Congressman Devin Nunes is suing Twitter for shadow-banning him and allowing him to be slandered.

Congressman Devin Nunes (R) California. Official photo. 

Congressman Devin Nunes is suing Twitter and some Twitter users for shadow-banning him and slander. Fox News. Nunes is seeking $250 million in damages as well as $350,000 in punitive damages. Nunes claims that Twitter has shadow banned him and many other conservatives and that doing so was essentially interfering with the 2018 elections. Nunes is also suing several accounts that regularly slandered him and Twitter for not removing the accounts in question. Federal law usually protects online outlets from lawsuits like this under the belief that companies should not be responsible for user comments, but Nunes argues that since Twitter takes such a role in promoting some content and banning and removing other content that it is essentially a publisher. 

My Comment:

Good news from California for once. I completely agree that Twitter is biased against conservatives. I know that my account got locked for basically no reason during the President's State of the Union this year. They said I posted "inauthentic content" though I was doing nothing but commenting on the President's speech. I had to sign my life away and give Twitter my phone number just to get my account back. I've also been shadow-banned before though apparently now my account is back to being in good standing. 

I also think that it's very clear that Twitter plays favorites. People are allowed to say absolutely horrible things to people like Devin Nunes or President Trump and nothing happens to them. Indeed, if you follow the President and read the comments underneath his posts it will likely be the same few accounts that somehow end up near the top every time even though his supporters often do not. 

Conservatives also can't criticize liberals on the platform either. Saying something as simple as "learn to code" to a journalist, which is what they always said to people who lost their jobs to globalism, is enough to get your account banned. If you are a somebody, like a journalist or politician, you can get your account back but if you are a nobody like me? You are done. 

It's very clear that there is a problem at Twitter, but does this lawsuit have a chance to win? It will be an uphill battle. Websites have immunity to defamation suits under the Communications Decency Act. In short, they can't be sued if someone posts something defamatory on them as long as they didn't publish the posts directly. 

Nunes' argument will be that since Twitter plays such an active role in curating content that they are now a publisher and not anything else. It's a good argument but I'm not sure if it will work or not. Better legal minds than me will have to figure that one out. 

Nunes will face a much tougher time with the individual accounts he listed. Though the private person who defamed Nunes could be in serious trouble, the owners of the parody accounts should be ok (assuming they are different people). Parody has long been allowed by the 1st amendment and you can say defamatory things about people as long as it's clear you are making a joke. Without being able to see these accounts I can't tell for sure that they were just joking but I am guessing that will be the argument. And it's an argument that will likely hold unless they bring it all the way to the Supreme Court and they reverse Hustler Magazine v Falwell.

Either way though, even if the lawsuit fails it is putting the social media companies on notice. They have been playing fast and loose with the rules and showing some pretty obvious favoritism and collusion with leftists. Things need to change and here's hoping that this lawsuit spurs some.