Uphold the Constitution: Freedom of Speech, Due Process, Equal Protection!
Due process is the cornerstone of our democracy, ensuring that every individual has the right to a fair and unbiased tribunal. Yet, across our nation, this fundamental right is being undermined by political judges who don't follow the laws. We urge the U.S. Supreme Court to take a stand and enforce these due process rights vigorously. Without a commitment to impartiality and fairness, the rule of law falters, and justice becomes a privilege rather than a right. It’s time for the Supreme Court to reaffirm its role in protecting the rights of all citizens. Uphold due process and safeguard our democracy—because justice must be blind to bias! Hall's case serves as a powerful reminder that, while individuals may believe they possess constitutional rights, these rights hold little value if the courts refuse to enforce them. The true strength of our constitutional guarantees lies not only in their existence on paper but in the willingness of our judicial system to uphold due process and safeguard our democracy—because justice must be blind to bias!
The Time is Now: Urge the Supreme Court to Defend
Our Constitutional Liberties!
Hall v Twitter (X)
United States District Court, District of N.H.
Hall's claim under 42 U.S.C. ​ § 1981 is based on allegations that in 2019 Twitter through its Anti-White Workforce discriminated against him on the basis of his race. ​ Hall asserts that he is a white person and that Twitter suspended and banned his account under it's so-called "health policies" , because of his race and his expression of conservative viewpoints, which he argues are predominantly associated with white individuals. ​ Hall claims that Twitter's policies and actions, including its Health Policy, were designed to target and remove White users, particularly those perceived as White Nationalists, thereby violating his contractual rights under § 1981. ​ Hall contends that Twitter's actions were racially motivated and that he was treated less favorably than non-white users. ​To support his 42 U.S.C. ​ § 1981 claims, Hall provides the following evidence:
1. Personal Allegations: Hall asserts that he is a white person and a member of the white race, and that Twitter suspended his account because of his race and his expression of conservative viewpoints. ​
2. Twitter's Actions: Hall claims that Twitter banned his account, preventing him from using its services, including sending messages, using analytics, and purchasing advertising. ​
3. Discriminatory Policies: Hall alleges that Twitter's Health Policy was a pretext to target and remove white users, particularly those perceived as white nationalists. ​ He cites Twitter's public statements and actions that focused on removing white supremacist content. ​
4. Workforce Bias: Hall argues that Twitter's workforce is predominantly nonwhite or anti-white and has a strong bias against white people. ​ He provides examples of statements and actions by Twitter employees that he claims demonstrate this bias. ​
5. Statistical Data: Hall references data showing that Twitter banned over 2 million users in 2019 under its Health Policy, Including so-called "White Supremists" and "White Nationalists" which he argues disproportionately targeted white users. ​
6. Comparative Treatment: Hall claims that similarly situated non-white users were treated less severely than he was for similar conduct, and that Twitter allowed non-white users to post racist and divisive content without similar repercussions. ​
7. Public Statements and Testimonies: Hall includes statements from Twitter executives and employees, as well as congressional hearings and public reports, to support his claim that Twitter's policies and actions were racially motivated.
These pieces of evidence collectively aim to establish that Twitter discriminated against Hall based on his race, violating his contractual rights under § 1981. ​​
​ Hall's claim under 42 U.S.C. ​ § 2000a is based on allegations that Twitter discriminated against him by suspending his account because he is white and behaving white. ​ Hall argues that Twitter is a place of public accommodation and that it failed to offer him full and equal services due to his race.​ He contends that Twitter's facilities, which include on-site food services and entertainment, qualify it as a public accommodation under the law.
Hall asserts that he was denied the benefits and enjoyment of Twitter's services and was treated less favorably than similarly situated non-white users. ​To support his 42 U.S.C. ​ § 2000a claims, Hall provides the following evidence:
Allegations of Discrimination: Hall asserts that Twitter discriminated against him by suspending his account because he is white. ​ He claims that Twitter formed opinions about him based on his skin color and membership in groups with assumed behavioral characteristics of being white. ​
1. Public Accommodation: Hall argues that Twitter is a place of public accommodation under 42 U.S.C. ​ § 2000a and NH Rev Stat § 354-A. ​ He provides evidence that Twitter's facilities offer food, beverages, and entertainment, making them places of public accommodation. ​ Specifically:
o Twitter's business model is based on advertising, and it has nationwide facilities. ​
o Twitter housed "Bon Appétit," an on-site food services company at its San Francisco facility, which was open to the public and engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises.
o Twitter supplied food and beverages for its guests and housed an on-site bakery and sandwich shop at its San Francisco facility. ​
o Twitter hosted public events and provided sources of entertainment. ​
2. Comparative Treatment: Hall claims that he was treated less favorably than similarly situated non-white users who were not denied the same services. ​ He alleges that non-white users were allowed to post racist and divisive content without similar repercussions. ​
3. Direct Evidence of Business Operations: Hall provides direct evidence that Twitter's business model involves selling advertising and operating facilities that serve food and beverages, which he argues qualifies Twitter as a place of public accommodation. ​ He also mentions that Twitter's operations affect commerce, as a substantial portion of the food and products it serves has moved in commerce. ​
4. Legal Precedents and Arguments: Hall cites legal precedents and arguments to support his claim that Twitter is a place of public accommodation. ​ He references cases such as Gil v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., and U.S. v. Three Juveniles to establish a nexus between the website and the physical premises of a public accommodation.
These pieces of evidence collectively aim to establish that Twitter was a place of public accommodation and that Hall was discriminated against based on his race, violating his rights under 42 U.S.C. ​ § 2000a.
Hall's State Actor Claims argues that Twitter should be considered a state actor and that these arguments collectively aim to establish that Twitter's actions in regulating speech and banning Hall's account were done under the authority and influence of the government, via Congress, making Twitter a state actor in the following context: ​​​
1. Government Function: Hall argues that Congress conferred upon Twitter the sovereign power to regulate speech, a function traditionally and exclusively reserved for the government which allows Congress to regulate speech through platforms like Twitter without constitutional controls. ​
2. Government Partnership: Hall provides evidence of Twitter's extensive partnership with government entities, including:
o Collaboration with law enforcement and government officials. ​
o Regular meetings with law enforcement partners. ​
o Private portals for partners and journalists to report suspicious activities for faster action by Twitter. ​
3. Congressional Influence and Coercion: Hall cites instances where Congress pressured Twitter to regulate speech, including:
o Public statements and hearings where Congress members demanded Twitter take action against White Nationalists and White Supremist. ​
o Threats to remove § 230 protections if Twitter did not comply with these demands. ​
o Specific examples of congressional members like Nancy Pelosi and Senator Josh Hawley discussing the potential removal of § 230 protections. ​
4. Public Forum: Hall argues that Twitter has intentionally transformed its platform into a public forum, akin to a public square or market, where free speech should be protected. ​ He provides evidence that Twitter itself views its platform as a "digital public square" and a public gathering place. ​
5. Legal Precedents: Hall references various legal precedents to support his claim that private entities performing traditional government functions or acting in concert with government officials can be considered state actors. ​ He cites cases such as:
o United Auto Workers v. Gaston Festivals, Inc. ​
o Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. ​
o Dep't of Transp. ​ v. Ass'n of Am. Railroads
o Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority ​
These pieces of evidence collectively aim to establish that Twitter's actions in regulating speech and banning Hall's account were done under the authority and influence of the government, making Twitter a state actor in this context. ​
Hall requests the U.S. Supreme Court to:
-
Issue a Writ of Mandamus
-
Option 1: Void the entire proceedings for fraud upon the court and award Hall the amount in his Complaint for Twitter's involvement in this fraud. ​
-
Option 2: Vacate the 1st Circuit's two rulings and remand the case with instructions to properly apply the relevant established law and precedents. ​
-
Option 3: Order the 1st Circuit to conduct an evidentiary hearing to more fully develop the factual record before making a final determination. ​
-
-
Invalidate 47 U.S.C. ​ § 230: Hall argues this statute is unconstitutional and requests the Court to strike it down. ​
-
Ensure Fairness and Impartiality: Hall seeks an independent review or investigation into the decision-making process of the 1st Circuit and District Courts to ensure fairness and maintain public trust. ​
​​
Hall emphasizes the need for the Supreme Court to step in to protect his constitutional rights and ensure that the lower courts adhere to established legal principles, laws and procedures. ​
The argument for why the Supreme Court should strike down Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act centers on several key points:
​
-
Unconstitutional Delegation of Power: Section 230 effectively delegates the government's power to restrict speech to private entities. ​ This delegation allows platforms to moderate content in ways that align with government preferences, which could be seen as an indirect form of government censorship. ​
-
First Amendment Violations: The First Amendment prohibits the government from abridging the freedom of speech. ​ By providing legal immunity to platforms for their content moderation decisions, Section 230 incentivizes these platforms to remove content that might be protected speech under the First Amendment. ​ This creates a situation where the government can achieve censorship by proxy, which would be unconstitutional if done directly. ​
-
Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine: This legal doctrine holds that the government cannot grant a benefit or privilege to a private entity on the condition that the entity relinquishes a constitutional right. ​ Section 230 is seen as creating a quid pro quo arrangement where the government provides legal protections to platforms in exchange for these platforms engaging in content moderation that suppresses certain types of speech. ​ This is viewed as an unconstitutional condition. ​
-
Lack of Accountability: Section 230 provides broad immunity to platforms, which critics argue leads to a lack of accountability for their content moderation decisions. ​ This can result in arbitrary or biased censorship, undermining the principles of free speech and open discourse. ​
-
Judicial Review and Duty to Protect Constitutional Rights: The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review to invalidate laws that are found to be unconstitutional. ​ Given the arguments that Section 230 infringes on free speech and enables indirect government censorship, proponents of striking down the law believe it is the Court's duty to protect constitutional rights by invalidating Section 230. ​
​
In summary, the call to strike down Section 230 is based on the belief that it enables unconstitutional delegation of censorship powers, violates the First Amendment, creates unconstitutional conditions, and leads to a lack of accountability for platforms' content moderation decisions. ​