It musters quite a bit about Facebook's removal of COVID-19-related information the company (with input from Washington) deemed incorrect, but there's no attempt at a broader case that Republican or right-wing views are being censored on a mass scale. For one thing, Trump filed suit in federal court in Florida, but Facebook's terms of service require adjudication in California.įor another, after all its narrative, the suit doesn't include any comprehensive evidence of the alleged censorship. Winning would benefit him in a way it would not benefit the other members of the class, or indeed anyone else on earth.īut the idea that victory is sincerely anticipated is also incredible. The other members of Trump's class are no doubt happy to be there, but the notion that this suit is about anyone but him is incredible. government," a "public forum, serving a public function." It notes his "strategi circumvent what he saw as a mainstream media that was biased against him." It touts his Facebook use in office as an "important outlet for. While his fellow plaintiffs get a few paragraphs each to note their loss of access to online relationships and "thousands of treasured family photos and memories," Trump's far longer section reads much like a campaign press release. That's where his similarity to others in the class action ends. Trump liked to post about "politics, celebrities, golf, and his business interests, among other topics," the filing informs. The Facebook suit is the one I'll reference throughout this article, and it treats us to a lengthy recounting of Trump's Facebook use and its purported value to our country. They are strategic, performative, sometimes downright silly, and almost certainly legally doomed. These don't seem to be lawsuits designed to succeed in court so much as tools of public relations and fundraising.
If that rallying cry seems nonsensical, well, so is the entire project, if taken at face value.
0 kommentar(er)
