Connect with us

Tech

LOOMERED: Facebook Admits They Are a Publisher in New Explosive Court Documents

A lawsuit filed by banished journalist Laura Loomer has forced Facebook to admit they are a publisher.

Published

on

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.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • 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.

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.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) has introduced legislation to reform Section 230 and make the special immunity privileges contingent on Facebook and other tech providers remaining non-biased in how they curate content on their platforms:

As it states right now, Section 230 states that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Howley’s bill, the Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act, would remove that exemption for Big Tech firms if they act like publishers instead of neutral platforms. Corporations would have to comply with external audits proving their algorithms and content moderation are not biased.

“With Section 230, tech companies get a sweetheart deal that no other industry enjoys: complete exemption from traditional publisher liability in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship,” Hawley said in a statement. “Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, big tech has failed to hold up its end of the bargain.”

“There’s a growing list of evidence that shows big tech companies making editorial decisions to censor viewpoints they disagree with,” Hawley added. “Even worse, the entire process is shrouded in secrecy because these companies refuse to make their protocols public. This legislation simply states that if the tech giants want to keep their government-granted immunity, they must bring transparency and accountability to their editorial processes and prove that they don’t discriminate.”

Facebook is being increasingly forced to admit damaging information about its business model due to various lawsuits filed against the embattled corporation.

“There is no invasion of privacy at all, because there is no privacy,” Facebook attorney Orin Snyder admitted in court back in June, while describing the social network as a “digital town square” of sorts.

Facebook is providing ammunition for its critics to build a case to change the regulations so they can no longer inflict the Orwellian nightmare upon conservatives.

Tech

Canadian Court Rules That Businessman Has the Right to Sue Twitter for Defamation

This could be a gamechanger.

Published

on

A Canadian court has ruled that Frank Giustra, a billionaire from British Columbia who sits on the board of the Clinton Foundation, is able to sue Twitter for defamation.

Giustra is suing Twitter after users of the platform accused him of being connected to “PizzaGate,” the theory that gained traction on social media that there is a child sex ring of some sort operating out of a ritzy Washington D.C. pizza joint.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elliott Myers would not comment on the merits of Giustra’s case when he made his ruling. He noted that Twitter would be protected in American courts due to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, but those protections might not necessarily apply in the Canadian courts.

“The presumption is that a defendant should be sued in only one jurisdiction for an alleged wrong, but that is not a simple goal to achieve fairly for internet defamation,” Myers wrote.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • 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.

“I do not agree with Twitter who argues that ‘of all places in the world, the plaintiff’s reputation has not been harmed in B.C.’,” he added.

Giustra is happy with Myers’ decision and hopes that he is able to hold Twitter accountable once the case is heard in court.

“I hope this lawsuit will help raise public awareness of the real harm to society if social media platforms are not held responsible for the content posted and published on their sites,” he said. 

“I believe that words do matter, and recent events have demonstrated that hate speech can incite violence with deadly consequences,” Giustra added.

Big League Politics has reported on how Twitter and other tech giants have hidden behind legal protections in order to enforce a partisan political agenda:

The communications directors at many Big Tech entities – including Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat – have been revealed as veteran Democrat Party operatives…

Much of what is posted by Starbuck holds up to journalistic scrutiny. Twitter communications director Nick Pacillo once worked as a spokesman for Democrat vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris while she was California attorney general. It has been alleged that he continues to serve her in his privileged role with Twitter, as supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) believe the platform blocked donations for their preferred presidential candidate while he was running against Harris.

Meanwhile Andy Stone – who serves as Facebook’s Policy Communications Director – has been working in various capacities to assure Democrat victory for over a decade. He was celebrated for his career of service to the Democrats when he joined their House Majority PAC in 2012…

If Big Tech cannot be defeated in the courts, a full-scale nationalization of these entities may be the last option to stop the permanent manifestation of the Orwellian nightmare.

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


Trending