Spurred by Whistleblower Revelations
Big Tech Must Answer in Court
Pre-Election TRO Sought
Leading California civil liberties lawyer Cris Armenta has just filed a major freedom of speech lawsuit against Big Tech giant YouTube and its parent company, Google. Working with Zach Vorhies, the Whistleblower who revealed Google’s 12 member “Hate Speech Committee” (half of whom are Red Chinese Nationals) the lawsuit alleges massive and systemic violations of Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act, the companies’ terms of contract and Freedom of Speech with regard to centrist, conservative and libertarian opinion communications.
Read the entire 74 page complaint here:
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA – On October 26, 2020, fifteen YouTube content creators filed a federal lawsuit against Google and YouTube, alleging in seventeen claims for relief, that Google and YouTube breached the Terms of Service and violated their First Amendment rights, when they summarily de‐platformed the Plaintiffs’ channels and removed their content from YouTube without advance notice.
The Plaintiffs are the creators of YouTube channels, including: JustInformed Talk, SGT Report,
X22 Report, SpaceShot 76, TruReporting, RedPill78, Edge of Wonder, Praying Medic, Amazing Polly, Woke Societies, Daniel Lee, Deception Byes, InTheMatrixxx, Destroying the Illusion and Sarah Westall.
Together, their news and social commentary channels have reached more than 800 million views and together they had more YouTube subscribers than many legacy news channels, such as C‐SPAN, The New York Times, and NBC News. Plaintiffs cite a recent study by the Pew Research Center that concludes that many Americans get their news from independent YouTube channels along the same metrics as legacy or traditional news sources.
YouTube and Google are expected to defend the case and claim that Section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act provides them immunity for the actions they took against conservative commentators, just 19 days before the November 3 Presidential Election. However, the Ninth Circuit has recently issued an opinion, retreating from the broad interpretation of the immunity that social media has used for years to defend lawsuits from its contract partners and users. The Section 230 immunities were provided by Congress as a means to give internet providers an ability to remove content that was considered “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” Enigma Software Group USA LLC. V. Malwarebytes, Inc., No. 17‐17351 (Opinion filed September 12, 2019). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found persuasive the notion that the “unbounded reading” of Section 230 previously employed by social media giants such as YouTube would allow a content provider to “block content for anticompetitive purposes or merely at its malicious whim.”
Read the full media release here: http://www.opensourcetruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/FNIAL-PRESS-RELEASE-10.26.2020.pdf
This reporter noted in a recent Open Source Truth article, http://www.opensourcetruth.com/lets-all-sue-big-tech/ that just days ago the US Supreme Court refused to reconsider the Ninth Circuit’s position that Section 230 must be read to protect Freed Speech interests.
It is our expectation that a Temporary Restraining Order may very well be issued prior to the election on November 3rd, assuring the public that communications regarding the election will not be interfered with by Google and YouTube. Without open communications about the election we cannot be assured of a fair and free electoral decision.