Connect with us

Tech

Banished Journalist Laura Loomer’s $1.5 Billion Lawsuit Against Tech Giants Will Be Heard in Court

Loomer will have her day in court.

Published

on

Banished journalist and Florida U.S. House candidate Laura Loomer’s lawsuit against Big Tech will be heard in the court of law following an order in the D.C. Circuit on Thursday.

Loomer is accusing tech giants such as Google, Apple, Facebook and Twitter of conspiring to suppress conservative voices on their platforms. The lawsuit is challenging these monolithic corporations for allegedly violating antitrust law as well as the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

Her lawsuit had been previously tossed out by U.S. District Judge Trever N. McFadden, a Trump appointee to the bench, who stated that “while selective censorship of the kind alleged by the plaintiffs may be antithetical to the American tradition of freedom of speech, it is not actionable under the First Amendment unless perpetrated by a state actor.” However, Loomer was able to use a recent court ruling to resurrect her lawsuit despite the initial setback.

Trending: Feckless Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler Admits ANTIFA Rioters Aren’t “Peaceful Protestors” As Mayhem Continues

Loomer’s legal team, led by the right-wing political interest group Freedom Watch, used the precedent of Packingham v. North Carolina, a ruling which determined that it was unconstitutional to ban sex offenders from social media. The case essentially set the precedent that social media is a 1st Amendment right.

take our poll - story continues below

RIOTS: Who do you blame for the violence on America's streets?

  • RIOTS: Who do you blame for the violence on America's streets?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“Many of the principles set forth by the Supreme Court in Packingham lead to what appellants believe is the natural progression of the law to hold that social media companies are liable for First Amendment violations, given the progression of technology and its infiltration into the daily lives of nearly every single person,” Loomer’s team said in their final brief presented to the court.

Loomer points to Twitter banning her from the platform at the end of 2018 after she said that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) adheres to a religion in which “women are abused” and “forced to wear the hijab.” She was similarly banned from Instagram for her assertion that Islam is “a cancer on humanity,” and Facebook, which owns Instagram, quickly followed suit and banned her even though the offending post was not made on that platform.

Loomer still cannot get her accounts restored despite the fact that she is running for the U.S. House in Florida’s 21st Congressional District, which could be considered a form of electoral interference.

Through her legal fight against the tech giants, Loomer is forcing them to reveal that they are no longer neutral platforms:

The tech behemoth Facebook has admitted that it is a publisher while defending its arbitrary censorship of banished journalist Laura Loomer, according to court documents.

Facebook banned Loomer’s account from their platform during a purge of popular conservative voices that happened in May. Others targeted by the purge included Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson. Loomer is striking back with a lawsuit that is unearthing some interesting revelations about the social media monolith.

“Under well-established law, neither Facebook nor any other publisher can be liable for failing to publish someone else’s message,” Facebook’s attorneys wrote.

Facebook actually has the audacity to claim that their 1st Amendment rights are being violated by Loomer’s lawsuit, in a total contorting of reality. They have filed a motion to dismiss the case.

“She claims Facebook labeled her as a ‘dangerous’ person who promotes hate – yet, the First Amendment has long protected such statements because they are opinions that are not capable of being proven true or false,” Facebook’s attorneys claim in their dismissal motion.

Right now, Facebook is protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act from being held liable for the content published on their platform. This special exemption worked fine when the social network engaged in relative neutrality, but those days are no more as Big Tech is at war with conservative and pro-Trump voices.

Loomer hopes to have her ability to communicate fully restored and to make Big Tech pay for infringing on her basic rights.

Tech

Twitter Targets Alternative Video Platform Bitchute as Big Tech’s Censorship Crackdown Intensifies

Big Tech wants to cripple the free flow of information.

Published

on

The social media giant Twitter is targeting Bitchute, the alternative video service that allows for content to be shared freely on the platform, with Draconian censorship.

Independent journalist Tim Pool made the discovery in a Twitter post:

This may have been done at the behest of ANTIFA-style organization, Hope Not Hate, which lobbies Big Tech to censor their political enemies.

“Major social media platforms including Facebook and Twitter should ban the sharing of Bitchute links on their platform, thereby significantly reducing the impact of this extreme and dangerous material,” Hope Not Hate wrote in their blog about Bitchute.

In addition to calling for Draconian censorship against Bitchute on social media platforms, they also call for Bitchute to be slapped with criminal repercussions for permitting free speech on their platform.

“Law enforcement investigate Bitchute for distribution of content that breaks British law, including terrorism legislation,” Hope Not Hate wrote. “The Government should introduce an Online Harms Bill that includes meaningful consequences for bespoke platforms such as Bitchute that host, promote or distribute terrorism, extremist and hateful content.”

Bitchute has grown in influence for hosting videos that have been driven off of major platforms. A viral video of front-line doctors urging for the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 was scrubbed from YouTube but can still be accessed on Bitchute.

The Bitchute links to banned videos from the courageous medical whistleblowers have been posted many different times onto Twitter:

Twitter will not allow users to access these videos without providing the following warning:

As Twitter targets Bitchute for allowing freedom of speech on their monopoly platform, they are actively allowing pedophiles to discuss their lustful desires for children.

Big League Politics has reported on how Twitter explicitly amended their terms of service so pedophiles are allowed on the platform to talk about how they want to rape kids, with child nudity being permissible in certain instances:

Social media giant Twitter has quietly amended their terms of service to allow for “discussions related to… attraction towards minors” to be allowed on their platform.

“Discussions related to child sexual exploitation as a phenomenon or attraction towards minors are permitted, provided they don’t promote or glorify child sexual exploitation in any way,” reads Twitter’s terms of service.

Twitter allow noted that they would allow for nude depictions of children on their platform in certain instances.

“Artistic depictions of nude minors in a non-sexualized context or setting may be permitted in a limited number of scenarios e.g., works by internationally renowned artists that feature minors,” they added.

Twitter’s pro-pedo policy may have been implemented at the behest of Dr. James Cantor, who describes himself as a proud Jewish homosexual. Cantor is a leading researcher and advocate for pedophiles, who he refers to as minor-attracted persons.

Cantor wrote a letter in Jan. 2018 to John Starr, who works as Director of Trust and Safety with Twitter, with other university academics. The letter urged Twitter to allow pedophiles to network and discuss their attraction to children on the monolithic social media platform.

“Many of us have worked with a group of such non-offending pedophiles, also known as anti-contact MAPs (Minor-Attracted Persons), in a peer support network called Virtuous Pedophiles (@virpeds), as well as in other support networks,” they wrote in their letter.

“Recently, a prominent member of Virtuous Pedophiles, who goes by the pseudonym Ender Wiggin (@enderphile2), had his account permanently suspended by Twitter. At least one other member of the same network, Šimon Falko (@simgiran), also had his account permanently suspended around the same time, and a number of other accounts of non-offending, anti-contact MAPs have since been permanently or temporarily suspended,” they added.

They argued that denying pedophiles a place on the social media platform may lead to these so-called virtuous pedophiles acting on their impulses to sexually victimize kids.

The values of these tech giants do not align with American values. If these hostile actors refuse to abide by American values, they ought to lose their Section 230 privileges under the Communications Decency Act.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending