The court rejects President Trump's allegations about Social Media

The decision came at a time when President Trump is blaming Twitter how it stifles politically conservative views, since the social media company decided to check the accuracy of its tweets about mail-in balloting.

Όas President Trump accuses Twitter that suffocates freedom of speech, the federal court ruled that one can not actually sue a social networking company for violating the First Amendment.

The reason; The First Amendment is designed to stop the government if it wants to restrict freedom of speech, but not private companies, according to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

The court's ruling came Wednesday in response to a lawsuit filed by the Freedom Watch legal team and the laura loomer, an analyst who is politically supportive of the right and who has been excluded from Twitter and Facebook due to its anti-Islamic publications.

In 2018, they filed a complaint, claiming that the Apple, Facebook, Google and Twitter violate the law by conspiring to stifle politically conservative views. A year ago, the federal court rejected the complaint and on Wednesday, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals reached the same decision, deciding that none of the technology companies violated the US Constitution.

"In general, the First Amendment only prohibits government restrictions on speech."The judges wrote in their decision."Freedom Watch argues that because these platforms provide an important forum for expression, they are part of government intervention. But, according to Halleck, 'a private entity that provides a forum for the expression of speech is not transformed because of this and only a state agent''.

The lawsuit also alleges that the technology companies violated antitrust laws, citing their control of US social media and their bans on certain right-wing analysts. However, the judges were not convinced and stressed the failure of Freedom Watch to provide evidence of this planned conspiracy.

The judges wanted additional evidence that technology companies had gained influence through anti-competitive practices. However, the decision states that: “The only anti-competitive practice that Freedom Watch argues (without making substantive allegations) is that these platforms conspired against it to limit conservative content, but not that these platforms conspired to gain or maintain their monopoly power".

This decision is a barrier for conservative political commentators who believe that technology companies should remain completely politically neutral in debates, even if they contain misinformation. On Wednesday, President Trump expressed a similar belief, criticizing Twitter for fact-checking his tweets that mail-in voting leads to fraud during the election.

"Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms are completely suppressing conservative views. We will control them or stop them before we even allow that to happenTrump threatened in a tweet.

However, according to the First Amendment, the President does not have the power to restrict the freedom of speech of a private company, the American Civil Liberties Union. "The first Amendment still explicitly prohibits the President from taking any action to stop Twitter from exposing its blatant lies about the electoral process by mail.Said the Senior Legislative Counsel Kate Ruane of ACLU in a statement.

Nevertheless, the debate over whether the First Amendment should apply to private companies is likely to grow at a time when online giants such as Google and Facebook expand their influence on the internet. In the meantime, its founder Freedom Watch Larry Klayman said to Politico that he plans to insist on his lawsuit, despite its rejection.

"We will obviously ask for a review and go to the Supreme Court if necessary"Klayman seems to have said.

Source