Creator Forum - Racial Loyalty News Online

Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, the man who invented email, ran for US Senate in Massachusetts as a Republican and made allegations of voter fraud via his Twitter account. These tweets were immediately deleted by Twitter. It was later revealed that they were deleted at the direction of government employees of the Massachusetts Secretary of State's office. Upon disovering this infringement on his First Amendment rights, Dr. Ayyadurai filed a federal lawsuit, alleging that his federal civil rights were violated when the government silenced his political speech in order to affect the outcome of an election. CDA 230 is the provision of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that gives internet and social media companies legal immunity from lawsuits due to the content they publish. This provision in law gives companies like Facebook and Twitter a way to dismiss lawsuits, but it also gives them the ability to act with impunity so that their actions cannot be legally challenged. These companies have, according to their detractors, abused this immunity by suppressing dissident, and specifically conservative, views ...


Because Dr. Ayyadurai did not argue about Twitter's "Terms of Service" everything will instead hinge on the degree of interaction between Twitter and the state government of Massachusetts. And according to Dr. Ayyadurai, those links have already been proven in testimony, since Twitter has built a special portal offered to certain governmental entities so that government officials can flag and delete content they dislike for any reason... This sets the stage for this court asking whether CDA 230 can be used to violate someone's civil rights by letting the government do something via a private company what it could not otherwise do: silence their political speech.


Dr. Ayyadurai is claiming that the Constitution trumps CDA 230 and the government cannot outsource to private actors to silence people's speech they disagree with, and that the government and Twitter are acting together as one: that Twitter is essentially a state actor. Almost every court that has looked at CDA 230 immunity since 2001 has preserved the immunity of social media companies. This is the first time in over 20 years where there has ever been a potential to strike it down .... This is the first case of its kind to even have a chance according to legal observers. There is some concern expressed among some that Twitter and Facebook may welcome the end of CDA 230, so as to remove all competition for social media dominance by increasing state regulation.