This yr, the Supreme Courtroom is predicted to concern an opinion on jawboning and its implications for when Web providers could change into state actors due to such authorities stress. Till then, plaintiffs will preserve shedding lawsuits that declare Web providers are state actors.
Timothy-Allen Albertson allegedly self-describes as a “curmudgeon” and “counter-troll.” In keeping with that article, “Albertson’s property…embrace $100 value of books and $700 value of weapons.” #Priorities.
Albertson had a YouTube channel. “Albertson has critical authorized and political points with the LGBTQIA+ Identification Group.” Unhappy. He claims he expressed these views on YouTube, and in response YouTube shadowbanned him (reminder: the time period shadowbanning will get (mis)utilized in a wide range of methods) for violating its hate speech insurance policies. He additional claimed YouTube’s shadowbanning violated his constitutional rights. However YouTube isn’t a state actor, so it’s a simple nope.
Joint Motion/Nexus. “Albertson factors to no authority to help the proposition that Congressional investigations make a non-public entity a state actor, and the Courtroom declines to make such a discovering.” Cite to Doe v. Google. Additionally, “Albertson has not alleged that Google was a ‘willful participant in joint motion’ with the federal government.”
If the forthcoming Supreme Courtroom opinion offers even the tiniest little bit of validity to claims that Web providers are state actors, the winners will probably be anti-LGBTQ haters and different anti-social actors searching for to pressure providers to hold their anti-social content material. Happily, for now, that is simply one of many ever-growing number of failed lawsuits over content removal decisions.
Case Quotation: Albertson v. Google, LLC, 2024 WL 476944 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2024)
Chosen Posts About State Motion Claims