Trump’s lawsuits are not about speech, but ego

[ad_1]

For a serial suer, it seems that former President Donald Trump knows a bit about the law.

Then, again, it may have been his grievances that obscured any legal intelligence he may have possessed.

Either way, Trump has done it again.

Trump has been involved in thousands of lawsuits, according to James D. Zirin’s book “Plaintiff in Chief: A Portrait of Donald Trump in 3,500 Lawsuits,” but his latest may be the most irrelevant.

He filed class-action lawsuits against Facebook, Google and Twitter, a move caused by the suspension of social media giants imposed on the former president after the January 6 siege of the Capitol.

Trump claimed the platforms violated his freedom of speech, which is repeatedly considered his earnest rhetoric reflecting the very notion of “shouting fire in a crowded theater,” admitting his followers to participate in the horrific attack. Besides, he still has the right to speak. He can hold press conferences, issue statements or turn to other platforms, such as his short blog post.

Suits seek unspecified punitive damages, but are really about attention.

“Trump saw the trial as just about winning,” Zirin wrote in his book. “He sued to drop a hat. He sued for sport; he sued to gain control; and he sued to make a point. He sued as a way to silence the those who crossed over him. “

Far from expecting any legal settlement, Trump sends a message to his supporters, who continue to paint his favorite picture of himself-the political martyr. He continues to be aggrieved, a victim to the endless pain of the progressive left. The law, in his view, was his only defense.

If so, the defense is shaking at best, absurd at worst. Political institutions, at the state or federal level, are governed by the First Amendment. Private businesses do not specify those protections.

“Trump has the First Amendment argument that is exactly wrong,” Paul Barrett, deputy director of the Stern Center for Business and Human Rights at New York University, said in a statement. “In fact, Facebook and Twitter themselves have a First Amendment free speech right to determine what speech the project expects and they amplify.”

That right includes keeping users away from speakers inciting violence, as Trump did at his Jan. 6 rally.

“There’s no way a plaintiff has gained traction in the past, and there’s no way Trump will gain strength, either,” Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University Law School, told the Washington Post.

It’s, well, pretty funny that Trump and a lot of “conservatives” are essentially arguing for big government. They want to force the private sector to provide a platform for speech.

But if it is certain to fail, why engage in a burnt earth plot that could end in the burning of no one but the former president? The answer lies in Zirin’s book. Trump wants to sue, and he wants the ability to see what the lawsuits give him; whether to win or lose is almost secondary because the attention is coming. And in this case, 2024 looms.

Ironically Trump loved social media platforms when they helped push his lift to the GOP nomination and, ultimately, the presidency in 2016. They gave him free publicity, playing every epithet uttered he against his opponents, whether Democrat or Republican. That was another time, and Trump was a different person, one on the cusp of success. Perhaps he sees it as a path to another success.

[ad_2]