When the court’s opinion is barely over a page when printed, it’s a good sign that the underlying case had little to no merit.
This was a pro se lawsuit, filed against Twitter, because Twitter suspended at least three of Plaintiff’s accounts which were used to “insult gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people for violating the company’s terms of service, specifically its rule against hateful conduct.”
Plaintiff sued Twitter alleging that “[Twitter] suspended his accounts based on his heterosexual and Christian expressions” in violation of the First Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and for alleged “legal abuse.”
The court was quick to deny all of the claims explaining that:
- Plaintiff had no First Amendment claim against Twitter because Twitter was not a state actor; having to painfully explain that just because Twitter was a publicly traded company it doesn’t transform Twitter into a state actor.
- Plaintiff had no claim under § 1981 because he didn’t allege racial discrimination.
- Plaintiff’s Civil Rights claim failed because: (1) under Title II, only injunctive relief is available (not damages like Plaintiff wanted); (2) Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act bars his claim; and (3) because Title II does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation (an no facts were asserted to support this claim).
- Plaintiff failed to allege any conduct by Twitter that cold plausibly amount to legal abuse.
The court noted that Plaintiff “expresses his difficulty in finding case law to support his claims.” Well, I guess it would be hard to find caselaw to support claims when you have no valid ones.
Citation: Wilson v. Twitter, Civil Action No. 3:20-0054 (S.D. W.Va. 2020)
Disclaimer: This is for general information purposes only and none of this is meant to be legal advice and should not be relied upon as legal advice.