OK. I have legitimately finished the first half of my writing goals for today, so I can take a little bit of time to go through the Trump LOLsuit against facebook.

That it is a LOLsuit is immediately apparent from the caption of the case.

At the start, I want to make it clear that this livetweet will just be a fast read of the thing. I'll do a more detailed look on my Twitch stream tonight. (There's a link to my Twitch channel in my bio.)

(I have to get to the other half of my writing goals at some point today.)

FFS. Three-ring litigation. Unlimited clowns; no ringmaster.
OK - Tonight's stream will clearly be a Trumpian LOLsuits special, so, yeah. Tune in for that at 7:30 Central.
Anyway, let's at least get through a quick run-through of the first of Trump's newest attempts to exhaust the global supply of chiropteran excrement.

We know this is a LOLsuit because it seems to ONLY be a 1st Amendment claim against a private actor.
So we haven't gotten out of the caption yet, and we've already determined that there is a 99% chance that this case will die on a 12(b) motion to dismiss.

For multiple reasons, actually.
In addition to failure to state a claim being spectacularly apparent just from the caption - credit where due, pulling that off has very a high degree of difficulty - the caption also points to a potential improper venue dismissal.
The terms of service for these sites have venue clauses, and those venue clauses do not, as a rule, have "Miami" as an appropriate venue.
Since this is a quick skim, and not a detailed read, I'm going to skim through to see what the claims are, and what relief is being requested.
Looks like there are lots of pictures. I guess they drafted with the assumption that Donnie might "read" it.
Seriously. Just ask for the damn glitter-farting purple invisible unicorn. It's more realistic relief than the rest of this.
The "causes of action" are:
1: "Violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

Facebook is not Congress. Nor is Facebook one of the 50 States. Nor is there, to my knowledge, a statute providing a private cause of action against a private party for 1A violations.
So any judge reading this is going to be looking at this like:
As for the second "cause of action," I cannot even begin to conceive of the thought processes that would let even the most clownshoes of clownselors conceive of bringing this claim based on Trump getting banned from Facebook.
Nor can I conceive of how that could be a remedy on the facts of this case. That's just baffling.
And, as noted, the prayer for relief is literally laughable. I can personally confirm this.
OK. So this isn't actually a lawsuit. It's a tweet with a filing fee. This is immediately apparent to any minimally competent attorney who so much as glances at the caption and causes of action.

That doesn't mean this is apparent to @IBOLLC and the other clowns who signed this.
By the way, y'all - this is Trump. Hope you got a sizeable retainer. But I doubt it.
OK - let's take a fast fast look through the rest of this hot garbage.
Y'know, bringing totally assclownish frivolous litigation isn't my specialty, but I feel like if you're gonna accuse Facebook of acting with federal actors, maybe sue some of them too?
Getting banned by Facebook is a "prior restraint." Good lord, these lawyers have no sense of shame.

Also: what the hell does "authority delegated to them by Congress" even MEAN in this context?? What authority does Congress have that it's delegating???
Are you KIDDING ME? Just FFS. Trump got yeeted from social media WHEN HE WAS STILL PRESIDENT, at a time when half of Congress was still under Republican control.

Clown. Damn. Shoes.
I don't understand. At some point the legal profession has to run out of size 96 shoes, right?

How is it a delega--

What authority does Congress HAVE to moderate conten--

oh just fuckaduck
Ah yes. They're bringing suit under the well-known clause in the Constitution that provides jurisdiction to the federal courts over tresspass to feelz cases involving a disgruntled former President.

I think that's found in Article Catsup.
It would appear that, in addition to himself, Trump is suing on behalf of a class that has been defined in a way that includes not only insurrectionists and vaccine denialists, but also spammers, scammers, and pedophiles.
Looks like they forgot the word "alternative."
I'm skimming quickly through the 'facts'. Not much looks enormously relevant on first read.
They're seriously going to try to argue that "Democrat" lawmakers talking about §230 reform makes moderation government speech - apparently without mentioning TRUMP'S OWN REPEATED CALLS for 230 reform.

That's some serious chutzpah right there.
I mean, seriously. They really want to talk about the coercive effects of threatened legislation on how social media companies use their own right to speech? In a Federal Court in FLORIDA??
OK, we're into the "whining about 230 even more" part of the pleading.
File this under "Obvious: Statements Thereof"
OK, I'm gonna save the rest of the "facts" section for the stream - moving on to the claims.
This is the kind of thing where a best - if you can, y'know, prove stuff - there's a claim against the government. But there's no way there's a cause of action against Facebook.

(And damn little chance there's one against anyone else, but that's for later.)
Oh, now Facebook is a public forum? Good luck with that.
So now they think that not just Facebook but Zuckerb---

Guys. Take the damn clownshoes off your hands and use them to get the underpants off your ears. Just--

How do yo--
Trying to do legal analysis of this complaint is like a geologist trying to explain why kumquat jelly isn't bedrock. How do you even get things into the same frame of reference????
I mean how does Mark damn Zuckerberg have a "personal" and "official" capacity for FIRST AMENDMENT LITIGATION purposes?

But these shameless scumbag lawyers are gonna try to make like they're not blatantly arguing a thing that has no basis in law or fact and pretend like you can somehow get injunctive relief against Zuckerberg and Facebook in their "official capacity."
This is the "core" - to the extent that vaporous and vacuous arguments can be said to be a "core" of the 230 arguement. It's nonsense. I'll deal with the details later.
Anyway - that's basically the major idiocies of this complaint.

As I said, I'll look at it, and the probably-95%-similar complaints against whoever the hell else Trump has decided to sue for hurting his feelings on stream starting at 7:30 tonight.
But overall:
This is a garbage lawsuit brought by garbage lawyers on behalf of a garbage twice-impeached ex-President.
OHFUCKADUCK but of course he is nobody ever expected anything different.

Courts need to get serious about sanctioning this kind of absolute garbage.
For the record, yes, "tweet with a filing fee" is a great description of Trumpian lawsuits. That's why I shamelessly stole it from @_justinlevitt_ - he should get the credit there, not me.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Mike Dunford

Mike Dunford Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @questauthority

8 Jul
The argument that the major social media platforms are using a special privilege created by Section 230 is common. We see it here. We see it in Trump's "class action" griftsuits.

It is, to be charitable, a very uninformed argument.

It is, to be blunt, not how anything works.
Interactive service providers have always had a right to determine what goes on their sites. This extends from the largest platform to the smallest content creator. If Twitter wants to ban the use of the word "hat," they can. It would be silly, but it's well within their rights.
If I want to boot someone from my Twitch chat for denigrating my hat, I can do that too. It would be silly, but it's well within my rights.

It's also within my rights to boot someone for being a Trump supporter - I need not host their speech in my chat if I don't feel like it.
Read 20 tweets
7 Jul
If you want to know what "did I stutter" looks like when it's phrased in judicial language, here you go. Image
Also -

That's a remarkably fast denial. I think it might have come in at less than 2 hours.

And the only thing that would have made the order any blunter is if the judge printed it, rubber-stamped it "Denied" and filed that.
If the lawyers were using that motion as a chance to check the judge's temperature, I think it worked. But I'm not sure they're thrilled with the result.
Read 4 tweets
7 Jul
Trump's lawsuit has many clownshoes arguments.

The most whitewash-slinging, bouncy-suspender-twanging, tiny-car-driving, Fučík-march-playing of these arguments is that Facebook was a state actor when they suspended the account of the President of the United States.
"Social media is the public square so Facebook is bound by the 1st Amendment" is a terrible argument for many reasons. Not least because it's effectively foreclosed by Manhattan Community Access v Halleck.

Did you read the case, counselor? What is the applicable rule of law that determined the outcome?
Read 5 tweets
7 Jul
We'll do a full look at this on stream tonight.

I'll do a quick read-through and low points livetweet starting in about 15 minutes. I should have hit my main writing goals for the thesis by then.
Read 6 tweets
7 Jul
Here's the thing:

'We' don't have "central understandings that we have shared together for 245 years." White people might have shared those understandings for 245 years, but that's not the same thing as saying that all Americans ever shared in them.
(And my Irish Catholic ancestors who arrived in the mid-19th Century might disagree that even all white people always shared those understandings, but I digress.)
American history as understood by white people is not American history as experienced by others. And the opportunities shared by white people have not been shared by all Americans.
Read 7 tweets
6 Jul
Serious (and long) answer to a surprisingly complex question:

Probably yes in many or most cases, but It will almost certainly vary based on the exact Rule 34 work in question.
The fair use argument for slash, for example, is particularly strong. Not only is it superficially transformative, in that it is a non-canon use of characters, but it has also historically been a means by which underrepresented groups cave out a space for themselves in a fandom.
Such work has a much clearer claim to be commentary on the original (and specifically upon the lack of representation in the original) than might be true for (eg) shipping fiction that is closer to the story's canon - although those stories still have some claim to be comment.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!