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 …
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
"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)
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.
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...
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.
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.
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!
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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...
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."
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?
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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".
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
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
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
