Newsman: Former President Donald Trump announced class-action lawsuits against Facebook, Twitter and Google on Wednesday that seek the prompt restoration of Trump’s social media accounts. He will also ask the court to impose “punitive damages” on the social media companies for banning him on their sites following the Capitol riot on Jan. 6.
The cases rest on the claim that Trump’s free speech rights are being denied by these companies. Additionally, in the complaint against Google CEO Sundar Pichai and subsidiary YouTube, Trump and his fellow plaintiffs ask for a declaration that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — which shields social media companies from liability — is unconstitutional. They reason that Congress cannot lawfully encourage private persons to censor speech if Congress is constitutionally forbidden from doing the same thing.
Trump tries to leapfrog this obstacle by arguing that the social media companies have worked so closely with federal entities that they have risen from private status to “state actor” status. While this contention might seem fanciful, the Trump plaintiffs actually have a point; it’s just that the point won’t help them in this particular case.
Suddenly, lawsuits like Trump’s would be more likely to succeed. In response, social media companies would then immediately start censoring any speech that might remotely cause them liability. They might face more lawsuits like this one by plaintiffs claiming their free speech rights were denied. At that point, social media companies might be sued out of existence, and the platforms would disappear entirely.
Hosting speech on a private platform is simply not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Indeed, a federal appeals court already ruled in a separate case last year that YouTube doesn’t perform a public function. It’s hard to see why Facebook and Twitter should be regarded differently under the law.
It may be that getting thrown out of court could be the best thing that happens to Trump and the other plaintiffs, while the worst thing for them could be winning the case. If Section 230 were declared unconstitutional and disappeared, social media companies would be exposed to massive civil liability for the content on their platforms.
The internet could be reduced to kitten videos and “have a nice day” memes. And that’s about it. Clearly that’s not the internet Trump and his fellow plaintiffs want, but if they win and Section 230 goes away, that might be what they get.
