President Trump looks at his phone during a roundtable with governors on the reopening of America’s small businesses, in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington in June, 2020. Though stripped of his Twitter account for inciting rebellion and barred from Facebook, Trump does have alternative options of much smaller reach. (Alex Brandon/ Associated Press file photo)

President Trump looks at his phone during a roundtable with governors on the reopening of America’s small businesses, in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington in June, 2020. Though stripped of his Twitter account for inciting rebellion and barred from Facebook, Trump does have alternative options of much smaller reach. (Alex Brandon/ Associated Press file photo)

Viewpoints: Why Trump won’t get far in social media lawsuits

Trump’s flawed reasoning won’t win in federal court. But it will give him a hook for more fundraising.

By Frank LoMonte /For The Conversation

From condo salesman to reality TV host to leader of the free world, Donald Trump has occupied several lifetimes’ worth of identities over a remarkable career of reinventions. Even so, the billionaire mogul’s latest metamorphosis — into a consumer-rights plaintiff seeking to regulate big business — is a peculiar one.

With a volley of lawsuits against the operators of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, former President Trump is asking the courts to do what tycoon Trump once would have denounced: tell some of America’s most powerful corporations that they have no choice who they do business with.

As a First Amendment and media law scholar, I believe the former president knows he can’t win in court. Here’s why; and why even his most ardent supporters don’t really want him to.

Content moderation rules: After the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by rioters bent on preventing Congress from certifying President Biden’s electoral win, all of the major social platforms — Facebook, Twitter and YouTube — pulled the plug on Trump’s accounts. The companies cited internal rules about misuse of their platforms to spread misinformation and incite violence.

Trump’s lawsuit barrage seeks not just to overturn his own bans but to invalidate a 1996 federal statute, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, that entitles website operators to choose who and what appears on their pages without fear of liability. His attorneys are arguing — creatively, but I believe without much legal foundation — that the Communications Decency Act is unconstitutional in that Congress has given platforms too much speech-policing power.

Section 230 has been called the law that “created the internet,” as it enables anyone who operates or uses a website — not, as Trump claims, only social media behemoths — to disavow responsibility for what outsiders come onto the site and say.

The law does enable YouTube to deactivate videos, or entire accounts, without assuming “ownership” of anything libelous that remains viewable. But it also allows the proprietor of a small-town news site to entertain reader comments without being considered the “publisher” of — and thus liable for — every scurrilous statement that ends up in the comments section.

Social networks have enforced their “content moderation” rules spottily and without much transparency. That’s a bad business practice, and it’s arguably unfair. But the Constitution doesn’t offer a remedy for all of life’s adversities. It certainly doesn’t offer one for Trump here.

Social media isn’t government: Court after court has rejected the argument that because social networks are widely considered — in the Supreme Court’s words — “the modern public square,” speakers are entitled to demand access to their platforms just as they are entitled to use a physical public square. That’s not how the First Amendment works.

The protections of the First Amendment are triggered when a public agency exercises governmental power to restrict people’s speech; what is known as “state action.” On rare occasions, private organizations can be considered “governmental,” for instance, when a private hospital or university is given police power to make arrests on its premises.

But operating a video-sharing platform is not a “governmental” function; and judges have said so, unanimously.

Conservatives, including Trump, cannot possibly want private businesses to be governed by the same constitutional standards that apply to cities and counties. If courts started applying the Bill of Rights to Walmart or McDonald’s just because they are large and powerful entities that control a lot of property, those establishments would be forced to welcome even the most disagreeable speakers — let’s say, a diner wearing a “F*** Trump” T-shirt — no matter how many offended customers complain.

Upending conservative gospel: For decades, conservatives have fought — quite hard and quite successfully in court — to establish that corporations have First Amendment rights equivalent to those of living, breathing people. That includes the corporations operating social media channels.

In a recent essay about democracy in the social media age, I explain how the Communications Decency Act has evolved into the near-impenetrable liability shield that it is today.

In the essay, I describe how the proprietor of a hotel or tavern isn’t liable for harm caused by customers visiting the establishment; unless the customer has a known history of dangerousness that the proprietor chooses to ignore. That might offer a split-the-difference path for addressing the worst trolling behavior on social media by repeat bad actors; but, to be clear, it’s not the law today.

Today, the law unmistakably entitles the Twitters of the world to do just about anything with their customers’ posts: take them down, leave them up, add warnings or modifiers. If users are aggrieved by the way they’re treated, they can do exactly what they’d do in the offline world: Take their business somewhere else.

Old news: The Supreme Court already decisively dealt with this issue a half-century ago, when newspapers and television stations held power over political discourse comparable to that of Facebook and Twitter today. In the case, Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, the justices rejected a state legislative candidate’s insistence that he was entitled to space in the local newspaper to respond to criticism in two editorial columns.

While the justices acknowledged that a big-city newspaper might have a near-monopoly over information about local elections — sound familiar? — they agreed that the First Amendment would not tolerate commandeering the presses of a private publisher in the interest of government-enforced “fairness.”

A federal judge in Florida, relying on the Tornillo case, just ordered the state not to enforce a newly enacted “anti-deplatforming” law enabling any Florida political candidate whose social media posts are hidden, modified or deactivated to sue the platform. The judge concluded that the law violates the First Amendment rights of the platforms by (for example) compelling platforms to let candidates post anything they want, without moderation. “Balancing the exchange of ideas among private speakers,” the judge wrote, “is not a legitimate governmental interest.”

No one involved with this case could be serious about winning in federal court. But that is not the “court” to which the former president is playing.

Tilting at Silicon Valley appeals directly to Trump’s populist followers, many of whom probably suspect that their own clever tweets failed to go viral only because the system is rigged against them.

But even if, as experts suggest, Trump’s case is destined to fail, dismissal would be yet another headline and fundraising hook, along the lines of, “You knew those socialist judges were in Hillary’s pocket.” And even if Trump were ordered to pay Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s attorney fees, they’d have to queue up behind decades’ worth of unpaid Trump creditors.

As Trump would tweet, if given the chance: “So much winning!”

Frank LoMonte is a journalism professor at University of Florida and is director of its Brechner Center for Freedom of Information. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Talk to us

More in Opinion

Editorial cartoons for Sunday, Aug. 1

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Snohomish County Auditor Carolyn Weikel is predicting 34 percent of the county’s registered voters will cast ballots. FILE PHOTO  (Andy Bronson / The Herald)
Editorial: A recap of endorsements for the Aug. 3 primary

The Herald Editorial Board makes the following endorsements for primary races in the county.

Editorial cartoons for Monday, Aug. 2

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

FILE - In this May 21, 2021 file photo, a person holds a mask while walking outside in Philadelphia.  New evidence showing the delta variant is as contagious as chickenpox has prompted U.S. health officials to consider changing advice on how the nation fights the coronavirus. Recommending masks for everyone and requiring vaccines for doctors and other health care providers are among measures the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is considering, Friday, July 30. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)
Editorial: Our covid battle isn’t over; we must again mask up

The delta variant spreads even among whose who are vaccinated, meaning a return to masking indoors.

Should vaccinated people mask up with COVID-19 cases rising? (AP Illustration/Peter Hamlin)
Viewpoints: Why we’re being asked to mask up again

While those fully vaccinated are protected from serious illness, the delta variant is highly transmissible.

Commentary: Put yourself on the map as state redistricts

Every decade, congressional and legislative districts are redrawn. You can have a say in that process.

Comment: In our community, leadership matters more than ever

Leadership Snohomish County is looking for a new class of leaders to engage, train and build right here.

City of Snohomish TBD: Two cents on the tax’s value

The residents of Snohomish fund many government services. One of the most… Continue reading

Trump’s big lie that he won is a threat to democracy

I know we’re all getting tired of reading or hearing about it… Continue reading

Most Read