DC Court to hear Laura Loomer & Freedom Watch big tech Lawsuit

DC Court of Appeals will hear Laura Loomer and Freedom Watch’s big tech anti-conservative bias Lawsuit

 Tom Parker

In March, conservative commentator and congressional candidate Laura Loomer and conservative non-profit Freedom Watch had their big tech anti-conservative bias lawsuit dismissed by a court. Now a District of Columbia (DC) Court of Appeals has agreed to hear the merits of this lawsuit.

The lawsuit accuses Apple, Facebook, Google, and Twitter of working together to “intentionally and willfully suppress politically conservative content.” It also alleges that the tech giants have breached the Sherman Act (an anti-monopoly law), DC’s public accommodation law (prohibits acts performed wholly or partially for a discriminatory reason: “To deny, directly or indirectly, any person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation…”), and the First Amendment. Additionally, the suit claims that being banned from some of these social media platforms caused Loomer “to suffer severe financial injury.”

Apple, Facebook, Google, and Twitter were seeking a quick ruling and a motion of “summary affirmance” of dismissal from the DC Court of Appeals – a ruling where the court concludes that the case is weak and it would be a waste of time to hear. However, the DC Court of Appeals has denied this motion and said that it will hear the merits of this suit:

“Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the oppositions thereto, and the replies, it is ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be denied. The merits of the parties’ positions are not so clear as to warrant summary action. Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Appellees be limited to one joint brief, not to exceed 13,000 words. See Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7). Because the court has determined that summary disposition is not in order, the Clerk is instructed to enter a briefing schedule and to calendar this case for presentation to a merits panel.”

This lawsuit is the latest in a series of recent suits that have been filed against big tech companies by politicians and political commentators. Last month, 2020 presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard sued Google for election interferenceLoomer also filed a separate defamation lawsuit against Facebook in July after the company called her a “dangerous individual.”

*********

(TLB) published this article from Reclaim The Net.org with our thanks for the coverage.

About the writer Tom Parker;

Tom Parker is a head contributor for Reclaim The Net and provides news and analysis on how we can promote free speech, stop censorship, and protect our personal data online. tom@reclaimthenet.org

More about censorship from The Liberty Beacon

••••

••••

••••

Stay tuned to …

 

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*