back to article Florida Man sues Facebook, Twitter, YouTube for account ban

A Florida man held a press conference at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, on Wednesday to announce the filing of lawsuits against Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, and corresponding executives Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, and Sundar Pichai – who runs YouTube's parent company. The former political office holder, known …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Grifter

    And so begins the next phase of this grifter's drive to fill his coffers with other people's money. Get your checkbooks[sic] out, America!

    1. jake Silver badge

      Re: Grifter

      International Benevolent Association of Grifters on line one ... something about promoting illusory correlation.

    2. Hubert Cumberdale Silver badge

      Re: Grifter

      The start of this article actually reads like something from The Onion, which only serves to emphasise the absurdity of the whole thing. Good show.

      1. teknopaul Silver badge

        Re: Grifter

        I love the idea that Twitter is effectively state run, that means Trump deplatformed himself.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Grifter

          That's not how he means state. He means they're ran by politicos AND privateers with financial interest (one or the other, fine, but not both together). On that singular sentiment, I don't think he's wrong.

          I think soon people are going to have to ask themselves, are you becoming desensitized to censorship? And in which way, too much or too little?

          The "Florida Man" seems cooky, but even the wrong can be wrongly treated (I guess... I dunno).

          But whatever to all that. Rolling this back to the questions of what is or isn't a "Publisher" and whether or not a webpage is or is not "Public" seem to be real questions nobody is directly answering. One day they are... one day they aren't... lawyers must love this shit.

          1. Sam I am

            Re: Grifter

            Any time that someone is banned from anything it is a form of control. The question really is was the control appropriate?

            The platforms bent over backwards to accommodate DT's lies, misinformation, and inciteful behaviour. They were heavily criticized for catering to a person because of their position and for not holding him to account for his behaviour.

            So clearly he was wrongly treated only in his own mind and in the minds of his cult followers.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Grifter

      As much as I dislike him he's got a point. We're outsourcing policing of what can be said to mega-corps who have terms of service they don't apply fairly.

      It doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum you are on to see an issue with this.

      1. Nick Ryan Silver badge

        Re: Grifter

        I'll agree that it is a risk with Terms of Service for private organisations. The control measure is that these organisations also need to protect themselves from being sued for the content that they host, and not clamping down on illegal or otherwise inciteful or damaging content is asking for this kind of trouble.

        In this particular case, he kept his accounts only as long as he did because of the very real fear of retribution against the organisations for applying their Terms of Service to his accounts - any other user spouting the same level of hate, bile, rabble rousing and incitement to criminal behaviour and so on would have had their accounts closed much sooner. That's the real injustice of it all.

      2. Dave K Silver badge

        Re: Grifter

        You're right, they didn't apply them fairly. Most ordinary users would have been banned years ago for the stuff that the Tangerine man kept tweeting. The Tanned Baby was actually awarded preferential treatment for many years compared with normal users. It was only once it was clear that he was a deranged and dangerous Loser that they finally ran out of patience and decided to apply the same rules they'd been enforcing on everyone else...

        Edit: Also, do please learn the difference between "what can be said" and "what a private firm is entitled to host and platform for you". Nobody was stopping the Buffoon from saying things, they just decided not to provide him with the megaphone any more.

      3. Velv
        Stop

        Re: Grifter

        How many balanced people were removed from Parler? Many thousands were banned from Parler for speaking counter to the right wing audiences viewpoint.

        Rules go both ways...

  2. tip pc Silver badge

    Surprised it took this long

    In the land of the lawyers I’m surprised it took the Orange One this long to get around to lodging his sue balls.

    Even if he didn’t want to sue I'm sure the army of lawyers relishing the gravy train would have been talking up a deal.

    All involved are douche bags.

    1. beep54

      Re: Surprised it took this long

      DJT is never going to pay them. He never does.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Surprised it took this long

      Giuliani is looking for a volunteer spot as a legal caddy. He's willing to work for balls all.

      1. Lazlo Woodbine

        Re: Surprised it took this long

        Hasn't Giuliani been disbarred?

        1. georgezilla

          Re: Surprised it took this long

          He's had his license revoked. And can't "practice" law. But as faer As I know, the Bar hasn't thrown him out yet.

          I could be wrong.

          I'd love to be wrong.

          But I don't think sp.

          Yet.

        2. Anonymous Tribble

          Re: Surprised it took this long

          I heard he's taken up landscaping.

    3. macjules Silver badge
      Paris Hilton

      Re: Surprised it took this long

      I don't understand why he is suing them at all. Surely he should be praising both Twitter and Facebook since they did, after all, change the generic emoticon skin colour to match his own?

  3. eswan

    It's the plot of 'The Producers'.

    Trump wants to raise funds through donations, then when the lawsuit is thrown out, he keeps the money and yells about how badly he's been treated.

    1. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Re: It's the plot of 'The Producers'.

      Great... I've now got "Springtime for Hitler" as an earworm ...

      1. eswan

        Re: It's the plot of 'The Producers'.

        Springtime for Trumpy, and Q-anon.

        Winter for Facebook, and Twitter too.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: It's the plot of 'The Producers'.

          Oh God, now I've got Avenue Qanon in my head .. "The Internet is for porn" ..

      2. beep54

        Re: It's the plot of 'The Producers'.

        Could be worse. There's The Sound of Music. Ooops. Sorry about that.

        1. jake Silver badge

          Re: It's the plot of 'The Producers'.

          "Ooops. Sorry about that."

          I seriously doubt it. It's a small world, after all.

      3. cartledger

        Re: It's the plot of 'The Producers'.

        I think I stand is support with all of El Register's Jewish readers who are deeply offended by your anti-semitism, comparing a civil Court case to the Holocaust.

        1. Francis Boyle

          Are you perchance

          somehow unfamiliar with the works of the esteemed jewish auteur Melvin Kaminsky.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          FAIL

          Re: It's the plot of 'The Producers'.

          @cartledger

          You created a login just to post that?

          1. Nick Ryan Silver badge
            Trollface

            Re: It's the plot of 'The Producers'.

            ...and I can't even see the reference myself, although it's not impossible that the article hasn't been edited since.

    2. Mark192

      Re: It's the plot of 'The Producers'.

      Kinda tempting to hope FB et al don't seek to get this thrown out, so that the mounting legal bills exceed the donations.

      1. Mark 85 Silver badge

        Re: It's the plot of 'The Producers'.

        The bill won't matter as he never pays them. He's even stiffing his so-called "friend" Rudy.

        1. Yes Me Silver badge

          Re: It's the plot of 'The Producers'.

          By Rudy, do you mean some ex-lawyer?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: It's the plot of 'The Producers'.

            Mr I'm-adjusting-my-mike.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It's the plot of 'The Producers'.

        But the longer this is drawn out, the more the suckers will donate to him, and it's not as if he'd pay his bills anyway...

    3. robn

      Re: It's the plot of 'The Producers'.

      But, but... He's a self-proclaimed beeellionaire! He could fund the lawsuit with his pocket change. There's no need for anyone to contribute.

      1. gnasher729 Silver badge

        Re: It's the plot of 'The Producers'.

        Self-proclaimed billions don't get you far when lawyers want to see real money.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Lovely post. I like how the orange buffoon is listed without using his name.

    1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

      Indeed. I notice he's filed in his official capacity of "just some guy" (credit: Mitchell & Webb)

      1. Francis Boyle

        That three me for a few seconds

        Shouldn't he be known by his correct title "Florida Man in Chief".

        1. richardcox13

          Re: That three me for a few seconds

          > Florida Man-Child in Chief

          FTFY.

    2. sebacoustic

      I wish the bbc had the balls to report on the matter like this.. or preferably a coalition of all the "MSM" at once, oh the hilarity!

      1. werdsmith Silver badge

        The BBC are reporting this:

        https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57754435

        But I doubt that many people in Britain are much interested in some bloke in the US throwing a strop because he's banned from Chavbook and Twatter.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Oh! Oh! This is awesome!

    Now you can officially & legally brand him a vexacious litigant, slap him with the requirement to pay the legal fees of the defendants, fine him on top of that for wasting everyones time, & bar him (or any lawyer licensed to practice in America) from filing another lawsuit ever again. If he can't file one & his lawyers can't file one on his behalf, all those vote fraud cases will stop like a rollerskater doing a faceplant into a brick wall.

    Please oh please oh PUH-LEEEEEZE mister judge, please bitch slap that bastard so hard his skull spins like the intake on a jet engine!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Oh! Oh! This is awesome!

      My first thought was: Brilliant, he's gonna get 230d.

      second thought, after reading a little about his "campaign" website, was this is a way to encourage gullible idiots to throw money at him. There's no way he's serious about taking this to court, he's deadly serious about sucking millions out of his poor, deluded followers. And there's something poetically just about all those bigots going hungry to keep that fat fuck rich.

      1. Dan 55 Silver badge
        Devil

        Re: Oh! Oh! This is awesome!

        In their email they say that if they donate money now their donation will have "5 x impact".

        Going on previous form this means they're going to charge donors' cards five times.

        1. Nick Ryan Silver badge

          Re: Oh! Oh! This is awesome!

          5 x zero is... zero. Hmmm.

  6. James O'Shea

    Oy!

    He's NOT a Florida Man! He's a New Yorker! Don't blame us for the toxic waste spewed by the Monster On The Hudson!

    1. Patched Out

      Re: Oy!

      But hasn't Florida's governor effectively made the Orange Boil on Everyone's Butt an honorary Florida Man?

    2. Richard Tobin

      Re: Oy!

      No no no. He's an "Aberdeenshire business owner":

      https://www.buchanobserver.co.uk/news/aberdeenshire-business-owner-wins-presidential-election-2122557

      1. Jedit
        Stop

        "No no no. He's an "Aberdeenshire business owner""

        Don't try to palm him off on us. Most people here don't want him either.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Oy!

      He's no New Yorker. He eats pizza with a knife and fork. The elitist douchebag.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Oy!

      Florida is just a part of New York and New Jersey in the South of the country - it's full of rich people from New York and retired Mafia in Tampa.

      1. bob, mon!
        Devil

        Re: Oy!

        Oddly enough, south Florida isn't the part that supports him.

        I think the Florida Orange Growers' Association does --- he's their office spokesmonster.

        1. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge

          Re: Oy!

          I think the Florida Orange Growers' Association does --- he's their office spokesmonster.

          No, he's not because he's a lemon.

    5. ThomH Silver badge

      Re: Oy!

      He's from Queens. That'd be the East River. Don't blame those of us who live near the Hudson.

  7. pardo_bsso
    Big Brother

    Future actors

    It only applies to government actors, so... is this a sign that FB and TW will finally be recognized as such?

    1. DS999 Silver badge

      Re: Future actors

      No, this is a sign that Donald Trump is only suing because he needs attention on him so he can keep getting donations from the suckers who support him.

      So much for him being so rich he can fund his own campaigns. He's going to go down as the biggest grifter in the history of politics!

      1. Throatwarbler Mangrove Silver badge
        Flame

        Re: Future actors

        You said the name! Hisssss!

  8. Aquatyger

    Typical slander

    As soon as I see something like this:

    "The former political office holder, known among other things for a cancelled reality TV series, a discontinued steak business, a failed casino, and a shuttered business training school," I know the article is going to be a hit piece where they play the man instead of the ball.

    1. ST Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: Typical slander

      > I know the article is going to be a hit piece where they play the man instead of the ball.

      If it's slander, you should sue. Really, you must.

    2. TonyJ Silver badge

      Re: Typical slander

      I believe it is libel, not slander, when written.

      But then I also believe it needs to be proven to be untrue to be either, which may be a slight problem.

    3. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge

      Re: Typical slander

      Apparently one man's statement of facts is another's hit piece...

    4. jake Silver badge

      Re: Typical slander

      But what if the man IS the ball?

      When you intentionally stick a "kick me" sign on your pasty white butt, and then bend over in a public place, Shirley the proverbial Thinking Man would expect to get kicked, no?

    5. 45RPM Silver badge

      Re: Typical slander

      Since he claims to be Christian, he must be aware that you do unto others as you would have them do unto you. He’s spent his whole life abusing his enemies personally, inviting silly nicknames and so forth … and now we’re told that the same cannot be done to him. What is he? Some kind of snowflake? He’s just a tantruming toddler who desperately needs to be sent to bed without any stories - and told to behave better in the morning. Normally I’d prescribe a cuddle for the toddler too, since a lack of love can lead to massive twattery in later life, but you just know that the cheese puff monster would get carried away and turn it into a grope.

    6. gnasher729 Silver badge

      Re: Typical slander

      In this case, every decent person just _wants_ to play the man.

    7. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Typical slander

      > a hit piece where they play the man instead of the ball

      Since you introduced the sporting analogy, tell me: does he still like to have his balls kicked[1]?

      [1] Back onto the fairway out of the rough by his caddies

    8. graeme leggett

      Re: Typical slander

      Is he not known for those things?

  9. Godgifu

    First, nice work in not naming Him Who Must Not Be Named.

    Second, consider this episode of xkcd, which says it all.

    https://xkcd.com/1357/

    1. jake Silver badge

      It's not an episode, it's a strip.

      1. LogicGate

        Seeing that the series contains only stick figures, the "episode" containing a "strip" is far less titillating than it may seem based upon your description..

  10. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    FFS. 4 years have past already? Oh, wait ...

    1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

      Yes, even China was surprised that the year of the cock should last more than 12 months.

  11. Godgifu

    Cheers

    First, well done, not naming Him Who Must Not Be Named.

    Second, consider this page of xkcd.

    https://xkcd.com/1357/

    1. jake Silver badge

      Re: Cheers

      Interesting echo in here ...

      1. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge

        Re: Cheers

        Interesting echo in here ...

        1. LogicGate

          Re: Cheers

          Interest ech i he ...

          1. Throatwarbler Mangrove Silver badge
            Happy

            Re: Cheers

            "Mine's as big as a house!"

  12. Cranky_Yank

    Asking for a fiend

    Can a deceased person sue Satan if the special room in Hell that has been prepared for them isn't satisfactory?

    1. jake Silver badge

      Re: Asking for a fiend

      Well, seeing as "satan" and "hell" are made-up stories used to frighten children into compliance and well out of copyright, I would think it is OK for you to make up any story you like about them.

      1. Blofeld's Cat Silver badge
        Devil

        Re: Asking for a fiend

        "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist" - Charles Baudelaire

    2. ShadowSystems

      Re: Asking for a fiend

      How would you sue Satan? Where do you think all the lawyers wind up? =-D

      *Delightedly dodges all the sueballs lobbed by Satan's army of legal practitioners*

      1. Chris G Silver badge

        Re: Asking for a fiend

        I assume that satan is the patron saint of all lawyers so you will lose big time.

    3. MJI Silver badge

      Re: Asking for a fiend

      you can if he forgets to bring your Christmas presents

  13. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Four Seasons

    He missed a trick there...

    He'd have gotten more publicity if he held the press conference over in the car park of Four Seasons Gardening...

  14. John Savard Silver badge

    No Name

    Having heard the story from other news media, I was aware that the individual in question isn't really a Florida native, but hails from New York, where his father had a thriving real-estate business.

    This should not, however, be construed as me questioning your editorial judgment that the individual in question richly deserves to be ignored, with which I heartily agree. With, of course, the caveat that whatever he may deserve, the case may come when we cannot ignore him except at our peril.

    1. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge

      Re: No Name

      but hails from New York, where his father had a thriving real-estate business

      Please do not forget this gold nugget: and ran his casino business to the ground.

      1. DJO Silver badge

        Re: No Name

        Those bankruptcies weren't because of mismanagement as such but rather a barely legal way to reduce debt and screw over all the contractors and banks.

        Due to some ludicrous laws in America concerning bankruptcy and Real Estate he was able to declare himself bankrupt and then start up a new business the next day and take over the bankrupt business for cents on the dollar.

        In any other country and in America any field except Real Estate, such behaviour would have you prosecuted and disbarred from directorship for a very long time.

    2. John Savard Silver badge

      Re: No Name

      As in his latest rally, he appears to be inciting a lynch mob to attack the Capitol Police officer who fatally shot Ashley Babbitt, indeed it looks like it will not be possible to ignore him.

  15. HildyJ Silver badge
    Facepalm

    On Behalf of America

    I apologize.

    1. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge

      Re: On Behalf of America

      Apology denied. You're fired!

  16. DS999 Silver badge

    This could really backfire on him

    There are two possibilities on how it turns out.

    1) The companies ask for and immediately receive a dismissal of the lawsuit, on the grounds that a) they aren't government entities and thus not bound by the First Amendment and b) their terms of service require legal action in the state of California, not Florida

    2) The companies decide to put him through the ringer and DON'T ask for dismissal but instead ask for discovery of all documents from the Trump campaign and Trump administration regarding planning the insurrection, and to depose Donald Trump under oath. They are legally permitted to all of that by virtue of being sued, since it would be relevant to their defense of the reasons why they banned him.

    Oh man, I really hope they pick door #2. Facebook won't, because Zuck is a chickenshit, but Twitter and Google just might.

    1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Re: This could really backfire on him

      The way option 2 would proceed would be huge donations from qcumbers that never reach the lawyers then some pathetic excuse like all the required documents have already been deleted from the gwb43 email server.

    2. katrinab Silver badge
      Flame

      Re: This could really backfire on him

      Option 3 is that the companies assert their own 1st Amendment rights not to be forced to say things they don’t want to say.

      Unlike in some less democratic countries, in the USA, companies can’t be forced to carry Government propaganda.

    3. chuBb. Silver badge

      Tosser tossed by ToS

      Id love it to get bloody, but I think it will get dismissed

      The argument of I don't like the fact the rules I agreed to by clicking next and accepting the ToS of a commercial enterprise have been applied to me and its unfair, seems flawed at best

      Would also love it if the ceos sue back for membership of maralardo and the right for mankini's to be the considered formal wear as the terms of membership disagree with them

    4. sabroni Silver badge

      Re: There are two possibilities on how it turns out.

      You missed the third, far more likely possibility. This is nothing to do with sueing anyone, it's a cash raising exercise. His die hard fans will donate millions to this. The gullible media have been played and are promoting this cash grab like it's a genuine court case.

      It's not difficult to work out if you think about the man, his previous behaviour, and what he stands for.

      1. John Riddoch

        Re: There are two possibilities on how it turns out.

        Almost everything he's done since November has had a side angle of raising money. The fund raising for "legal fees" to challenge the "election fraud" mostly went to RNC/DJT before any left over cash went to lawyer fees. Which probably haven't even been paid.

      2. lglethal Silver badge
        Trollface

        Re: There are two possibilities on how it turns out.

        It's not difficult to work out if you think about the man, his previous behaviour, and what he stands for.

        Wait, he actually stands for something? When did that happen?

        1. katrinab Silver badge
          Alert

          Re: There are two possibilities on how it turns out.

          He stands for the self-promotion of Donald Trump. Always has done, always will.

          1. David Nash
            Trollface

            Re: There are two possibilities on how it turns out.

            Oh no! you said the words! you lose.

            1. quartzz

              Re: There are two possibilities on how it turns out.

              more Do 'J'ness

      3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: There are two possibilities on how it turns out.

        "The gullible media have been played and are promoting this cash grab like it's a genuine court case."

        Only the Trump supporting media are behaving like that. All the other media have immediately pounced on the truth and pointed out that there is almost zero probability of it reaching court (other than for a formal dismissal)

        1. A.P. Veening Silver badge

          Re: There are two possibilities on how it turns out.

          All the other media have immediately pounced on the truth and pointed out that there is almost zero probability of it reaching court (other than for a formal dismissal)

          Which is a real shame, it prevents punitive fines/damages for vexatious litigation.

    5. John Savard Silver badge

      Re: This could really backfire on him

      I don't think that they'll pick door #2, because they are responsible to their stockholders, and who knows what a Florida court might decide... but it may be that in Trump's suit, there is at least one claim that won't get immediately dismissed by virtue of door #1. After all, not just the First Amendment but also Section 803 is mentioned...

      1. DS999 Silver badge

        Re: This could really backfire on him

        It was filed in FEDERAL court in Florida, so it goes by the US Constitution, and the state of Florida's laws or government are irrelevant.

        Section 230 is also irrelevant to this lawsuit - if Section 230 goes away it doesn't mean Twitter et al can't kick Trump off the platform. It would actually make it MUCH MORE likely for chumps like Trump to be kicked off, because without Section 230 protection Twitter would potentially be liable for what their users say on the platform.

        So if Section 230 was gone and someone tweeted say "hang Mike Pence" (I know Trump didn't, so his insurrection curious supporters need not bother correcting me on that) and then Mike Pence was hung, his family could sue Twitter for failing to remove that tweet - or for failing to kick off the person who posted it if it was shown in court that they had made similar tweets in the past and Twitter had let him continue to tweet.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: This could really backfire on him

        Does option #2 eliminate option #1, though? Can't they go through discovery and depositions and then move for dismissal before trial?

        I suppose the ethical thing to do (don't laugh, there are plenty of ethical lawyers) is to seek dismissal as early in the process as possible.

        1. DS999 Silver badge

          Re: This could really backfire on him

          Of course, they can ask for dismissal at any time. Usually is it done immediately because it saves money and time for the defense, but there are no restrictions on when they can ask. Why would it be "ethical" to ask for dismissal early on? If you know someone is making a totally baseless lawsuit, but you can make them pay for doing so, why would ethics dictate asking for it to be dismissed instead of making the plaintiff squirm first?

          There was a case involving Trump years ago where he sued a reporter over what he claimed were false/libelous statements about his finances. Instead of asking for dismissal, the reporter subpoenaed his tax records (that's why a couple returns from the 90s were made public years ago) and forced him to deposition. He tried to drop the case before that happened, but the judge refused to allow him to do so - there's apparently something in the law that a defendant is allowed to deny permission for a plaintiff to drop certain types of lawsuits like libel. Presumably to prevent "hit and run" type lawsuits to muddy someone's name but be able to cut and run if things get sticky when forced to provide proof.

          Not sure if that would apply here but it would awesome if it did!

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: This could really backfire on him

            My thought on the ethics is that if you are planning to move for dismissal, you should do that, rather than run up the bills for both sides on discovery (since the discovery would be worthless if the case was dismissed).

            The hit and run clause kind of tips that on its head.

            1. John Robson Silver badge

              Re: This could really backfire on him

              The plaintiff shouldn't be able to do that - but the defendant should.

              Once you've brought a lawsuit you have to carry it through to completion. The defence were dragged in, they can poke it whichever way they want, and ask for dismissal whenever they want.

              Frankly if a case is dismissed like that then there should be a significant penalty for the plaintiff (at least the costs of the defendant)

  17. msobkow Silver badge

    As per usual, the "Muh rights!" crowd has "Nuh brains!" *LOL*

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Is it Nixon?

    I thought he was, err, resting?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Is it Nixon?

      He's not dead, he's just pinin' for the fjords! Ignore the nails in his feet, they're for balance, honest! Besides, he said he feels fine & wants to go for walkies...

    2. Lucy in the Sky (with Diamonds)

      Re: Is it Nixon?

      The head of Nixon is alive and well in Futurama...

      And he is not resting, but quite lively in those parts...

  19. Trigun Bronze badge
    FAIL

    Normally I would have some sympathy for the plaintiff as I really dislike Twatter, Farcebook, et al., but given this is Trump.... Is it possible they can all lose? Please? :D

  20. arthoss

    he who may not be named.

  21. Oddlegs

    I don't like the guy but I've got to say that the banning of Trump from these platforms didn't sit well with me. If facebook et al have the ability and desire to ban people then they also have to take responsibility when then choose not to take action against others. They can't claim that their network is so large that they can't possibly currate it all and aren't responsible for allowing people to make disrepectful/hateful/illegal posts. It's a very slippery slope if you applaud them for blocking someone you don't like but don't question them for not applying the same punishment to people from the 'other' side when they post similar material.

    These organisations have now grown beyond being mere private organisations and probably are closer to governmental organisations in many ways. The prospect of them together silencing one side of the political debate is very, very scary no matter how much you may disagree with that side.

    1. LogicGate

      While I agree that it is a prickly issue, you must take into account that Mango Mussolini had already breached the TOCs multiple time. The only reason that Typhoid Larry had not lost his account earlier was because his insane tweets (which earned them a lot of money) were politically relevant because he was the man to whom the nuclear football (at the time located in the lost and found cabinet at Mar a Largo) belonged to. Normal users would have lost their accounts a long time ago. Once he lost the coup, he was no longer relevant and normal terms and conditions re-applied.

      1. Oddlegs

        That's kind of my point. Yes he breached their TOCs and hence they were completely within their rights to ban him but that right to ban should not be exercised along political lines. 'Normal' users from all sides of the political spectrum don't lose their accounts for spouting similar nonsense. Facebook, twitter and google have to apply their rules consistently. Personally I'd let Trump spout his nonsense. The other side can then attack it for being the deranged ramblings it clearly is. Banning Trump only encourages his followers to believe they're being targeted by a mass conspiracy.

        1. genghis_uk Silver badge

          To slightly misquote Mar A Lago's biggest ball sack, there are bad people on both sides...

          However, on one side you have woke cancellers and the occasional loud social justice warrior, on the other you have bigoted racists and misogynists actively calling for violence against people.

          I am sure some of the more vocal left of centre typos get banned too when they overstep the mark but the 'conservatives' are trying to perpetuate the myth that the platforms are out to get then when really it is the hate speech that is getting them banned. Basically, don't be a dick and you won't get shut down - it's not a hard concept, most of society is based on similar lines

          1. Chris 15
            FAIL

            Nope

            I have to call bs on your bothsiderism, talk about false equivalency. You'r 'cancellors' quip betrays your true feelings. Hey, whilst I am talking to you, I have some neo nazi propaganda posters I wish to display on your property for an appropriate fee. Saying no because of the content means that you're into 'cancel culture' does it? Private business, private platform. Their rules, or hit the road.

            1. David Nash

              Re: Nope

              To be fair I saw it as pointing out that both sides were not equivalent.

            2. genghis_uk Silver badge
              Thumb Down

              Re: Nope

              Open mouth - insert foot???

              Check my previous posts and understand them before you try to put words into my mouth! I always aim for a fair balance and this post was in the same vein so I take crap like this a bit personally.

              The point (for those who don't jump to conclusions and then react to their own misconception) was that nastiness on one side of the spectrum is not generally equivalent to the outright vitriol of the other. So called conservatives are being banned for being assholes not for their political beliefs

    2. John Savard Silver badge

      Twitter and Facebook banned Trump precisely because they are responsible for their choices. They gave him a lot more latitude than an ordinary user because he was President, but when he started inciting violence, they would have been responsible if they chose not to ban him.

      1. quartzz

        trump's gold dust for data harvesting. it's a case of "can we get away with unbanning him"

        just a pesky nucular button

    3. quartzz

      it isn't freedom of speech though....it's freedom of broadcast

  22. big_D Silver badge

    Legal Scholars?

    I'm no legal scholar, I'm not even American and I knew that these companies can't trample over his first amendment rights!

    In fact, and I am a Facebook hater, my first tweet yesterday was to ask, when Facebook had become part of the Federal Government? I mean, I know I am out of the loop on some things, because I DNS block Facebook, but something on that scale, I'm sure I would have heard it on the tech press somewhere...

    1. John Robson Silver badge

      Re: Legal Scholars?

      Not just part of the federal government but part of congress - the *only* branch of government which is constrained by the 1st amendment.

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge

        Re: Legal Scholars?

        Honest question. If the First Amendment says what it says, how can libel and slander laws be established, given they necessarily abridge freedoms explicitly mentioned in the text, and said text contains no exceptions to allow for restraining such in the name of rights clashes?

        Indeed, how did the Supreme Court justify the Schenck decision (the "Fire in a Crowded Theater" decision)? What rights clashed with the First Amendment in that case?

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: Legal Scholars?

          "What rights clashed with the First Amendment in that case?"

          The right to life of the inevitable victims of the panicked evacuation.

        2. ThomH Silver badge

          Re: Legal Scholars?

          Check out New York Times Co v Sullivan: it establishes that public officials have a higher bar to jump to establish defamation... because of the First Amendment.

          1. Throatwarbler Mangrove Silver badge
            Headmaster

            Re: Legal Scholars?

            Allow an expert to explain.

        3. John Robson Silver badge

          Re: Legal Scholars?

          "how did the Supreme Court justify the Schenck decision (the "Fire in a Crowded Theater" decision)?"

          Have you read the case notes too see what they said? Such reports are usually pretty thorough, and are matters of public record.

        4. John Robson Silver badge

          Re: Legal Scholars?

          Honest question. If the First Amendment says what it says, how can libel and slander laws be established, given they necessarily abridge freedoms explicitly mentioned in the text, and said text contains no exceptions to allow for restraining such in the name of rights clashes?

          Libel and Slander legislation predates the constitution, and most current legislation appears to be at the state level, and states aren't congress... (Though the 14th comes into play then)

          This is probably as good a starting point as any for a google rabbit hole.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_and_the_First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

          1. John Robson Silver badge

            Re: Legal Scholars?

            The above "let a legal expert explain" helps as well:

            https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-the-first-amendment/

            Which is fun, particularly since it wrongly assumes that I am USian.

            1. DS999 Silver badge

              Re: Legal Scholars?

              US law is the only thing that matters for discussions of whether Twitter and Facebook have the right to ban a former US president from their platform.

              Now maybe your country's laws might say something different if Twitter banned the former leader of your country, but that's irrelevant to the Register article in question.

              1. John Robson Silver badge

                Re: Legal Scholars?

                US law is all that matters, but an article which is internationally available and talks about the reader's "mutual civic heritage as Americans" is rather badly focussed.

                My point wasn't that the legislation was misrepresented, but that the article assumed that the reader was USian. I don't have any USian civic heritage to be ignorant about.

        5. genghis_uk Silver badge

          Re: Legal Scholars?

          You probably ought to read up on the Schenck decision.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater (apologies for a Wikipedia link!)

          https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

          It had nothing to do with fires or theatres - the comment by SCJ Oliver Wendell Holmes was part of the discussion and had no bearing on the case. He later said pretty much the opposite in another case

          1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

            Re: Legal Scholars?

            Surely a government employee should be free to say whatever they want, irrespective of "facts" ?

            And yet this simple first amendment stance got me fired as an air traffic controller

  23. DeVino

    The oxygen of publicity

    Amused at how it's denied.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: The oxygen of publicity

      In the words of the late great Linda smith:

      "I don't really like you saying his name, because it gives him the oxygen of publicity and I'm not happy with him having the oxygen of oxygen."

  24. Annihilator Silver badge

    I was all set to point out the ludicrousness of this case, how the 1st amendment doesn't apply here, how they're in the wrong jurisdiction, and a number of other things.

    But it's easier to say - Trump "sues" people all the time, conveniently never gets to court with them, and this is all publicity. Notice how he's lost his social media microphone, but with one press conference has managed to generate yards of media coverage (including this article and these comments) that portrays him as the underdog. And all it cost him was the price of a fake presidential cardboard podium - which he probably didn't pay for.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      You mean Florida man "sues" people all the time

  25. DesktopGuy

    I love the title.

    Make every story you have to write about the individual start with - Florida man …

    He garnered so much free press in run up to 2016, limit his reach and he will fade away.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Trouble is, some people won't take no for an answer. Try to deny him and he'll just find his own way. And someone with deep pockets can usually find a way to make himself impossible to ignore.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        So what happened to his own wonderful and best ever social media platform he claimed to be launching "Real Soon Now" (that was months ago, actually. Not sure what his definition of "soon" is)

        1. Charles 9 Silver badge

          Who needs that when you can bait the MSM with news too tempting to ignore? That's always been his style: focus on the positive and ignore the negative.

        2. TimMaher Silver badge
          Angel

          Platform

          Surely that was GB News?

          1. MJI Silver badge

            Re: Platform

            Gbeebies

    2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      >Make every story you have to write about the individual start with - Florida man …

      Shouldn't be too hard to make a chrome plugin that replaces the "T" word with "Florida Man"

      1. Lon24 Silver badge

        Might make contract bridge reporting a trifle confusing?

    3. DS999 Silver badge
      Mushroom

      Its the only way to be sure

      You know what I'm talking about -------------------------------------------------------------------->>>>

      1. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge

        Re: Its the only way to be sure

        No need to go this far. Iran still has a fatwa on "the Florida Man living in Mar-y-Lago" for the death of General Qassem Soleimani.

        When the Grand Ayatollah says “Revenge is certain”, people around the person in question tend to be wearing bomb disposal suits (or has one ready to go). Talk about "dead man walking".

  26. Chairman of the Bored
    Coat

    Florida Man suffers electile dysfunction

    That is all.

  27. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge

    Rudy Giuliani suspended from practising law in Washington DC following New York suspension

    he had violated professional conduct rules as he promoted theories that the election was stolen through fraud

    1. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
      Mushroom

      On election night last year Rupert Murdoch reportedly gave his son Lachlan permission for Fox News to call Arizona for Joe Biden, a decision that signalled Donald Trump’s defeat, with “a signature grunt” and a pithy barb: “Fuck him.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jul/09/rupert-murdoch-donald-trump-fox-news-arizona

  28. NicX

    I love that you didn't mention his name at all lol

  29. TheRealRoland
    Thumb Up

    Nice

    Well done. No need for names on this one.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021