After discussions with several legal experts, we are putting out the call to law firms to initiate a billion dollar class action lawsuit against Twitter. Natural News (Twitter handle name @HealthRanger) is one of thousands of users who have been maliciously silenced by Twitter without warning, without justification and without any means of recourse. Twitter continues to silence thousands of channels based on political views, pursuing an unfair, discriminatory policy of censorship that’s designed to rig the 2020 elections for Democrats by eliminating conservative and Christian voices through a sweeping campaign of politically motivated censorship.
It’s time for a large law firm to go after Twitter on behalf of the thousands of users who have been maliciously silenced without cause. Several legal strategies for pursuing Twitter are detailed below. Natural News is in contact with dozens of prominent independent media publishers who have all been silenced, and through our publishing networks — we run hundreds of websites — we can gather a thousand more plaintiffs to join the lawsuit effort.
A class action lawsuit against Twitter would be no easy task, but Twitter has made itself vulnerable to a specific legal strategy through its recent silencing of channels engaged in conservative speech (see explanation below). Law firms seeking to pursue legal action against Twitter may contact Natural News through our contact page.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants Big Tech legal immunity from the content that appears on their platforms if those platforms are operated as free speech platforms to the public, or to a specific subset of the public. However, this legal immunity does not apply to publishers — organizations that exert strong editorial control over the content that appears on their websites (such as a newspaper publisher).
There exists a significant history of case law that grants tech companies Sec. 230 legal immunity for engaging in minor control over the quality of posts on their platforms. For example, courts have ruled that public content platforms are not engaged in “publishing” for merely removing malicious content or illegal content (i.e. content that espouses violence or calls for killing individuals, etc.). Content platforms are also granted leeway to reformat contact, including altering algorithms that determine the sort order in which content appears. A quick search on the legal history of Sec. 230 provides more information on the legal precedent in this area, which is surprisingly sparse.
However, what Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and other tech giants are carrying out now is a politically targeted “online ethnic cleansing” type of campaign to identify and remove all speech that advocates for President Trump or conservatism in general. Far beyond merely exerting control over the quality of posts on their platforms, this action is de facto editorialization of speech on those platforms. In essence, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other tech giants are staffed by left-leaning staffers and executives who strongly despise President Trump and are exploiting / abusing their influence over their platforms to selectively target and eliminate individuals or organizations engaged in speech they don’t like. Even those channels engaged in thoughtful “quality” debate speech are targeted for being silenced, based solely on their political persuasions. Perhaps the best example of this would be Prager U.
This politically-motivated censorship of selected channels — and there are seemingly endless examples of this taking place — would, under the Communications Decency Act, render these tech companies vulnerable to thousands of lawsuits that seek to hold the tech giants responsible for the speech taking place on their platforms. For example, when a user on Twitter threatens to kill someone, Twitter itself can now be sued for publishing that threat, since Twitter is theoretically no longer afforded Sec. 230 legal immunity since Twitter is no longer a fair and unbiased host of public content (proving this in a court of law will be the real challenge). The fact that Twitter now targets channels for censorship based on its internal editorial desires — i.e. to eliminate all pro-America, pro-Trump, pro-Christian voices — means that Twitter is instantly vulnerable to lawsuits for all the other content that exists on its platform.
In other words, Twitter is now legally responsible for all its content and can be sued for any one of literally millions of Tweets it carries which contain threats of violence, malicious and false accusations, defamatory content and so on. Thanks to efforts like James O’Keefe of Project Veritas, there already exists some recorded evidence of former Facebook or Twitter employees plotting to engage in malicious, politically-motivated censorship. The discovery phase of a lawsuit against Twitter would certainly uncover an enormous amount of additional evidence proving this bias.
This realization makes two legal strategies potentially viable for pursuing legal action against Twitter:
#1) Find tweets that contain defamatory smears against the Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky, in which Kentucky minors were maliciously smeared with false information. Lawyers for Nick Sandman, one of the students, have already filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against the Washington Post and another $275 million lawsuit against CNN. What’s new now is that Twitter itself is also theoretically liable for those tweets, and Twitter may be independently sued for publishing those tweets, since Twitter now exercises editorial control over what gets published vs. what is silenced.
There are obviously tens of thousands of potential plaintiffs who have been smeared, maligned and otherwise harmed by malicious tweets that are still published by Twitter. Those plaintiffs can be easily located via their Twitter handles. The Covington Catholic school students are a particularly relevant example because of the strong anti-defamation laws in Kentucky and the fact that Nick Sandman is a minor (and not a public figure).
Furthermore, Twitter’s silencing of political targets prohibits those victims from being able to defend themselves against malicious cyber-bullying attacks which are then carried out on Twitter itself. Effectively, Twitter becomes complicit in the acts of cyber-bullying by silencing victims. I apologize for the graphic nature of this comparison, but what Twitter is doing is the cyber equivalent of binding the mouth of a rape victim so that she can no longer scream as she is repeatedly raped by the same people. Twitter’s actions are not merely dishonest and highly unethical, but are actually complicit in the malicious cyber-bullying of individuals who have been targeted by Twitter.
Here at Natural News, we have developed other potential legal strategies in consultation with various attorneys. The consensus is that Twitter is now more vulnerable than ever before because it has overstepped its bounds and is now vulnerable to a lawsuit that would initiate a court ruling which could nullify its Sec. 230 legal immunity.
If Twitter wishes to enjoy Sec. 230 legal immunity, it must act as an open free speech platform and avoid editorializing in the form of selected censorship against the voices it does not like.
If you represent a law firm that’s interested in exploring this case, contact Natural News to learn more about the legal strategies we have already assembled.