Trump Argues Against YouTube ‘Discrimination’ in Section 230 Case
Communications Decency Act Section 230 doesn’t allow platforms to engage in “arbitrary discrimination” like banning users for political speech, attorneys for ex-President Donald Trump argued Tuesday in a lawsuit against YouTube in U.S. District Court in Oakland in docket 4:21-cv8009.…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Trump sued Facebook, Google, Twitter and their CEOs in July, claiming his suspensions after the Jan. 6 insurrection amount to illegal censorship (see 2107070065). Congress intended for Section 230 to benefit all Americans, and a First Amendment principle is that “all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen,” Trump’s team filed in response to DOJ’s brief on the constitutionality of Section 230. Trump argued the social media platforms violated the First Amendment. Platforms like YouTube act as common carriers when they “solicit and host third-party content,” they argued: That means any applications of Section 230 that “protect acts of arbitrary discrimination by Defendants would be unconstitutional.”