Changes

The original lawsuit, filed in 2016 by a Twitter shareholder, alleged Dorsey and others including former CEO Dick Costolo and board member Evan Williams hid facts about Twitter’s slowing user growth while they sold their personal stock holdings “for hundreds of millions of dollars in insider profits.”<ref>https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/twitter-investor-lawsuit-settlement-payment-jack-dorsey-1235068982/</ref>

The original lawsuit, filed in 2016 by a Twitter shareholder, alleged Dorsey and others including former CEO Dick Costolo and board member Evan Williams hid facts about Twitter’s slowing user growth while they sold their personal stock holdings “for hundreds of millions of dollars in insider profits.”<ref>https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/twitter-investor-lawsuit-settlement-payment-jack-dorsey-1235068982/</ref>

==Potential revocation of non-publisher immunity==

===Potential revocation of non-publisher immunity===

On May 15, 2021, federal judge Mark L. Wolf announced that he would hold a hearing on May 20 and has ordered Twitter executives to appear at the hearing to make Twitter explain whether it is a truly private company or is acting on behalf of the State to illegally censor conservative voices.<ref name="Speech Police">[https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/05/federal-judge-signals-may-end-twitters-immunity-speech-police-worried/ HUGE BREAKING NEWS: Federal Judge Signals He May END Twitter’s Immunity in Dr. Shiva Case – Speech Police in Panic — Watch Hearing Live on May 20] at the Gateway Pundit</ref>  The hearing comes in the wake of a lawsuit filed against Twitter by Dr. [[Shiva Ayyadurai]], who ran as the Republican candidate for the US Senate in Massachusetts in the [[2020 presidential election]] and whose tweets pointing out [[Democrat election fraud]] were censored by Twitter; it was later discovered that the tweets were deleted on orders from employees of the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth, leading Ayyadurai to file the suit, pointing out that his First Amendment rights were violated when the Democrat-controlled Massachusetts government silenced him to affect an election.  By quoting the connected cases of ''Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck''<ref>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/587/17-1702/ Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck]</ref> and ''Blum v. Yaretsky''<ref>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/991/ Blum v. Yaretsky]</ref> in the upcoming hearing, this could spell the end of Section 230 immunity protections for Twitter and other liberal Big Tech companies (which has given Big Tech immunity from lawsuits, but has allowed them to abuse that immunity at will through its illegal censorship of conservative voices and factual information while allowing liberal views (including violent posts, liberal hate speech and even death threats) and [[fake news]] from the [[liberal media]] free reign, as well as allowing liberal politicians to use Big Tech as a conduit to silence political opponents via special portals offered to government officials, which they then use to flag and delete any content they do not like).  The Gateway Pundit pointed out in its report on this story:

On May 15, 2021, federal judge Mark L. Wolf announced that he would hold a hearing on May 20 and has ordered Twitter executives to appear at the hearing to make Twitter explain whether it is a truly private company or is acting on behalf of the State to illegally censor conservative voices.<ref name="Speech Police">[https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/05/federal-judge-signals-may-end-twitters-immunity-speech-police-worried/ HUGE BREAKING NEWS: Federal Judge Signals He May END Twitter’s Immunity in Dr. Shiva Case – Speech Police in Panic — Watch Hearing Live on May 20] at the Gateway Pundit</ref>  The hearing comes in the wake of a lawsuit filed against Twitter by Dr. [[Shiva Ayyadurai]], who ran as the Republican candidate for the US Senate in Massachusetts in the [[2020 presidential election]] and whose tweets pointing out [[Democrat election fraud]] were censored by Twitter; it was later discovered that the tweets were deleted on orders from employees of the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth, leading Ayyadurai to file the suit, pointing out that his First Amendment rights were violated when the Democrat-controlled Massachusetts government silenced him to affect an election.  By quoting the connected cases of ''Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck''<ref>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/587/17-1702/ Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck]</ref> and ''Blum v. Yaretsky''<ref>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/991/ Blum v. Yaretsky]</ref> in the upcoming hearing, this could spell the end of Section 230 immunity protections for Twitter and other liberal Big Tech companies (which has given Big Tech immunity from lawsuits, but has allowed them to abuse that immunity at will through its illegal censorship of conservative voices and factual information while allowing liberal views (including violent posts, liberal hate speech and even death threats) and [[fake news]] from the [[liberal media]] free reign, as well as allowing liberal politicians to use Big Tech as a conduit to silence political opponents via special portals offered to government officials, which they then use to flag and delete any content they do not like).  The Gateway Pundit pointed out in its report on this story:

{{cquote|Dr. Ayyadurai is claiming that the Constitution trumps CDA 230 and the government cannot outsource to private actors to silence people’s speech they disagree with, and that the government and Twitter are acting together as one: that Twitter is essentially a state actor.<ref name="Speech Police"/>}}

{{cquote|Dr. Ayyadurai is claiming that the Constitution trumps CDA 230 and the government cannot outsource to private actors to silence people’s speech they disagree with, and that the government and Twitter are acting together as one: that Twitter is essentially a state actor.<ref name="Speech Police"/>}}

 

===India===

===India===

Twitter's lost its immunity as an intermediary in [[India]] and became exposed to legal liability for any content published on its platform in June 2021.<ref>https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/twitter-loses-legal-shield-in-india-for-3rd-party-content/articleshow/83556056.cms</ref>  Twitter's snubbing of Indian law has been described as "neo-colonialist."

Twitter's lost its immunity as an intermediary in [[India]] and became exposed to legal liability for any content published on its platform in June 2021.<ref>https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/twitter-loses-legal-shield-in-india-for-3rd-party-content/articleshow/83556056.cms</ref>  Twitter's snubbing of Indian law has been described as "neo-colonialist."

===''Trump v. Twitter''===

===''Trump v. Twitter''===

In the case of ''[[Trump v. Twitter]]'', filed in July 2021, attorneys for President Trump argued,

In the case of ''Trump v. Twitter'', filed in July 2021, attorneys for President Trump argued,

{{quotebox-float|"[The companies have] unprecedented power over the content of public discourse to censor constitutionally protected speech with impunity, resulting in a grave threat to the freedom of expression and to democracy itself."<ref>https://www.courthousenews.com/trump-sues-tech-giants-for-booting-him-from-their-sites/</ref>}}

{{quotebox-float|"[The companies have] unprecedented power over the content of public discourse to censor constitutionally protected speech with impunity, resulting in a grave threat to the freedom of expression and to democracy itself."<ref>https://www.courthousenews.com/trump-sues-tech-giants-for-booting-him-from-their-sites/</ref>}}