A lawsuit against Big Tech for its anti-conservative bias online is getting a second chance to be heard.
A federal court in Washington D.C. has agreed to hear an appeal of a lawsuit filed by Florida congressional candidate Laura Loomer and D.C. watchdog group Freedom Watch alleging that Big Tech giants perpetrate anti-conservative bias online.
Big Tech has acted with impunity to shut down conservatives and Republicans and until now have faced NO consequences for their actions. And this radical leftist assault on the soul of the United States is being waged on the Internet. Sadly, until recently, the only important voice on the right warning of this war and looking to do something about it is President Donald Trump.
But more and more people are waking up to this threat and the Loomer lawsuit is one of those examples.
However, the left is striking back. The lawsuit was dismissed by a lower court in March, but the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has now agreed to hear the appeal and to assess the merits of the case.
Per Reclaim the Internet:
The lawsuit accuses Apple, Facebook, Google, and Twitter of working together to “intentionally and willfully suppress politically conservative content.” It also alleges that the tech giants have breached the Sherman Act (an anti-monopoly law), DC’s public accommodation law (prohibits acts performed wholly or partially for a discriminatory reason: “To deny, directly or indirectly, any person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation…”), and the First Amendment. Additionally, the suit claims that being banned from some of these social media platforms caused Loomer “to suffer severe financial injury.”
Apple, Facebook, Google, and Twitter were seeking a quick ruling and a motion of “summary affirmance” of dismissal from the DC Court of Appeals – a ruling where the court concludes that the case is weak and it would be a waste of time to hear. However, the DC Court of Appeals has denied this motion and said that it will hear the merits of this suit.
The appeals court issued a note saying:
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the oppositions thereto, and the replies, it is ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be denied. The merits of the parties’ positions are not so clear as to warrant summary action. Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Appellees be limited to one joint brief, not to exceed 13,000 words. See Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7). Because the court has determined that summary disposition is not in order, the Clerk is instructed to enter a briefing schedule and to calendar this case for presentation to a merits panel.
The pressure is mounting against Big Tech on many fronts. From the courts to the halls of Congress to Donald Trump’s administration, voices from many corners are finally calling for these anti-free speech fascists to be held to account.
Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston.Don't forget to Like Godfather Politics on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.
Become an insider!
Sign up for the free Godfather Politics email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.