Skip to main content

Impact of Critical Race Theory on Jury Perceptions – Threat to Civil Rights

As we journey through this often complex landscape of thoughts and considerations, we’re going to delve deep into the intricacies of a subject that is making waves across the nation – Critical Race Theory and students who become jurors. Many argue it’s an important tool for social justice and exposing racial inequality.

Others contend that it’s a source of tension and even, potentially, a civil rights violation. But is it really poisoning juries to hold prejudices against white individuals? A core element is that earning things via merit is really white patriarchy.

To Critical Race Theorists, people don’t earn things; they are simply victims or oppressors in permanent racial hierarchies (with black people at the bottom in permanent slavery.) Since Asians are successful, they are generally treated as “oppressors,” too, depending on your “teacher.” This is basically their law; to them, it’s no theory. (CRT racial inequality teachers can make over $100k per year peddling CRT in most parts of the country.)

We will break down how implementing Critical Race Theory on a widespread scale could potentially instill biases in juries. Even if you attend a school of law, words like “white privilege”: are accepted as true, and if you fight back, you will be canceled and possibly face an interrogation by administrators to make sure you condemn white people enough. At least, that is what we hear privately from many students trying to get ahead.

The Slippery Slope of Blaming Gene Pools for Racial Inequality

We’re going to take you through the potential dangers, the areas of concern, and why some folks are pointing fingers at CRT for allegedly promoting racism against white individuals. It’s a delicate and sensitive subject, but we must have these discussions with respect and understanding at their center. 

  1. Understanding the basics of CRT
  2. Exploring the implications of CRT on Jury’s perception
  3. Why some believe CRT promotes racism against whites

With an open mind and a steadfast resolve, let’s dedicate ourselves to seeking the truth, informed clarity, and a deeper understanding of this contentious topic. Shall we delve in?

At first, the media said it was a conspiracy theory that CRT was indoctrinating kids, even though many of us knew that was a lie. Then, the NEA head finally came out and admitted it is, in FACT, DEMANDING that anti-white hate, couched as “Critical Race Theory,” be forced on public school children. Educators say their version is the real, racist history of this country and downplay that they literally call white children “privileged” and “oppressors.”

They say the law and everything about America is designed to keep black people down. To them, black people can do no wrong, and if they are accused of being bad students or breaking a law, you are a racist for saying it. Their interests seem to be in promoting racial division to make sure no black person will ever vote Republican, say many school teachers who wish to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation by the NEA or local teacher’s unions.

According to many parents, including black parents, teachers are telling black kids they are “oppressed” and basically have zero chance at success without forced “equity” by the democrat party’s instrumentalities, aka public schools and universities, as well as administrative agencies (SEIU, etc.) 

They want all students thoroughly indoctrinated in anti-white hate, especially in the wake of January 6, which CNN and other government-influenced media have told them was a white racist attempt to take over the country.

“As we head into college application and selection season, we need to get parents, in particular, to focus on CRT that will be forced on their kids.” (Source, NY Post.)

Watch RACIST Lecture on Critical Race Theory to White Crowd

Democrat Party View

According to leftists and many national teacher’s unions, Critical Race Theory (CRT), at its core, is an academic movement that seeks to examine social, cultural, and legal issues as they relate to race and racism. To them, it’s a subject that divides opinion only if you are suffering from “white rage,” “white fragility,” or are a “Karen,” etc.

They use insults and peer pressure to force their “religion” since they think it intrigues young minds and provokes intense debate. There is nothing wrong with telling white kids their entire gene pool is racist and oppressive. There is nothing wrong with telling black kids they are permanent victims of the “white man,” either.

Average White Person’s General View?

To many of the so-called irredeemable “oppressors” (white people), CRT is nothing more than Cultural Marxism. They say it is a hidden new law designed to treat whites the same way the Germans treated Jews in Nazi Germany. In defense, Democrat-run Google and its Wikipedia claim that using the terms “Cultural Marxism” is anti-Semitic. So, if you mention it, you, too, are an anti-Jewish “racist.” Basically, whatever you call it, most white people who know what it is call it state-mandated hate.

Still, there are many so-called “self-hating white people,” particularly in university teaching positions, who think we need to exterminate the white race or breed white people out of existence. They understand that family members of democrats have created entire public school curriculums and stand to make millions from peddling their hateful propaganda on school children, and they are pissed. They say it clearly violates civil rights law, and with newly graduated judges, they have zero faith they will uphold the law, especially if they are in Washington, DC.

It’s no secret among lawyers that DC juries have no love for white republican males. If that weren’t the case, the January 6 defendants would not be trying to get a change of venue from the very beginning. The law of the land is that DC will give whites no chance; at least, that is the idea.

They know that CRT, in its practice and function, EXACTLY judges people by skin color and not the content of their character. But to them, it’s not enough for Americans to be equal in opportunity; they think the white man must “give up the benefits” of being white. And many academics and judges they vote into office get to decide the penalty of being white, at whim, that’s their star chamber law.

Many whites argue that with Stasi-style K-12 and Marxist university professor reinforcement, many young adults and future judges now have received this indoctrination against whites (intersectionalism, or another catchy name, etc.), especially white males, as the ENEMY. Today, we’ll focus firmly on the implications of this theory when it comes to our justice system, specifically an African American jury’s role after thorough CRT indoctrination. 

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere… Whatever affects one directly, impacts all indirectly.” – Martin Luther King Jr.

You may be wondering what Critical Race Theory (CRT) is at its core. Broadly speaking, it’s an academic concept that emerged in the United States in the 1980s and is rooted in critical theory. A single individual did not create it but developed it through the contributions of various far-left “scholars,” including Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, and others who lean far-far left.

Kimberlé Crenshaw, one of the key figures in the development of CRT, is often associated with its creation. It essentially suggests that racism is a systemic issue insidiously integrated into our society’s structures and institutions rather than simply individual prejudice or bias.

In other words, even if blacks run everything, the system still favors whites unless minorities take action to be anti-white, according to the many whites terrified to speak lest they lose their job, especially government employees. They pointed to the media-created George Floyd fiasco and declared this is “systemic racism.” And because they said it, it was automatically true until Musk destroyed their “consensus.”

Riots ensued, and the push for CRT indoctrination pushed full steam ahead for our new “woke” military and federal workers. Mandatory “racial sensitivity” training, aka how to humiliate white people and shame them for merely existing – classes began, and of course, military recruiting basically ceased. (After all, you won’t get promoted based on merit, especially whites, so what’s the point?) So we know these new woke, anecdotally, government-mandated, “anti-white” policies are hurting US national security. 

But how does this relate to juries, you might ask? When CRT is applied to a jury setting, it can affect the perceived objectivity and impartiality with which the jury approaches a case. This is particularly true when that case involves races, ethnicities, or aspects of culture. 

Implications for White Individuals Before a Hostile, CRT Indoctrinated Jury?

While CRT aims to investigate and challenge societal systems, critics argue that it indiscriminately paints a negative image of white individuals -irredeemably racist, aka YOUR ENEMY. They contend it could fuel tension and hatred towards white people and bypass the fundamental principle that every person should be judged based on their individual actions, not on the color of their skin or presumed group privileges. 

They suggest that if carried to extremes, CRT can lead juries to approach a white defendant or witness with a set of preconceived notions based on their perceived role in systemic racism rather than the facts of the case. This is a dangerously slippery slope, some argue, wherein it becomes harder to ensure a truly fair trial. After all, if the defendant is white, they are already guilty as your “oppressor.” Sounds very Nazi German-like.

The Civil Rights Concern 

Critics continue to argue that an overemphasis on CRT in jury settings could potentially infringe upon civil rights. They contend this could constitute discrimination against white individuals who are entitled to equal protection and due process under the law. 

In conclusion, the argument put forth is that CRT not only challenges the perceived ethnicity-neutral framework of justice in the courtroom but may potentially undermine equal rights under the law. 

It’s worth noting that these are largely theoretical arguments, and there is longstanding debate in academic and legal circles about the extent of CRT’s impact. It’s worth considering all perspectives in order to form a balanced view.

While it’s important to recognize and challenge systemic racism where it exists, critics worry that unchecked use of CRT could risk turning this essential task into a reason to alienate and discriminate against white individuals.

One such concern stems from the courtrooms where Critical Race Theory (CRT) can subtly reshape justice dynamics. As the jury is a fundamental brick in building justice, CRT’s potential influence on jurors warrants careful consideration. 

In a vacuum where CRT is applied without imbalance, the purpose is to dismantle structural racism. However, in the context of the jury system, critics claim there can be potential pitfalls if inadequately managed. 

Influence of CRT on the Jury System 

The essence of a jury trial is that a group of ordinary people from various backgrounds will apply their collective reasoning to reach a fair verdict. If CRT influences this process, the fear is that it could engender biases against white defendants. 

Consider a hypothetical situation where a white individual is on trial. If jurors, informed to view society and its structures through the lens of CRT, are predisposed to see white individuals as beneficiaries of systemic racism, it could cloud their judgment. It could lead to the presumption of guilt, not based on the evidence before them, but possibly on their racial perceptions. It could be construed, critics caution, as a form of reverse discrimination. 

Concerns of Racial Prejudice  

Think of it this way: if the application of CRT convinced a single juror that their duty was to address systemic racism — rather than remaining impartial — this could potentially sway the outcome of a trial. Critics argue this is problematic as it inserts prejudice and bias into a process that strives for impartiality and fairness. 

The ultimate danger, these critics suggest, is that any unchecked and misapplied sociological theory, including CRT, could risk morphing into the very problem it seeks to solve: systemic discrimination. In this case, it’s against white people, infringing their civil rights to a fair trial—it’s literally a civil rights violation. 

In conclusion, while CRT has its place in tackling so-called “systemic racism” ( many say, a term made up by racist academics), the risks inherent in its misuse need to be identified and addressed, especially when applied to the justice system, to guard against fostering any form of discrimination.

Unmasking Meta’s Misleading Fact Checks: Section 230 Publisher Liability and Online Freedom

As soon as I posted copy about Meta’s liability under Section 230, strange things started happening with my Instagram account. All will be revealed below. Meta thinks it can avoid civil liability, even if what it says about your content is false and even if what they say is designed to directly compete with your content financially.

So far, it has seemingly steamrolled many judges, with help from plaintiffs’ lawyers who CLEARLY don’t understand internet platforms, including social media platforms and their original functions. Originally, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was designed to protect companies like Meta if they were to restrict access to “harmful content,” aka pornographic content, death threats with intent to kill, etc.

But these internet services, with help from instrumentality influence in the FBI and other agencies, now rate, review, and restrict third-party content and even augment. They do so by using an ABSURD and poor interpretation of Section 230 to escape and evade legal liability for fraud, defamation, and other civil and quasi-criminal acts.

Tech companies seem to rely on revolving door US government connections and law clerks to steer judges, many of whom admittedly are not internet law experts. As discussed here, it’s like the wild wild west for billionaire monopolists, who appear to have defacto control of both political parties and many US regulatory agencies. Most of the cases brought have been dismissed on technicalities, making most consumer protection lawyers shy away, always seeking the lower-hanging fruits.

No one wants to face a federal judge when the other side has billions in defense funds and the ability to destroy the same judge online with an army of bots and fact-checkers. Because of this, some states, including a new Florida and Texas law, are trying to force the original intent of Section 230 at a state level. In other words, if Meta thinks it can choose to create, alter, or mislabel content as opposed to providing users a way to remove or block “smut” (like X does), these state courts won’t give them the same warm reception that Facebook has allegedly been getting in the Northern District of California.

Such content created by others is protected as free speech from the government (can’t sue the platform for defamation for what another person said or did online.) But the now drunk with power and arrogant Meta thinks it can censor anything it wants and not be held accountable. A law that was passed in 1996 to protect users from smut is now used as a bludgeon to batter users with false, misleading, and often anti-competitive content.

Now, a person like former President Trump, your family members, or a parent complaining about school board censorship can be readily destroyed by Meta’s equivalent of the “thought police.” We know this was never the intent of Section 230, not by a longshot. Just because a few lower courts and the Ninth Circuit got it wrong doesn’t mean it’s right. However, no executive order can fix this one, and Meta and its co-conspirator instrumentalities in its revolving door govt employment scheme should be held liable.

Lawyers of the world must unite before data privacy and everything else about honest people are canceled in favor of websites and services that are nothing less or more than state actors and instrumentalities working against We the People.

Have you ever seen a post flagged on Meta’s platforms with a warning about ‘false news’ or ‘misinformation’?

Of course, you have. And it might have read something like this:

“This post was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.)”

When you see this travesty, what’s your first thought? Do you accept the fact check at face value or start questioning the validity of the labeling process? If you’re in the latter category, you aren’t alone, especially with YouTube algorithms. Like many others, you might have picked up the scent of something that might not be as it seems, something more like an Orwellian twist where slavery is freedom.

In this article, we will help you uncover the layers of deception beneath Meta’s

“fact-checking” and how this relates to the legal shield of the Content Decency Act, referred to as Section 230.

Let’s Take a Look at a Deceptive Fact Check and Punitive Action Taken By Internet Platforms Insta-Facebook-Meta

Within several hours of posting my three-part Sue Meta Under Section 230 series on Instagram under the user @themichaelehline, I was notified that my account had now been throttled for 90 days. The catch is, like other complaints I am hearing, Meta is targeting older posts, but achieving the same result, which is to ban my account while appearing perfectly fair.

Other users who followed me or shared the content also received a warning that, in effect, they would be punished as well. Several users immediately unfollowed me, and an attorney friend of mine for almost 15 years accused me of “disinfo” since there was a “fact check.” Meta’s action here has severely damaged my reputation.

Note That I am PUNISHED for an Old Post, Not the Post Hostile to Meta?

So I wanted to expose just how ridiculous the fact checks are, to begin with, and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Facebook and most social sites besides X are pushing a self-serving agenda, making them just as liable as any other publisher or purveyor of false, misleading or defamatory information published by one person about another.

In my experience, within hours of me posting videos about Section 230 and the unfair way social media companies have escaped its proper enforcement, an ancient post of mine was flagged as “false.” Of course, my account was throttled.

One of the videos I posted on Instagram started my fall from grace.

Section 230 videos leading to suspension

SECTION 230 Part 3 video with Fyk.

As you can see, rather than outright remove my videos, all of a sudden, Meta moved to find my account “in violation” of its bullshit policies that can be interpreted ANY WAY Meta wants while receiving US government protections under Section 230. Watch Part 3 to get an idea of why.

Example for The Fake and Misleading FACT CHECK:

Our Post, a Parody, Says, “Awake Yet?”

Global warming agenda

It pokes fun at many posts over the years and anecdotal doomsayers but NEVER mentions the word “scientists,” etc. It’s having some fun about taxes going up and predictions about doomsday being exaggerated.

Of course, since Meta has taken it upon itself to decide what the truth is and isn’t, as well as what reality is or isn’t, they went ahead and “hired” their surrogate, or “instrumentality,” in this case, the Democrat fringe group, ClimateFedback.Org.

Here is the title of their “Independent Fact Check.”

“Scientists didn’t announce impending environmental catastrophes every decade since the 1970s.” 

As you can see, nothing in the image says anything about scientists. It’s clear that Meta and the current US administration want to create a false impression of scientific consensus, as they did during the pandemic by silencing at least one Nobel Laureate who disagreed with mRNA tech to treat viruses as “fringe.” So much so that they literally assumed facts not in evidence to create a strike against my user account. Their appeals process is equally absurd.

This is improper. As soon as Meta throws itself into the business of thought policing, its goals, intent, and everything else are called into question. It can not claim it is not a publisher under Section 230(c)(1), let alone pretend its motives as a “Good Samaritan” are free from judicial or citizen oversight.

Let’s get into this a little more. First off, the fact check labels are designed to and, in fact, DO disparage and blacklist users who share it perfectly fits the descriptions of unfair business practices, as well as false and deceptive business practices, NOT just defamation, as will be discussed. 

META: More Than Just A Platform – Communications Decency Act? 

Let’s begin by understanding the essence of the issue. Section 230, or 47 U.S.C. § 230, is a provision in the Communications Decency Act of 1996. It’s purpose? To protect online platforms from liability for content posted by their users (Originally kiddie porn and adult porn from being seen by kids.) It was assumed social media was acting as a Good Samaritan to protect the public from “smut.” But if it did take action, ANY action other than providing users a block button, for example, Meta’s Good Faith, was always at issue. Getting this so far?

Michael Ehline's Fake Check

Online Sex Trafficking Act, Etc.

Both lawmakers and presidents started growing weary of Section 230 and internet platforms, especially the one with hard-core political activist Yoel Roth in charge of “trust” and child sexual abuse material. In 2018, two significant pieces of legislation were passed – the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) and the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act  (SESTA).

Effect of Child Sexual Abuse Material Laws?

These laws altered aspects of Section 230, implying that platforms can now be held responsible for advertisements about prostitution posted by third parties. The primary objective of these changes was to grant authorities an easier pathway to prosecute and control these activities.

But as Meta and social media strengthened their revolving door partnership with the FBI and other US cabinet-level agencies, it appears that smut is now anything one political party or platform doesn’t like when it does not serve their financial or political interests.

Simply put, as a matter of law, Section 230 treats Meta not as a publisher or speaker but merely as a platform hosting user-generated content. This means they’re ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE shielded from legal ramifications arising from their users’ actions. 

This seems reasonable until you peel back the layers and see Meta’s own actions in play in harming users they disagree with politically or compete with financially. You see, they’ve taken action whenever Meta uses their perceived protections under Section 230 to label, classify, or unfairly compete with a content creator. They transform themselves from being a passive, interactive computer service/provider content provider (a passive platform) to an information content provider (an active player). Meta is now promoting one user or their content over another, for better or worse. 

“Actions from Meta can result in a triable issue of material fact where motives, including bias, monetary, or political motives, can be questioned.”

So, it seems we have much more than just a platform to scrutinize. It may be time to reexamine Meta’s role and the use (or misuse) of Section 230. 

Now that we’ve peeled back some initial layers of this issue let’s dig deeper into what exactly transpires when you see a post flagged by Meta.

You might notice a notification stating: “This post was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed.”

The first reaction might be to trust the fact check implicitly, right? But is everything as it seems? 

Consider this: sometimes, a post is labeled as false or misleading and has no semblance to the original fact check conducted. Bizarre. But it’s more than just odd – it feels a bit like manipulation. The fact checker presumes certain facts, not even discussed in the original meme or post, labels it as false, and then curbs the account of the person who posted it.

Does this strike a chord with historical instances of censorship, such as those exhibited by the Nazis, KGB, or Stasi? 

Yet, Meta attempts to deflect any backlash or legal repercussions, using Section 230 as a shield. They argue that fact-checkers are independent entities despite being employed by Meta. They claim this allows them to introduce a layer of objectivity to the fact-checking process. But can this claim hold water when such fact checkers have the power (given them by the all-powerful Zuck) to suppress content and restrict accounts? 

In light of such behavior, the line between being a neutral content platform and a content provider isn’t just blurred – it becomes almost invisible. How so? Well, Meta doesn’t just provide the platform for users’ content. It also assumes the role of a user on its platform and employs “independent” fact checkers, many far-left organizations aligned heavily with Zuck’s political viewpoints. 

Meta is now able to influence viewer sentiment and control what information goes public – a power far beyond that of a mere content platform. Public schools, especially in California, may soon use these biased absurdities as official facts and reasons to trust or distrust someone. (See Newsom’s Section 587.)

Case in point: Jason Fyk’s Section 230 videos. While sharing his views on content manipulation by Meta, Fyk uncovered an apparent complex web of deceptive practices by the social media behemoth. From ‘shadow-banning’ to misinterpretation of facts, Fyk’s videos expose Meta’s actions that definitely raise eyebrows for anyone advocating for transparency and freedom of speech.  In his case, his hundred-million-dollar PLUS company was competing with Meta for paid ad space that he was generating organically.

Meta took down his millions of followers, destroying his online presence. Ultimately, after Fyk transferred the rights to his content to a paying competitor, Meta re-hosted the content, even though it allegedly violated the Meta Terms of Service.

Many of Meta’s advertisement-supported business models rely on user engagement. Hence, meta-algorithms often promote false, divisive, and harmful content to its users. In this case, their entire fact-checker process is clearly deceptive and designed to place many publishers and USERS in a false light.

Meta Is Backdooring

I agree that 230(c)(1) was used as a backdoor for 230(c)(2) cases like Jason Fyk’s. Fyk was just proven correct by Judge Alsup’s recent opinion below, but he still got blown out, and Meta is still free to destroy lives. (in my opinion).

What is False Light Defamation?

False light defamation occurs when someone is portrayed misleadingly or falsely that could be offensive or objectionable to a reasonable person, even if the information itself is factually accurate. These fact-check labels do just that. Even if the labels were accurate, Meta has become a publisher, and the propriety-GOOD FAITH-of its actions in removing “otherwise objectionable content” must now be decided by a trier of fact under Section 230(c)(2)(A). In other words, META does not get to decide allegations of bad faith, “action voluntarily taken in good faith,” the JURY does!

So, what does this all mean?

It’s time to question:

Is Section 230, a law put forth to protect freedom of speech on online platforms, being weaponized to serve as a tool for misinformation and bias? Your thoughts matter in this debate. Is it high time we called for more accountability from such platforms?

One thing’s for certain: This exploration has only just begun. With a court unimpressed by tautologies and shiny objects, Meta will soon be out of the unfair competition business and back into its role as a social media content provider platform. Their job is not to label and restrict communications using the subterfuge of independent fact-checkers, either.

X/Elon Musk Got it right with Community Notes

X uses “Community Notes” to afford protection under Section 230. Community Notes are harmonious with Section 230(c)(2)(B), which states:

“(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

Most people feel that as long as social media sites take censorship actions that favor President Biden and his son and also take actions against his political opponents, only a US court can right these wrongs. Meta is unilaterally TAKING PUBLISHER actions itself and apparently dismissing lawsuits at whim. The revolving door employment scheme it has fostered with DOD, FBI, and even CIA demonstrates a pattern and probable goal of undue influence over policymaking that must be investigated.

Meta is supposed “…to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

In other words, Meta is not supposed to be defaming its political and financial competitors as fake, false, or misleading and then get protected for lying and unfair business practices. It is supposed to allow USERS and information content providers to MUTE or offer a block button (technical means) or a chalkboard to share notes! All it will take is one good judge to put an end to these tautological shenanigans with technology website companies like Meta. Either way, Fyk lost his case, and it could just be his lawyers made the wrong arguments, as did the lawyers in the Stossel case, by stipulating to Meta’s definitions as the rule of the case. Either way, I have no skin in the game, and I DO NOT handle these cases, nor have I ever discussed the case with Fyk’s legal team.

Are you ready to file a lawsuit? Make sure you are ready!

“Thomas Jefferson complained about the verbosity of statutes, their endless tautologies, and “their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaid.” Source LibQuotes

Are you ready for a favorable ruling? Please like, subscribe to, and follow us on the social media platforms that have not banned us yet. We look forward to your communications and discussing any new rules, appeals, or lawsuits on the horizon.

Can You Sue Social Media for Misleading “Fact Check Labels”? Dissecting Net Neutrality, and Section 230

Yes, you can, under several valid legal theories. But you must be very careful, or the court can turn your case into a word salad. “Try sharing a [critical] article about big pharma, let alone any article not by a scientist or doctor receiving a clawback or royalty, and see what happens.” This is the main concern of many doctors and nurses we have heard about regarding keeping an online presence and not losing followers.

No one wants their hard-earned social media throttled, especially by someone receiving millions in ad spending and government subsidies with no way to fight back. After all, cases like Issac’s or John Stossel’s (discussed below) failed to proceed, so there is no way to win, right? This is the argument you see everywhere from the pro-censorship crowd regarding suing and winning against social media for defamation.

Here’s another one. “You can sue all you want, but finding a judge to make the proper call is becoming increasingly more difficult as politicians appoint judges that support their viewpoint discrimination,” according to a retired special needs teacher and Orange County School Board member (and Marine vet) Robert Hammond. So what about suing social media conglomerates and their allies for altering your copy with misleading “fact check” labels? It’s a question many of us have pondered as we increasingly encounter these labels across various platforms. But we saw many influencers and even a former president get their accounts messed with over this, often at the behest of FBI officials or officials from another administrative agency inside DC. (Hunter Biden Laptop, etc.)

In my opinion, a goal of Section 230 (discussed below), as well as Net Neutrality, was to make sure the original poster could freely share their ideas and, in exchange, prevent the content host from being sued if the poster defamed someone. In other words, the hosting platform, or in this case, the social media company (was protected), would not get sued if they didn’t censor or “alter” the content.

But here, on more than one occasion, social media companies have labeled true information false, defaming the ACTUAL content posters/creators themselves through inference and innuendo and then hiding behind the section designed to make it fair for all parties despite their patently unfair inducements.

You are a Hateful Bigot Says Social Media Companies?

Imagine having your content falsely labeled “hate speech.” Internet companies are getting away with it, and many courts are letting them present patently false misinformation about your content, which is why I wrote this. Then there is that pesky issue now decided by at least one court that our own government has urged content and entire accounts to be censored.

“This is the worst First Amendment violation in our nation’s history. We look forward to dismantling Joe Biden’s vast censorship enterprise at the nation’s highest court,” Missouri’s Attorney General Andrew Bailey said in a statement.

Source: Politico

Obviously, we know former president Donald Trump agrees, but I digress. When read along with Net Neutrality, it is clear that many fact checks are designed to harm the reputation of the original publisher, lifting the protections of Section 230 et. seq. According to the tangible evidence released in the Twitter files, more often than not, true stories about Democrat politicians and their ideas are attacked most vigorously, raising concerns to many civil rights lawyers such as myself. Despite good faith efforts to appeal a social media account suspension, Most politically suppressed posters complain the process is unfair. As will also be discussed, many fact-check labels make up ideas not expressed in the actual checked piece and label them false as well.

Are Fact Checkers Really Independent?

Absolutely NOT if they are being paid, especially by someone who shares their same viewpoints – BIAS.


“We’ve found that PolitiFact often rates statements that are largely true but come from a GOP sources [sic] as ‘mostly false’ by focusing on sentence alterations, simple mis-statements, fact-checking the wrong fact, and even taking a statement, rewording it, and fact-checking the re-worded statement instead of the original quoted statement.

“Doing this takes time and many, many words.”

We know that Zuck, for example, pays a so-called “independent fact checker” to label your facts, and by extension, you, as well as your research, as “false” or “fake.” We know from the Twitter Files that career and appointed bureaucrats in US agencies put pressure, either directly or indirectly, to take down accounts expressing viewpoints about the Hunter Biden laptop, even though the govt knew all along it was not connected to a “Russia Hoax.”

Most So-Called Fact Checkers Lean Left, Yes

Factcheck.Org leans left as another example. Although most non-partisans agree Snopes is off the scale, far left, it only received a rating of leans left. Here is a tool to help you see opinions on where other for-profit media sites lean, including left or right.

This video sums up how many conservatives, libertarians, and anyone else who does not support the so-called globalist view feel about social media companies and their campus crusader-style fact-checks.

We know that many FBI agents get jobs with big tech, particularly at social media companies. Once this connection and its implications on elections, etc, we started seeing legacy media take down stories about it. The Commerce Department has gotten nowhere, and it appears our Administrative agencies have become centers of revolving-door employment, giving social media companies enormous influence over the Justice Department and other agencies. Conservatives complain that social media companies are so powerful they were able to alter the results of the last presidential election by defaming the true Hunter Biden Laptop story. (Discussed more below).

Can Adding Speech Be Considered Altering Speech?

Absolutely. Adding speech, especially in a way to disparage or falsely characterize something you wrote, is NOT NEUTRAL and definitely not in GOOD FAITH (See Sec. 230 ) when the intent is to create the impression the author is a liar or hateful.

  • Augmentation: Depending on the nature and purpose of the speech, adding speech to an original article can be a form of augmentation or enhancement rather than alteration, especially if the added content complements or expands upon the original text
  • Alteration: If the added speech – or, in this case, a misleading fact check label – significantly changes or misrepresents the meaning or intent of the original article, it may be considered a form of alteration.

As always, as a lawyer, you must consider the context and purpose of the speech addition. If the speech aligns with the overall message and intent of the original article, it may be seen as a permissible modification or enhancement. On the other hand, if the added speech distorts the original message or introduces new ideas that conflict with the author’s original intent, it could be viewed as an alteration.

Here is an Example of an Attorney / Section 230 Expert Who Says Social Media Companies Don’t Alter Speech

Within seconds of me posting this on Twitter, a gentleman described as:

“Once in conservative media before it went insane. Also once a foreign service officer and an attorney. My passion is S. 230”

Tweeted me. Here is our colloquy.

Please follow this guy; his passion is S. 230. I generally think everyone should express how they feel free of censorship. Keep in mind, if you engage him, he has a tendency to take your conversations out of context, and cite unpublished cases as “mandatory authority.” (An unpublished case is NOT binding authority – Published in legal jargon means it is “citeable.” So even if it’s “published” online, that does not mean the same thing as “published” for use in a court case.)

Mr. Goober also has zero ability to brief or distinguish facts from cases he cites. He also refuses to consider alternative facts or theories argued in this document other than his dogmatic, you are a “Goober,” and you don’t “know the law.” Be advised.

But What About Mac Isaac v. Twitter, Inc.

In Mac Isaac v. Twitter, Inc., 557 F. Supp. 3d 1251 (S.D. Fla. 2021), Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege a claim for defamation per se on a “Motion seeking to dismiss the Amended Complaint with prejudice because the Explanations do not meet any of the elements required of a defamation per se claim.” Plaintiff lost because he failed to adequately plead defamation per se, entitling the defendant to attorneys fees: In other words, had Plaintiff adequately pled statutory negligence, SLAPP would not have acted as a mechanism to award attorney’s fees.

“… the instant suit arose from Defendant’s protected First Amendment activity—i.e., preventing the dissemination of the NY Post Article on its platform for violation of its content moderation policies.” (See also, Corsi v. Newsmax Media, Inc., 519 F.Supp.3d 1110, 1128 (S.D. Fla. 2021).)

Yes. I am an expert on SLAPP/ANTI SLAPP; see also STUART v. TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT here. (Attorney(s) appearing for the Case-Parker & Covert, Henry R. Kraft and Michael T. Travis for Defendant and Appellant. Law Offices of Michael P. Ehline and Michael P. Ehline for Plaintiff and Respondent.)

What About John Stossel’s Lawsuit?

In a nutshell, the court, without objections I could find, used the words “fact” and “opinion” as if they were interchangeable words, a gift to defense counsel, according to many legal theorists. (Need a copy of the final complaint and any depositions from experts as to this issue)

Here is what the court said about it in BLACK and WHITE.

“Meta argues that the complaint incorporates this webpage by reference. Dkt. No. 27 at 3 n.2. Mr. Stossel does not object to the Court’s consideration of the contents of this webpage for purposes of deciding defendants’ motions. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 49 at 5-6 (quoting statements from webpage).”

Stossel literally allowed the court to click through the site and use Meta’s buried definitions of fact and opinion, as opposed to expert testimony as to the viewing public’s accepted view of a fact versus an opinion. The court even pointed out that someone seeing a big label that says “FACT” could click to another page. Imagine if someone sold you a cure for cancer, but when you clicked the word cancer, it defined cancer as hanging toe nail. That is what occurred here for lack of a better description.

In any event, Stossel also failed to allege anything the fact checker said was false, and even if he had, the court simply was able to rely on Meta’s definitions, etc. in “deciding defendants’ motions.” Here, “U.S. District Judge Virginia DeMarchi also found that Facebook couldn’t have defamed Stossel because its fact-check program “reflects a subjective judgment about the accuracy and reliability of assertions” made in the content that’s been checked.

Simply because the process by which content is assessed and a label applied is called a ‘fact-check’ does not mean that the assessment itself is an actionable statement of objective fact,” reads the order.” (Source.)

Obviously, an expert witness or the court taking judicial notice could have proven that most people will see a fact check label as an objective fact because that is how the word is used in the commonly accepted English-speaking world. These labels are designed to discredit certain authors, whether facts are objectively true or NOT. (It’s clearly an unfair business practice under California Business and Professions Code Sec 17200, et esq.)

Stossel sued over defamatory fact-check labels, which is similar to my argument. However, in addition to other potential errors, I found that Stossel’s lawyers did not plead inducement, inference, or innuendo because people who see these labels do NOT CONSIDER them to be opinions. I think the court was flawed in ignoring the normally used definition of fact versus opinion and simply letting loose that one can be the other. I think nuances like this make the difference.

While courts generally take judicial notice of facts that are commonly known, including common, everyday terms, it’s important to note that the specifics can vary based on jurisdiction and the nature of the case. Judicial notice is a legal doctrine that allows a court to accept certain facts as true without requiring formal presentation of evidence. These facts are typically well-known, indisputable, or easily verifiable.

Common, everyday terms that fall within the realm of general knowledge may be subject to judicial notice.

However, there are factors and limitations to consider:

  1. Common Knowledge: Courts should sua sponte, take judicial notice of facts that are so widely known or indisputable that they do not require formal proof. Everyday terms that fall into this category may be eligible for judicial notice.
  2. Relevance: The court must determine whether the common, everyday terms are relevant to the issues at hand in the case. If the terms are not directly related to the legal matters being considered, judicial notice may not be appropriate.
  3. Dispute: If there is a genuine dispute about the meaning or understanding of common terms, the court may choose to hear evidence or argument rather than taking judicial notice. Here, Stossel’s counsel agreed the Meta website would decide the motions – there was no dispute.
  4. Notice and Opportunity: In some jurisdictions, parties may have the opportunity to object or present evidence opposing the court’s decision to take judicial notice. This ensures fairness and due process.

In any event, if the allegations about Stossel were true, then they are true facts. The issue on appeal would seem to be the court’s findings of fact since no objection was apparently raised to these issues I have brought forth to my knowledge. (Still, they DO NOT say “opinion,” check. The checks are also backed by force, and account bannings occur even if the facts are true, making them seem like they are the true and ONLY facts.) In my opinion, this was a flawed ruling, and I think it was wrongly decided.

What About Wilson v. Twitter, Inc.?

Wilson-2 argued that in Wilson-1, plaintiff Wilson apparently complained he was being discriminated against for being heterosexual, but he did not know how to draft a complaint, so we’ll never know. The Court found that the pro se Plaintiff did “not have adequate available funds to pay the filing fee upfront. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs. (ECF No. 1). (Source.) Here, the unrepresented, destitute plaintiff gave absolutely “no factual allegations to support a civil rights violation by Twitter.” (Source.)

In other words, he did not know how to draft a complaint to defeat a demurrer, motion to strike, or summary judgment motion. “Wilson asserts that his complaint is brought pursuant to Title II of the CRA, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 2000a.” (Supra, Wilson, 4.) But since “Title II does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” he failed to state his claim. Wilson also argued his “Christian affiliation” was being discriminated against under the same section. “Wilson has yet to submit facts corroborating that belief, notwithstanding the written decision in Wilson I, which explained that supporting factual allegations were required to state a plausible claim against Twitter.” Besides, in pro per, litigant Wilson failed to provide “evidence apparent from the record that Twitter applied this policy to Wilson’s tweets in a discriminatory manner.”

Part Two, Section 230

Here, Wilson attempted to “hold Twitter liable as a publisher for its refusal to allow Wilson access to Twitter’s platform.” What he failed to do was to point out that the word “fact” means things. In this case, when Twitter or another platform declares the publisher to be spreading false information, and that declaration is NOT IN GOOD FAITH under the plain language of Section 230, the case can move forward. You must plead sufficient facts or lose the right to move forward.

Section 230(c) provides, in relevant part:

“Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liability: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of –
(A) any action voluntarily TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or [EMPHASIS]

“In summary, as Wilson’s complaint is devoid of a factual basis demonstrating that Twitter violated Title II of the CRA, the undersigned FINDS that Wilson fails to state a plausible claim for which relief may be granted.” “For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the presiding District Judge DISMISS the complaint, with prejudice, (ECF No. 2); and REMOVE this matter from the docket of the Court.”

He didn’t know what he was doing, Wilson lost. HE NEVER PLED THE ACTIONS TAKEN WERE NOT IN GOOD FAITH either. It’s that simple.

What About Loomer v. Zuckerberg?

The plaintiff, a female, sued Facebook and Twitter over several bans. She also argued, “Procter & Gamble (which advertises on those platforms) and unnamed government officials constitute a racketeering enterprise.” “by engaging in interference with commerce by threats or violence, interstate transportation in aid of racketeering, wire fraud, providing material support to terrorists, and advocating overthrow of the government.” She filed an RICO action. Getting this so far?

How Did Zuck Get the Case Tossed?

“The Twitter and Facebook defendants contend that the claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata and § 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and all defendants contend that the plaintiff cannot plausibly plead RICO claims. In addition to opposing the motions to dismiss, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend her complaint to add new allegations, which are mostly about internal Twitter documents that allegedly show coordination between Twitter and the federal government.”

Here, the court granted Zuck and the other defendant’s motions to dismiss “with prejudice” because res judicata barred the claims against Twitter and Facebook, and in addition, § 230 also bars those claims as an alternative ground for dismissal, and the RICO claims were also futile. As I have argued, the court properly found that “Under the Communications Decency Act, website operators generally are immune from liability for third-party content posted on their websites and for removing such content, but website operators are not immune when they create or develop the information, in whole or in part. 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) & (f)(3).”

However, as noted herein, when social media companies intentionally and in bad faith mislabel a person, even an expert, regular folks believe the fact checker, and they fear suspension if they disseminate true but now maliciously mislabeled copy. (“website operators are not immune when they create or develop the information, in whole or in part…”) The Act itself covers bad faith alterations as excepted from Section 230 protections. In any event, the plaintiff failed to plead that Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Zuckerberg acted based on their own personal conduct outside of the protected corporations they manage, or run. Since she argued apparently that this was their official capacity and, with no arguments, proferred that the content had been altered with unclean hands, they were “immune under § 230 to the same extent as Twitter and Facebook.” (Source.)

What About Brianne Dressen, et al. v. Rob Flaherty, et al.?

Major advertisers, aka partially tax-funded/subsidized, immune from being sued pharma companies, were alleged to have worked hand in hand to censor accounts in conspiracy with social media giants.

“The Plaintiffs have all been heavily censored on social media for sharing their personal experiences, exchanging advice, medical research, and support with others who were medically harmed after taking the vaccine.”

Their social media accounts are at constant risk of being frozen or disabled just for engaging with other users in private support groups open only to vaccine-injured individuals and sharing perspectives the government deems misinformation. (Source, NCLA.)

Here is a copy of the original complaint. The government is now trying to delay the matter since they LOST their “demand for preliminary injunction in NCLA’s Missouri v. Biden case against social media censorship.” I will keep an eye out for any outcomes. Media Inquiries: Judy Pino, 202-869-5218


In Freedom Watch, the plaintiff failed to allege colorable legal claims in its complaint. Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Google, 368 F.Supp.3d 30, 36–37 (D.D.C. 2019). On appeal, the three-judge panel reached the same conclusion. However, nothing I am arguing is saying we are suing for the First Amendment. Defamation is NOT FREE SPEECH. It is defamation once proven. And if a court finds the defamatory content is not defamatory, it can be subject to SLAPP/Anti-SLAPP provisions, etc. In Freedom Watch, it appears no FOIA requests were made to uncover a conspiracy, nor was sufficient evidence of state action or involvement to defeat a dismissal of the pleadings.

Words Mean Things – A Fact is Not an Opinion

A fact is NOT an opinion in America and the accepted English language. So, judicial notice must first be addressed. Words mean things.

The key difference between a fact and an opinion lies in their nature and verifiability:

  1. Fact:
    • Definition: A fact is a statement that can be proven or verified to be true or false. It is an objective and concrete piece of information.
    • Characteristics:
      • Factual statements are based on evidence, observation, or reality.
      • They are objective and not influenced by personal feelings or interpretations.
      • Facts are universally accepted and can be independently confirmed by others.
      • Example: “Water will boil at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level” is a factual statement that can be tested and verified.
  2. Opinion:
    • Definition: An opinion is a personal belief, judgment, or interpretation that may vary from person to person. It reflects an individual’s perspective or feelings about a particular subject.
    • Characteristics:
      • Opinions are subjective and are influenced by personal experiences, values, or emotions.
      • They are not necessarily verifiable or provable since they represent personal viewpoints.
      • Different individuals may hold different opinions on the same matter.
      • Example: “Chocolate ice cream is the best flavor” is an opinion because it reflects a personal preference and is not universally true.

Facts are objective and verifiable statements based on evidence. Opinions are subjective expressions of personal beliefs or preferences that may not be universally applicable or provable.

With some basic legal research, you will see that nothing in Isaac changes anything I just discussed as a claim.

Industry Jokes

The industry jokes are that:

  • Former US Navy SEALS do podcasts and write their biographies
  • Discredited and retired FBI agents get jobs with big tech, social media companies or for-profit legacy media.

For instance, MSNBC deleted this gem from public view:

“Hundreds Of Former Feds Have Flocked To Jobs In Big Tech

Diana Glebova

Google, Twitter, Meta, and TikTok’s executive ranks have included over 200 former employees of surveillance government agencies, creating an employment pipeline between the government and Big Tech companies, a Daily Caller investigation found.

The technology companies recruited 248 employees from the DOJ, FBI, CIA, and DHS, a LinkedIn search revealed. The hiring occurred mostly between 2017-2022, with several filling top director positions after having decade-long careers in surveillance agencies.

Google hired 130 former DOJ, DHS, CIA, and FBI employees, the Daily Caller’s key term cursory search on LinkedIn found. Meta, the company that owns Facebook and Instagram, employed 47 people for those three entities who were previously at the DOJ, FBI or DHS. TikTok, the Chinese-based app embattled with national security concerns, employed 25 former DOJ, FBI, DHS or CIA employees. Twitter had 46 executives who had previously spent time working for the three-letter agencies.

Reed Rubinstein, former deputy associate attorney general under President Trump, told the Daily Caller that Americans should be “concerned” about “terrifying” integration of Big Tech companies and federal agencies. 

“The revolving door has been a feature of D.C. for as long as I can remember. Any business that is heavily regulated is going to be concerned about managing the regulators, and one way to do that is by purchasing them,” Rubinstein said.

“As we saw with [Jim] Baker, they are still wearing — sometimes — two hats. They still talk informally to folks who are in the [intelligence community], and so it’s not necessarily a clean break. In fact, what they pay for, is those relationships,” Rubinstein added.

“The integration of Big Tech and the national security state … really it’s dystopian, it’s terrifying. They have enough data to show that that power, which is immense, will be abused. And right now, there is no effective check on it,” he said.

These are just some of the excerpts from this article. I encourage you, real journalists and researchers, to use the wayback machine here and make a copy of the entire article. I only used quotes and did not add the entire piece. Keep in mind that large, for-profit media and social media companies are experts at removing things, even from web archives, so read it here as a cached version on Yahoo! while you can.


The FBI & the Hunter Biden Laptop

How the FBI & intelligence community discredited factual information about Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings both after and *before* The New York Post revealed the contents of his laptop on October 14, 2020

In Twitter Files #6, we saw the FBI relentlessly seek to exercise influence over Twitter, including over its content, its users, and its data.

In Twitter Files #7, we present evidence pointing to an organized effort by representatives of the intelligence community (IC), aimed at senior executives at news and social media companies, to discredit leaked information about Hunter Biden before and after it was published.

The story begins in December 2019 when a Delaware computer store owner named John Paul (J.P.) Mac Isaac contacts the FBI about a laptop that Hunter Biden had left with him

On Dec 9, 2019, the FBI issues a subpoena for, and takes, Hunter Biden’s laptop.…Read the entire article, The FBI & the Hunter Biden Laptop, here.

We now also know a unit inside Twitter was apparently made up of retired FBI agents. Many pundits argue it was designed to run interference, likely due to their connections and influence inside.

We also know that the former head of Twitter’s “Trust and Safety” division, Yoel Roth, was accused of allowing child porn on his site.

Roth also wrote a thesis in college about allowing little boys access to an adult gay online dating site. To be sure, there were a lot of things we’d have never known, but Elon Musk produced the emails and other hard, physical proof. Since then, Biden Admin agencies, legacy, and for-profit media have gone all out to take down Musk, say many.

Now imagine this: was Yoel Roth involved in censoring stories that could have led to pedophile rings in government, starting with, say Epstein Island? This is what many parents are concerned about. As more and more Twitter Files are released, only time will tell. One thing is sure: Musk probably has more dirt on the Bidens and former Twitter employees than J. Edgar Hoover had on JFK. Remember him? He started the FBI and apparently blackmailed your elected leaders to stay in power for fifty years. Has anything changed?

Musk/Twitter Takeover – Newsom Moves to Force Censor Accounts?

X filed a complaint against AB 587 saying that it’s “difficult to reliably define” what constitutes “hate speech, misinformation, and political interference.” It also alleged – like something out of a George Orwell novel, that AB 587 would force social media platforms to “eliminate’ certain constitutionally-protected content.” And this is real stuff people. Cultural Marxist ideology is now part of official California policy. Final text of AB 587 here and here is a little more about it.

Here is a small excerpt of the vague and ambiguous absurdities of this knee-jerk, un-American law.

“A statement of whether the current version of the terms of service defines each of the following categories of content, and, if so, the definitions of those categories, including any subcategories:

(A) Hate speech or racism.

(B) Extremism or radicalization.

(C) Disinformation or misinformation.

(D) Harassment.

(E) Foreign political interference.”


AB 587 requires social media companies to post their terms of service online, as well as submit a twice-yearly report to the state attorney general. The report must include details about whether the platform defines and moderates several categories of content, including “hate speech or racism,” “extremism or radicalization,” “disinformation or misinformation,” harassment, and “foreign political interference.”

It must also offer details about automated content moderation, how many times people viewed content that was flagged for removal, [Obvious invasion of privacy and govt overreach] and how the flagged content was handled.” (Source.)

One thing is clear: legacy media and social media all seem to be pushing the same political viewpoints when it comes to minor children and radical transgender ideology as well. So it is clear that Newsom intends to shut down anything leftist politicians think meets these definitions, say many Christians and others.

Often, these fact-checkers hired by social media companies lean towards partisan views, primarily favorable Democrats (Politifact, Snopes, Newsweek, you name it), and are financially backed by billionaire democrats like Mark Zuckerberg. Properly, the convolution of truth stretches beyond these partisan affiliations. Although social media and other fact-check sites will say your content is false when it isn’t, they worm their way out by saying it’s “opinion,” therefore shielding themselves from civil liability in U.S. Courts.

Understanding Net Neutrality and Section 230 

Net NeutralityNet neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers should treat all data on the Internet the same way, without discriminating or charging differently based on user, content, website, platform, or application. Although many argue and many courts have held that social media is not an ISP, others argue that net neutrality principles should extend to how platforms handle content and user access.Net neutrality ensures that users have equal access to all content and that ISPs do not have the power to control or manipulate the speed or accessibility of certain websites or services. It promotes an equal playing field for online businesses and innovation. In this case, the fact that social media sites are creating an impression you are a liar, for example, would be more significant in my opinion as to whether one could plead extrinsic facts via inducement or innuendo.
Section 230Section 230 refers to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 in the United States. Section 230(c)(1) provides, with some exceptions, that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”Section 230 has been crucial in fostering the growth of online platforms and encouraging them to neutrally moderate content to maintain a safe and constructive environment. It shields online platforms from being held liable for the content created and posted by their users. It allows them to neutrally moderate content in an unbiased manner without facing legal consequences for every piece of user-generated content.

“This sentence is sometimes referred to as the “26 words that created the internet,” because it freed websites that host third-party content from the impossible task of accurately screening everything posted by their users. For example, if your neighbor posts a tweet falsely alleging that you are embezzling money from your employer, you can sue your neighbor for defamation. But a suit against Twitter will go nowhere. As the text of Section 230 makes clear, it is your neighbor and not Twitter that bears the liability for the defamatory tweet.”

Fact Check Label Designed to Destroy-Discredit Reputation of Content Creators / Sharers?

I believe many billionaire defendants win due to systemic failures by courts, as well as plaintiffs to understand the law here. No “Inducement and Innuendo” has been argued in ANY OF THE DEPUBS I have seen so far. No cases have expressed the bad faith nature and clear intent to make the viewers think this often political content has leprosy. A Fact is NOT an OPINION. If so, it should be called an “opinion fact,” and no other actions against the account should be taken since it is being censored for being false, which is ….wait for it, FALSE.

So far, the plaintiffs have had the wrong courts, and they have failed to argue some key things discussed in the article. Most of the defensed cases seem to have been handled by amateurs or others with less crafty lawyers than big tech. We also must understand the role money plays here and where people, including elected officials with connections from the government, go for cushy jobs when they retire or quit early.

Clearly, many of these “fact checks” [often political] are obviously created to discredit the original poster, effectively labeling them crackpots with HUGE labels, hiding content, and then threatening those who share it or outright banning accounts. Many of the bannings and censoring are a direct result of pressure by the Obama and now Biden Administrations. (Judge limits Biden administration contact with social media) If you have evidence that Trump FBI asked social media platforms to censor political opponents or commentators, don’t hesitate to get in touch with me right away.

Defamatory Language and False Fact Check Labels:

Defamatory language involves making false statements that harm the reputation of an individual or entity. In the context of fact-check labels (from social media companies), if a fact-check label includes false information that harms someone’s reputation, it could potentially be considered defamatory. However, the legal interpretation may depend on various factors, including the level of malice, the truthfulness of the fact check, and the public figure status of the person involved.

Inducement and Innuendo:

  • Inducement: Is the act of persuading or influencing someone to do something. In defamation, inducement may involve convincing others that false information is true, harming someone’s reputation.
  • Innuendo: In defamation, innuendo refers to a hidden or implied meaning in a statement. In defamation cases, there could be an implied meaning that, while not explicitly stated, could damage the subject’s reputation.

Methods of Defamation:

Defamation can occur through various means, including:

  • Slander: Spoken false statements.
  • Libel: Written or published false statements.
  • False Imputation: Making false accusations or attributing false characteristics to someone.
  • Innuendo: Using subtle implications to convey damaging meanings.
  • Inducement: Persuading others to believe and spread false information.

Social media sites like Instagram warn you that your account will be removed unless you voluntarily remove the copy. Ultimately, they will throttle you so no one sees your copy or delete your account. (George Orwell warned us)

This scheme has worked well to discredit differing viewpoint news organizations like the New York Post, Epoch Times, and others who go against the official govt/social media partnership narratives.

If Zuck Says it’s an “Opinion,” Why the “Fact Check” Label?

“I believe fact-check labels are more of personal opinions rather than solid facts”— Mark Zuckerberg, during a congressional hearing.


Zuck Transcript Excerpts

“…describe what you fact check on oh sure

4:26 actually thank you for the opportunity

4:28 to clarify Facebook itself actually does

4:30 not check it does not fact check what we

4:32 do is we have feedback that people [leftists we pay called fact checkers] in

4:34 our community don’t want to see viral

4:36 hoaxes or or kind of like that maybe

4:39 clear you do no fact-checking

4:41 on any ads is that correct chairwoman

4:44 what we do is we work with a set of

4:47 independent fact checkers [false, they are paid by for Zuck] who somebody

4:50 fact checks on ads you have you contract

4:54 with someone to do that is that right

4:57 chairwoman yes and tell me who is it

5:01 that they fact checked on a chairwoman

5:05 what we do is when content is getting a

5:08 lot of distribution and is flagged by

5:10 members of our community [liberals] or by our

5:12 Technical Systems [liberal written algo] it can go into a queue

5:16 to be reviewed by a set of independent

5:17 fact checkers

5:19 they can’t fact check everything but the

5:20 things that they get to and if they part

5:23 something is false then we all right my

5:24 time has expired..”

That leads us to untangle a crucial distinction: the difference between fact and opinion. A fact is something that’s indisputable, based on empirical research and evidence. However, an opinion is an individual’s personal belief, which may be grounded in facts, but not always. Naturally, the line blurs between reality and perception when opinions are paraded as facts. 

Presenting opinions in the guise of facts leads us into the territory of inference and innuendo defamation colloquy. It’s an arena where insinuations replace facts. Corporations, usually at the behest of politicians and government agents, don’t call the label and following threats “opinion check.” In that case, they know the less educated or more viewpoint-indoctrinated among us will assume it means the information is patently false. For this reason and others, Elon Musk created “Community Notes.

Musk encourages independent research instead of the uni-party narrative approach on Meta and other corporate sponsor-influenced social media platforms, including Instagram. Newsom and Marxist politicians in California do not like the idea of the government not being able to silence their political opponents, and that is UNDISPUTABLE, say many pro-speech organizations. Conservatives and parents complain the goal of the supermajority state of California is to control what their political opponents say online, under the guise of safety, etc. If it’s about pharma, parental rights, child mutilation, or far-left gender identity indoctrination K-12 in our public schools, that is considered “hate speech” to them.

The intersection of personal opinions, put forth as facts, and these notions of net neutrality and section 230 complexities pose a significant challenge in the digital information age we live in.


First, you’ll need an understanding of the context. The fact-checking community is predominantly composed of individuals who lean towards the Democratic party and are often funded by Democrat billionaires. This might give an impression of a potential bias in interpreting and presenting data in these “fact check” labels. 

  • Fact: A fact is something that is objectively true and can be proven with evidence. It isn’t subject to debate and remains true regardless of personal beliefs or feelings.
  • Opinion: An opinion, on the other hand, is a subjective belief formed by an individual. It can be influenced by personal experiences, feelings, and interpretations, which differ from person to person.

Another tactic often used in “fact check” labels is the application of inference and innuendo defamation colloquy. This refers to the insinuation or implication of something negative or misleading cloaked within seemingly innocuous language. It’s like stating a veiled opinion or claim as a “fact check,” which is dishonest and could be misleading. 

The concept of Net Neutrality emphasizes equal access and fair treatment of all data on the internet, preventing Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from discriminating or prioritizing certain data types. This same principle should ideally extend to social media platforms and their approach to fact-checking, where all information should be evaluated with unbiased fairness. 

However, the existence and operation of social media platforms are primarily facilitated by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This clause provides immunity to online platforms regarding the content posted by their users. Ironically, while it allows these platforms to moderate content to maintain user-friendly environments, the extent of this moderation and instances of potential bias remain matters of ongoing debate.


So, can you see, the question of whether you can sue social media for, inter alia, altering your copy with misleading “fact check” labels is complex and depends on various factors? It can include your location, the specifics of the alteration, and whether you can prove it caused you harm. Legal counsel should be pursued if such measures are considered. However, the broader conversation on fact-checking, impartiality, and the responsibilities of online platforms continues to evolve as we plunge deeper into the digital age.

Do you agree that using labels saying “misinformation” and then threats to the original poster and content curators over the content crosses the line into treating an opinion as fact? Do you think we need a new law or just better courts? Can an executive order decide this, or is that even fair? Bust out your tools and let me know so we can do a podcast.


Can You Sue NSA for Unlawfully Recording Your Calls-Accessing Private Data? Understanding Your Rights

If you’ve ever found yourself wondering, “Can I sue the National Security Agency (NSA) for recording my telephone data and spying on my calls?” – you’re certainly not alone. In this article, we’re going to explore this intricate issue, shedding some light on rogue NSA agents who have unlawfully accessed personal data on phones without a warrant, the legalities of the NSA surveillance program, storing smartphone data, and the reasons underlying these seemingly controversial procedures. 

“At the heart of this matter lie fundamental questions about privacy, the limits of governmental power, and the means we’re willing to accept in the pursuit of national security.” A while back, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit made it clear that the secret warrantless telephone surveillance, which covertly recorded millions of Americans’ phone records, transgressed the requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

This NSA spying action could even be seen as a violation of the constitution. In June 2013, after NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed the presence of a certain program, the American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Civil Liberties Union promptly lodged the pertinent lawsuit. Seven years after the former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden blew the whistle on the mass surveillance of Americans’ telephone records, an appeals court has found the program was unlawful – and that the US intelligence leaders who publicly defended it were not telling the truth. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is known to be a client of Verizon Business Network Services.

It came to light through The Guardian that this very firm had been given a clandestine directive by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor calls of the ACLU. This directive obliged Verizon to continuously and on a daily basis, hand over detailed records of phone calls such as distinction of outgoing and incoming calls, and their respective timings. Snowden is currently evading US espionage charges in Russia, publicized this domestic eavesdropping by the National Security Agency (NSA) back in 2013. He viewed that recent ruling as affirming the correctness of his decision to reveal the NSA’s covert activities and illegal surveillance to the public.

In the case known as ACLU v. Clapper, the government had contended that the court shouldn’t even assess the legality of the program in question. Their stance was that the ACLU didn’t have the necessary “standing” to dispute the surveillance. Furthermore, they asserted that Congress had “precluded” any judicial review unless it was by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. This particular court convenes behind closed doors, infrequently publicizes its decisions, and generally only allows the government to present arguments. However, in a significant decision, these arguments were not accepted. 

  • In 2013, it was revealed that the NSA collects almost 200 million text messages per day globally
  • In 2015, a federal appeals court ruled that the NSA’s bulk collection of phone records was illegal
  • In 2016, it was reported that the NSA collected over 151 million phone records, despite the USA Freedom Act
  • A 2017 report indicated that the NSA tripled its collection of American phone records in just one year
  • In 2018, the NSA deleted more than 685 million call records obtained since 2015 due to ‘technical irregularities’
  • In 2019, a former NSA contractor was sentenced to prison for stealing more than 50 terabytes of highly sensitive government data over 20 years
  • On September 2, 2020, the bulk data collection program was officially terminated. This conclusion was enabled by the passing of the USA Freedom Act in 2015, which demanded NSA law enforcement agents cease all data hoarding activities of innocent Americans later that year.

Let’s delve into this multifaceted issue: 

  • Examining real-life examples of rogue NSA agents illegally accessing private phone data
  • Discussing why the NSA isn’t required to obtain a warrant to secretly store your smartphone data

Together, we’ll attempt to unravel the complex world of national security provisions and their impacts on individual privacy rights. Stay tuned as we navigate these murky, often misunderstood waters. 

Instances of NSA Overreach? 

Is it possible that your personal, private information has been inappropriately accessed by NSA agents? In the pursuit of promoting national security, a few instances of overreach have indeed come to light. Some cases have stirred up public outcry and debates about privacy, sparking discussion about the balance between national security and citizens’ rights. 

One standout example involves allegations that rogue NSA employees were openly using their position to spy on people’s sexual activities and other private information. It may seem more like the plot of a dystopian novel, yet various media outlets have reported on what’s been colloquially termed as ‘LOVEINT.’ This term describes a situation where NSA officers misuse surveillance tools to spy on their love interests and other people they know personally. 

Why Doesn’t the NSA Need a Warrant? 

Now, let’s switch gears slightly and discuss why the NSA isn’t routinely required to get a warrant to store your smartphone data secretly. This predicament primarily hinges upon the interpretation of certain key legal provisions. According to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a warrant is required for any search or seizure to be deemed “reasonable.” However, the amendment is generally interpreted as safeguarding places where a person has a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Therefore, much of this issue boils down to whether metadata—information about when, where, and to whom a call is made—constitutes information for which a person reasonably expects privacy. 

Famously, the NSA’s bulk metadata program, revealed to the public by Edward Snowden, was justified under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. This legislation holds that the government can obtain any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) it deems relevant to an investigation to protect against international terrorism. 

In essence, legislation and its interpretation continue to shape the landscape in which the NSA and similar bodies operate. Legislative complexity and technological evolution further muddy these waters, making it a tough field to negotiate for those seeking clarity on their rights. 

Can You Sue the NSA? 

Gauging from the above, you might wonder if it’s possible to sue the NSA for recording your telephone data and spying on your calls. The answer to this is somewhat challenging to pin down, as the cases that have attempted to do so often face an uphill battle. 

Legal redress for violations against privacy rights exists in theory. However, the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act has limited citizens from successfully suing the NSA. Notably, because suing would require classified information, in many cases, these lawsuits are dismissed on the grounds of state secrets privilege — an evidentiary rule created by U.S. legal precedent. Despite how a court rules, many people fear leftists inside our government like Liz Lerner, Lisa Paige, or Peter Strzok could rise again, or maybe already are undermining Americans with secret surveillance.

To conclude, striving for the perfect balance between individual privacy and national security has always been a contested feat. As technology evolves and more of our lives are digitized, these debates are set to continue. Understanding our rights, and the challenges inherent in maintaining and advocating for those rights, is the first step in navigating this brave new world. However, the fact our own government lied and concealed that they were spying on ordinary Americans until a whistleblower revealed it, is a slap in the face for constitutionalists like me. Do you trust the government still after reading this? Do you think they are still illegally recording the phone data of innocent Americans?


Judge Rules You Can’t Sue the NSA for Secretly Spying

FOIA and Suing State Actors for Suspending Your Account After Discussing Hunter Biden’s Laptop

Was your Instagram, Twitter or Facebook account suspended or throttled after talking about Hunter Biden’s laptop story prior to the last presidential election? Frustration can set in, especially if you feel your freedom of speech has been impeded by ruining your brand. But don’t fret – you have legal avenues to redress. Specifically, you can submit a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to obtain your records and sue social media, and their revolving door (FBI) employees. Before we delve into the steps you need to take, remember two very essential details: you must always include your banned username and a brief context as to why you think your account was suspended. 

Remember: Freedom of information is not just about seeking answers. It’s about asserting your rights as a citizen.

What is a State Actor Under the 14th Amendment?

In the context of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, a “state actor” refers to an entity or individual that is closely associated with or connected to the government. The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, includes the Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits states from denying any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The concept of state action is crucial when considering constitutional rights, as these rights are generally intended to protect individuals from government actions rather than actions by private individuals or entities. The 14th Amendment extends the protections of the Constitution to individuals against actions by state governments, but it does not automatically apply to actions by private parties.

Examples of state actors under the 14th Amendment may include:

  1. Government Agencies: Actions taken by various government agencies at the state and local levels.
  2. Public Officials: Individuals holding public office or acting in an official capacity on behalf of the government.
  3. Government Employees: Individuals employed by the government when acting within the scope of their official duties.
  4. State-Funded Entities: Entities that receive significant government funding or are otherwise entwined with the state, making them subject to constitutional constraints.

Private individuals or entities, even if receiving some government funding or regulation, are generally not considered state actors for the purposes of the 14th Amendment unless their actions are significantly intertwined with government actions.

The determination of state action is a complex legal issue, and cases involving the 14th Amendment often hinge on whether the entity or individual in question can be considered a state actor based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case. Courts may consider factors such as the level of government involvement, the nature of the action, and the relationship between the private entity and the government.

What is FOIA?

FOIA, or the Freedom of Information Act, is a federal law that grants the public the right to request access to records and information held by government agencies, promoting transparency and accountability.

Making a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request involves specific steps to ensure a smooth and effective process. Here are the general steps:

  1. Identify the Correct Agency: Determine the federal agency that likely holds the information you are seeking. Each agency has its own FOIA office.
  2. Check for Publicly Available Information: Before making a request, check if the information is already publicly available. Some information may be accessible without the need for a formal FOIA request.
  3. Prepare a Written Request: Create a clear and concise written request that includes:
    • Your name and contact information.
    • A detailed description of the records you are seeking.
    • Specify the format you prefer for receiving the information (electronic or hard copy).
  4. Address the Request to the Correct FOIA Officer: Ensure you address your request to the correct FOIA officer at the identified agency. You can find contact information on the agency’s website.
  5. Include Necessary Details: If possible, provide as much detail as you can about the records you are seeking. This helps the agency locate the information more efficiently.
  6. Specify Fee Preferences: Indicate if you are willing to pay fees associated with processing the request. FOIA requests may have fees for search, duplication, and review, but certain categories of requesters may be eligible for fee waivers.
  7. Mail or Submit the Request: Send your request to the FOIA officer using the appropriate mailing address or online submission portal provided by the agency. Some agencies also accept requests via email.
  8. Follow Agency-Specific Procedures: Different agencies may have specific procedures for handling FOIA requests. Familiarize yourself with any agency-specific requirements or guidelines.
  9. Receive Acknowledgment and Tracking Number: Once the agency receives your request, you should receive an acknowledgment along with a tracking number. This number allows you to check the status of your request.
  10. Wait for a Response: The agency is required to respond to your request within a certain timeframe. The response may include the requested records, a denial with reasons, or a request for clarification.
  11. Appeal if Necessary: If your request is denied or if you are dissatisfied with the response, you have the right to appeal the decision. Follow the agency’s appeals process outlined in the response.

Your essential checklist: 

  1. Keep ready the username of your banned account
  2. Specify the context of your banning – the discussion about hunter biden laptop story

With these details at hand, you are ready to proceed. In the following sections, we’ll walk you through the process of making a robust FOIA request. We’ll make it simple and engaging so that asserting your rights becomes less of a chore and more of a meaningful engagement. Buckle up and let’s get started!

Step 1: Gather All Necessary Information 

To start your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, first, you’ll need to compile all the necessary information. This includes your banned Facebook or Instagram username, the detailed reason given by Facebook or Instagram for suspending your account, and any other relevant details such as the date the action was taken and the content that caused your suspension. 

Step 2: Writing Your FOIA Request 

Once you’ve collected the necessary information, it’s time to draft your FOIA request. Remember: clarity and precision are your allies here. Your request should include all the identified details and should clearly express exactly what records or information you are seeking. 

  • Username: Start with mentioning your banned username. This would include usernames from both Instagram and Facebook if applicable.
  • Reason for Suspension: Include the reason given by the social media platforms for your account suspension. For example, if you were banned after discussing the Hunter Biden laptop story, mention this specifically.
  • Additional Details: Add extra relevant details such as date of the suspension, posts that led to the action, and any other appropriate information. Photos/screencaps of the banned posts may also be included.

Step 3: Submitting Your FOIA Request 

The final step in this process is to submit your well-crafted FOIA request. You can do this by mailing it to the appropriate government agency. As FOIA applies to government agencies, it may not directly apply to Facebook or Instagram, but it can still be a valuable step in understanding why your account was suspended. 

Remember to keep a copy of your request. Documentation is always a wise practice. Patience is key as, depending on the agency, responses can take weeks or months. 

By making a FOIA request, you’re exercising a fundamental right to information and ensuring transparency from those who wield power. It is a crucial step to take if your voice was silenced seemingly without reason. Stay engaged, and keep pressuring for answers. After all, it is your right to know.

Step 4: Awaiting Response and Next Steps 

You’ve sent in your FOIA request; now what? After your request has been formulated correctly and sent to the appropriate office, there comes the waiting period. 

This phase typically takes anywhere from 20 to 30 business days, which can feel like an eternity when you’re waiting for critical information. Remember, patience is your ally during this period. 

What do if you haven’t received a response? 

If you don’t receive a response after the upper limit of the mentioned timeline, don’t worry. You can reach out to the agency for a status update on your request. You can also appeal to the relevant office citing undue delay. 

If your request is denied, you have two lines of appeal. The first is with the agency that denied your request, while the second lies with the Federal Court. The decision to appeal will depend on the significance of the information you requested and your willingness to further pursue the matter. 

Censoring Freedom of Speech to Interfere With Elections?

When it comes to freedom of speech and the right to express opinions, the Internet offers an unrivaled platform for everyone. At the forefront of this expression channel are social media platforms, yet there are instances where disagreements about content moderation arise. Specifically, you may have faced censorship or banning while discussing the Hunter Biden laptop story on these platforms, which can feel like an infringement on your personal rights. In such circumstances, you might be contemplating bringing a lawsuit against the social media giants or even the FBI. With the release of the Twitter files, we now know that many FBI employees basically acted as surrogates for social media companies and the Biden Admin. So, how does one commence such a complex legal action against such a powerful organization? 

As you delve into this journey, we will guide you step-by-step through the process, covering all aspects such as the legalities, potential routes you can take, and things to keep in mind. Grab a notepad, a cup of coffee, and keep an open mind, we’re about to navigate some interesting legal waters! 

First, let’s discuss what censoring means in the context of social media. Censorship typically refers to public institutions like the government suppressing information they deem harmful, misleading, or inconvenient. However, private companies like Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram, generally aren’t classified as typical censorship organizations, unless you support Donald Trump, anyways. This is because they have their own sets of guidelines and participate in self-regulation to maintain the balance and safety of their platforms. But, there are exceptions here, and let’s explore that further. 

Understanding the law that governs social media censorship 

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibits government entities from infringing on freedom of speech. However, it does not restrict private entities like social media companies from removing or banning content that violates their community guidelines. This point is essential to understand before you plan to sue a social media platform. However, there’s a twist! 

The twist comes from an interpretation of the law – certain rulings state that private corporations and indiviuals can be considered state actors under specific circumstances. What this means is, when a private company like a social media platform, acts almost akin to a government body, decisions like censoring may be viewed with a stricter lens. There’s potential there for a legal challenge, but only if you can establish this. 

See also, this video, “Jim Jordan Ruthlessly Grills Witnesses About Hunter Biden Probe, Govt Censorship | 2023 Rewind”

Building Your Case: The FBI and Social Media Platforms 

Before you sue social media platforms and FBI, FTC, etc., for possible censorship, it is crucial to build a case that illustrates the involvement of the government as a state actor alongside social media companies in suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Here are some steps you may consider: 

  1. Collect Evidence: Document instances where your content related to the Hunter Biden laptop story was removed, banned, or suppressed. Screenshots, emails, and form letters from the social media platform or FBI are crucial pieces of evidence.
  2. Establish Connection With State Actor: You have to prove that the social media platform was working in conjunction with a government body like the FBI. (Peter Strzok, Lisa Paige, etc.)
  3. Prove Censorship: Demonstrate that the actions of the social media platform and FBI suppressed your freedom of speech.

Remember, these steps are complex and require careful planning and execution. Legal advice and assistance from a lawyer with experience in freedom of speech and internet law can significantly bolster your case. 

The Lawsuit 

After gathering the necessary evidence and affirming the connections, you can proceed with filing a lawsuit. Be prepared – this can be a long journey filled with its fair share of challenges. 

Stay strong, keep your evidence organized, and work closely with your legal counsel. Keep in mind that pursuing a lawsuit against the FBI and social media platforms is no small task, but with the right guidance and preparation, it’s certainly possible.

Serving the Lawsuit Papers 

So you’ve gathered your evidence, engaged with legal counsel, and prepared to take on the giants: the FBI and major social media platforms. The road ahead requires dedication, but your rights and freedoms are on the line. Let’s move onto the next step: serving your lawsuit papers. 

The initial part of any lawsuit includes serving the papers to the corresponding parties involved. This includes the social media platform which has taken the controversial action and also to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Strong evidence and documentation is the key to success here. Include all the specifics, from dates and times of deleted posts to explicit mentions of the Hunter Biden laptop story. Your lawsuit should clearly show the censorship, the alleged bias, and the consequences you’ve faced as a result. 

Pressuring through Public Opinion 

One unique aspect of this kind of lawsuit is the potential power of public pressure. Let’s not forget the fundamental role of social media – it’s a platform that allows your voice to be heard. And as such, it’s a perfect stage to bring attention to your cause. But remember, it shouldn’t come across as deliberate manipulation. Be honest, transparent and share your plight which can potentially rally public support around you.

A well-constructed plea to the public can not only put pressure on the social media platform and force them to reconsider, but also illustrate to the world the potential hazards of unchecked censorship. The pressure on these platforms can be enormous if the public sentiment swings in your favor. 

Pursuing Legal Avenues 

Once you’ve built public support and served your papers, you need to continue following the legal process. Detailed jurisdictional rules will need to be followed to the letter, guided by your legal counsel. This includes filing the appropriate paperwork with the court, continuing to document all interactions and proceedings, and preparing for potential court hearings. 

Carefully tracking the response of the social media platform and the FBI is crucial. Monitor for any changes in their policy or public statement, and work with your lawyer to adjust your approach if necessary. Remember, these are large entities with significant legal teams, and they will likely fight hard. But don’t falter, hold onto your evidence and stick to your guns.

Conclusion: Your rights, your voice 

By filing a FOIA request, you’re exercising your right to understand why your account was suspended, particularly if this happened after you discussed a political topic. This action is but one example of how citizens can challenge decisions that affect their freedom of expression and access to information. 

Let this guide serve as a resource for your journey to free speech and open communication, ensuring your voice is heard and your rights are respected.

Looking to sue the FBI and social media for censorship is indeed a daunting task, but with thorough preparation, robust documentation, and proper legal counsel, it can be achievable. Remain patient, be persistent, and most importantly, stay true to the fight for your rights. We’re right here with you.