Matt Taibbi- Capsule Summaries of all Twitter Files Threads to Date, With Links and a Glossary
For those who haven’t been following, a compilation of one-paragraph summaries of all the Twitter Files threads by every reporter. With links and notes on key revelations
A law professor recommends today in the WSJ that class action lawsuits be filed against the Federal agencies, seeking a blanket injunction banning all activities they undertook to suppress and silence government critics. The beauty of this is that the SC has already established that consumers and viewers of information are protected by the 1st Amendment, so they have standing to sue for an injunction.
A single lawsuit could force the Biden admin and all future admins to never attempt censorship of Americans again. Presumably if they violated the injunction by trying censorship , government employees and agencies would be vulnerable to civil rights lawsuits, and damages. Even better, the tech firms aiding them would be face damages , also.
I wonder if Google’s management would dare try censorship with an injunction in place, since class action lawsuits have to be declared as contingent liabilities in their public financial reports?
This appears to be a sound idea in principle.
The practical problem would be to find a jurisdiction willing to take it on. The U.S. Justice Department is as corrupt as the press and the social media companies. Witness the resistance to fairly prosecute election irregularities in Arizona, for example.
I don’t think there would be any problem at all – virtually any US citizen would have standing, because the censorship was a civil right violation ( 1st amendment of the bill of Rights. )
The mainstream media’s refusal to cover this huge story is astounding. Two explanations are possible – both disturbing.
One is that the press fully supports censorship of information that runs counter to the narrative dictated by the government.
The second is that the government has the power and the ability to intimidate the press by (tacitly or directly) threatening regulation and/or withdrawal of (direct or indirect) financial support .
Whatever the reason, the press is studiously avoiding this story and instead maliciously shooting the messenger by publishing hit pieces about Musk.