take our poll - story continues below
The Supreme Court will consider a landmark free speech lawsuit filed by banished journalist Laura Loomer against the tech companies who unlawfully conspired to deprive her of her rights.
The case, which was launched by Laura Loomer and Freedom Watch, intends to hold Google, Apple, Facebook, and Twitter accountable for war against the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. The lawsuit also contends that these Big Tech monopolies violated the Sherman Antitrust Act and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the dismissal of the suit last year, but Loomer has since appealed it to the Supreme Court. She will have at least one judge who sympathizes with her legal argument as Justice Clarence Thomas has indicated major concerns with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a government-granted exemption from publisher liabilities allowing tech giants to enact Big Brother censorship.
“Extending §230 immunity beyond the natural reading of the text can have serious consequences,” Thomas wrote in a filing last year.
“Without the benefit of briefing on the merits, we need not decide today the correct interpretation of §230. But in an appropriate case, it behooves us to do so,” he concluded.
Big League Politics has reported about Loomer’s legal challenge against Big Tech hegemony since its inception:
Banished journalist and Congressional candidate Laura Loomer intends to take her landmark free speech lawsuit against the Silicon Valley monoliths all the way to the Supreme Court.
A three-judge panel ruled that Big Tech can steamroll the rights of Loomer and other individuals deemed guilty of wrong-think.
“Freedom Watch argues that we should infer an agreement primarily from the Platforms’ parallel behavior, as each company purportedly refused to provide certain services to Freedom Watch. But, as the district court explained, parallel conduct alone cannot support a claim under the Sherman Act,” the three-judge panel decided.
“In general, the First Amendment ‘prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech,’” the judges explained in their ruling, referencing the Manhattan Community Access Corp. vs. Halleck case.
Despite the fact that Big Tech entities receive special privileges from the federal government in order to operate, they were deemed non-state actors in this court ruling. They can discriminate, act as Big Brother, impose Orwellian sanctions, and even potentially influence elections with their monopoly power, according to the inexplicable court ruling.
Loomer believes that the decision is bogus and motivated by partisan politics. She and her legal counsel intend to take the case all the way up to the Supreme Court, hoping that the nation’s highest court will defend freedom of speech in America.
“My lawyer and I are confident of success going en banc to the full court. Today’s decision is clearly politically motivated, given the fact the DC Circuit’s ruling comes the same day President Trump said his justice department would take serious action against these same Big Tech giants I have sued for censoring conservatives. There’s no such thing as a coincidence. We are prepared to take this all the way to the Supreme Court,” she said on Wednesday.
Loomer continues to fight for digital freedom despite being targeted by the most powerful corporate giants in world history. The conservative justices on the SCOTUS can prove their worth beginning on Friday when her case is considered.