Dersh claims TFG's suits against Google and the other tech companies are about the 1st amendment

[Peppertoo]

He’s a contemptible and very strange man.

https://www.twitter.com/Acyn/status/1412942540987244545

[dchill]

1. Trump is a brainworm.

It'll be worse for you if you don't know.

[TheBlackAdder]

13. And, no doubt, Dersh will think it will lead to a happy ending--one with underpants on.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

2. Pretty sure that if TFG wants to buy himself a printing press and create pamphlets containing

the same insane ramblings he'd otherwise shit onto Twitter, and then have people hand them out at bus stops and on street corners, he almost certainly won't be imprisoned by any government entity.

E.G. the rights enshrined by the 1A are covered, and intact.

[ecstatic]

3. You don't have the right to coordinate terrorist attacks on a tech company's platform.

This is just another disgusting grift. The idiots who still believe tfg will open their wallets and probably get duped into a recurring monthly donation.

[UTUSN]

4. He lost me at: SIMPSON.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

5. There is no state actor

PSA on First Amendment

[uriel1972]

7. Heheh...

[OAITW r.2.0]

8. Inna nutshell.

Written in a way, even conservatives can understand.

[WarGamer]

11. And give this a read...

The author has done more than draw a cartoon.

It's not so simple, LMPV...

https://www.lawfareblog.com/are-facebook-and-google-state-actors

Thus even if litigants and judges have been slow to see it, and even if the implications are dramatic, there is a strong argument under existing doctrine that Google and Facebook are state actors when they block “objectionable” content. Immunity plus pressure has to equal state action. The real question is not whether the Constitution applies to these mega-platforms’ content moderation policies. It’s what rules the Constitution requires. In a second post, I’ll turn to that issue.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

12. Luckily no court has adopted this position

This was an amusing paper from a law professor but so far no court had come close to adopting this position in the real world. I doubt that this is the case where a court would consider adopting this amusing theory.

In the real world this is called secondary authority that a court can ignore. I doubt that this theory could get published in a good law review. I remember reviewing amusing theories that were not backed with any real authority and rejecting these articles. The one case cited supporting this theory is a stretch that I doubt that any court would follow. Law professors like amusing theories but these theories are meaningless unless they are adopted by a court and affirmed on appeal.

I found this theory amusing and this amusing theory reminds why I do not miss being on law review

BTW, I trust Tribe (I still have a copy of his treatise from law school)

Link to tweet

?s=20

[WarGamer]

15. thanks for reading, I appreciate it!

Sometimes I fear that people don't read really good links that provoke thought.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

18. You made me relive my days on law review

That was a long time ago. Again I still have a fairly early draft of Tribe’s treatise that my kids laughed at

[oasis]

16. Boo yah, Tribe tellin' it like it is.

[smirkymonkey]

19. +1000

Why do so many people have such a hard time understanding this concept?

[Peppertoo]

21. Exactly. Dersh knows this.

[uriel1972]

6. I thought the 1st only applied to government...

Not being a Statesider, I am open to clarification.

[JohnSJ]

9. Any person trump associates with, their brains turn to mush

What this demonstrates is that Dershowitz was always a trumper

[gratuitous]

10. Can you quote the First Amendment, Mr. Dershowitz?

"Of course! 'Congress shall make no law'--"

Imma stop you right there; how is Congress involved in running Google and Facebook, and what law did Congress make that abridged anyone's right to free speech?

[RockRaven]

14. Captain Underpants claims a lot of things, including that he left his drawers on when getting

a "massage" from Epstein's "staff."

At this point, I don't think Captain Underpants can make a claim that anyone should spend any time seriously considering. Just move along, there's nothing useful to be heard if he is the one speaking.

[Renew Deal]

17. This is why Trump hates section 230.

It can be and was used to moderate him. I believe there’s some willingness to take on Section 230 in the Supreme Court. But I don’t think Trumps argument stands a chance because you can just declare companies government entities.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

20. Tribe is a truth teller, Dersh is a friend of Epstein...

Hey Alan when you come clean under oath about what you know and did with Epstein, then and only then, can you come back and talk about law !!!