEOs of Twitter and Facebook respectively, alongside Google CEO Sundar Pichai, while notably omitting Susan Wojcicki.

The core accusation is that the tech firms engaged in “impermissible censorship” influenced by potential legislative repercussions, a misapplication of Section 230, and collaborative activity with federal entities.

Specifically, the suits allege collusion between the tech companies, “Democrat lawmakers,” the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Dr. Anthony Fauci, who served within Trump’s own administration.

The central argument posits that communication between these entities transforms Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube into “state actors,” a considerable legal stretch.

Precedent and the Definition of a “State Actor”

A relevant case examined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Supreme Court appointee of Trump, addressed whether a nonprofit operating public access television channels in New York qualified as a “state actor.”

The court determined that operating these channels did not convert the nonprofit into a governmental body, preserving its private rights regarding editorial decisions.

Justice Kavanaugh articulated that a private entity merely providing a platform for speech does not automatically become a state actor.

It is improbable that a court would conclude that communication with, or threats from, the government fundamentally alter Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook into state actors.

Section 230 and its Protections

Beyond First Amendment considerations – where a compelling argument is absent – social media platforms benefit from the protections afforded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Section 230 shields these platforms from liability not only for user-generated content but also for the moderation choices they make regarding content removal.

The lawsuits consistently criticize Section 230, reflecting Trump’s long-standing opposition to this legal safeguard.

The suits attempt to argue that threats from Congress to repeal Section 230 compelled the platforms to ban Trump, thereby transforming them into extensions of the government subject to First Amendment constraints.

However, this argument is tenuous, especially considering that both Republican lawmakers and the Trump administration frequently threatened Section 230’s repeal.

Furthermore, the suit claims Congress intentionally designed Section 230 to suppress First Amendment-protected speech, disregarding the law’s origins in 1996 and its initial purpose.

The Aftermath of Social Media Bans

During his presidency, Trump’s social media presence, particularly his tweets, significantly influenced national and global events.

His Twitter account often *was* the event itself, distinguishing him from other world leaders who used social media for communication or promotion.

Following his bans, the former president has struggled to re-establish a comparable level of online communication.

His blog, “From the Desk of Donald J. Trump,” launched in May, was discontinued after only a month due to limited engagement.

Alternative pro-Trump social media platforms continue to face challenges related to app store content moderation policies and differing views on free speech, as exemplified by the recent launch of Gettr.

In a broader sense, Trump’s lawsuits can be viewed as a means of regaining attention and broadcasting his message to an online audience that previously excluded him.

While they have succeeded in generating publicity, their prospects for legal success remain exceedingly low.