Case Document 1

Craig R. Brittain

8625 E. Sharon Dr.
Scottsdale, AZ, 85260

(602) 502-5612
craig@brittainforsenate.com

craigrbrittain@gmail.corn

WW, 

I?ll?Rx 5:3 t?lfU?r?" (?jgu?y
Ef?ffiilgti OF 3 
.EMMWM UEPUTVJ

Filed 06/05/18 Page 1 of 78 page 1 0f78

JUN 0 5 2018

 

IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

CRAIG R. BRITTAIN, an individual
and US Senate candidate in Arizona in

the 2018 Federal Elections;

BRITTAIN FOR US SENATE,
a Principal Campaign Committee,

(And on behalf of all similarly affected

users of Twitter).

Plaintiff(s),

VS.

TWITTER, INC, a California

corporation.

Defendant.


No. 

 

COMPLAINT

(1)Violation of the First
Amendment of the US
Constitution

(2)Violation of Federal Election
rules (47 US. Code 315)

(3)Breach of Contract

(4)Conversion

(5) Wolation of Antitrust Laws

(6) Violation of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996

(47 US. Code 230)

(7) Negligent In?iction of

Emotional Injury/Distress

(8) Tortious Interference

(9) Promissory Estoppel

FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

 

 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 2 of 78 Page 2 of 78

1 Plaintiffs, Craig R. Brittain (?Brittain?) and Brittain for US Senate

2 (collectively ?Plaintiffs?), hereby file this Complaint for Violation of the First
3 Amendment of US Constitution, Violation of Federal Election rules, Breach of
4 Contract, Conversion, Violation of Antitrust Laws, Violation of the

5 Telecommunications Act of 1996, Negligent Infliction of Emotional

6 Injury/Distress, Tortious Interference, and Promissory Estoppel against

7 Defendant, Twitter, Inc. (?Twitter?), And would show as follows:

8

9 INTRODUCTION

10 1. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the
11 right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government

12 interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the
13 free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the

14 ??eedom of the press, interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibit
15 citizens from petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

16 2. It was adopted into the Bill of Rights in 1791. The Supreme Court

17 interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First

18 Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal
19 government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress.
20 Furthermore, the Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the
21 Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment ?om
22 interference by state governments.
23 3. President Trump?s Twitter account (@realDonaldTrump) is an
24 important source of news and information about the government, and an
25 important public forum for speech by, to, and about the President. Likewise,
26 the accounts of all elected of?cials and candidates are equal to that of of the
27 President they are important public forums and sources of information. In an
28 effort to suppress dissent in this forum, Twitter has excluded??suspended??

 

 

 

 






 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 3 of 78 Page 3 0f78

Twitter users who have criticized, supported, or otherwise cemented on the
President or his policies, or criticized, supported or commented on other public
of?cials or candidates. This practice is unconstitutional, and this suit seeks to
end it.

4. As the Supreme Court recognized in 2017, and as Knight First
Amendment Center V. Trump recognized just a few weeks ago, social media
platforms like Facebook and Twitter provide ?perhaps the most powerful
mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.?
Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 US. (2017). These platforms have been
not least because they have transformed civic engagement
by allowing elected officials to communicate instantaneously and directly with
their constituents. ?Governors in all 50 States and almost every Member of
Congress have set up [Twitter] accounts for this purpose?, allowing citizens to
?petition their elected representatives and otherwise engage with them in a
direct manner.? Twitter enables ordinary citizens to speak directly to public
of?cials and to listen to and debate others about public issues, in much the
same way they could if they were gathered on a sidewalk or in a public park,
or at a city council meeting or town hall.

5. Because of the way the President and his aides use the
@realDonaldTrump Twitter account, the account is a public forum under the
First Amendment. Likewise, the accounts of all other politicians and
candidates are equally public forums. Defendants have made the Twitter
platform accessible to all, allowing users to directly engage the President?s 52
million followers. The President?s tweets routinely generate tens of thousands
of comments in the vibrant discussion forums associated with each of the
President?s tweets. Further, Twitter has promoted the President?s account as a
key channel for official communication. Politicians/candidates use their

accounts to make formal announcements, defend their of?cial actions, report

 

 

 






Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 4 of 78 Page 4 of 78

on meetings with foreign leaders, and promote their positions on health care,
immigration, foreign affairs, and other matters. Tweets from
@realDonaldTrump and other politicians and candidates are ?of?cial
statements,? and they have been treated as such by fellow politicians, world
leaders, the National Archive and Records Administration, and Federal Courts.
6. Plaintiff Craig R. Brittain represents individuals from across the
country who are part of the Brittain for US Senate team, as well as users
named and not named in the suit who have been suspended from the Twitter
platform, and the ability to access the @realDonaldTrump account as well as
the accounts of thousands of US politicians and candidates because of opinions
they expressed in public forums. Because of their
criticism/support/cornmentary of the President/other politicians/candidates,
Plaintiffs have been prevented or impeded from viewing tweets, from replying
to tweets, from Viewing discussions associated with the tweets, and from
participating in those discussions. Defendants? actions Violate the First
Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs, and other users that follow politicians and
candidates, who are now also deprived of their right to read the speech of the
dissenters who have been 

7. Plaintiffs respectfully ask that the Court declare that Viewpoint-based
exclusion from Twitter's public forums violates the First Amendment, and
order the Defendants to restore their access.

8. On its ?Values? page, Twitter states: ?We believe in ?ee expression
and believe every voice has the power to impact the world.?

9. However, in de?ance of United States law, as well as its own
founding principles and terms of service, Twitter has decided that it will not
allow Brittain and/or the staff of his principal campaign committee, Brittain
for US Senate, to respectfully share their Views and campaign on its open

public platform, nor allow Plaintiffs to extend the public forum to their

 

 

 

 






 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 5 of 78 Page 5 of 73

constituents in the same manner done by President Donald J. TrUInp
(@realDonaldTrump) and countless other public candidates and elected
of?cials.

10. Brittain?s Twitter account (@CraigRBrittain) and the account of his
independent media examination] ournalism outlet (@AuditTheMedia) were
permanently suspended on February 1 and February 2, 2017. The account of
his principal campaign committee (@SenatorBrittain) was suspended on
March 30, 2018. A second wave of suspensions against fans/ supporters and
members of his staff (@Brittain4Senate, @AngMartinelli, and many others)
was conducted on May 23, 2018. These combined interests will henceforth be
known as ?the Accounts? for purposes of the complaint.

11. Twitter has not banned the Accounts because Plaintiffs have engaged
in disrespectful, harassing or abusive behavior. On the contrary, during their
over ?ve years on the platform, Plaintiffs have treated other users with the
utmost respect and courtesy (in spite of their receipt of well-documented and
widespread abuse from many users who have not been suspended or even
cautioned by the Defendant).

12. Plaintiffs used the Accounts to caution against the use of Twitter to
harass/threaten other users, at one point detailing over 300 threats made by
users towards President of the United States Donald J. Trump on Twitter in the
hashtag #ProtectTrump.

13. Brittain's primary account (@CraigRBrittain) was suspended after
almost a thousand people retweeted a post asking @j ack (Twitter CEO Jack
Dorsey) to unsuspend numerous popular celebrities who had received
unjusti?ed suspensions stemming ?om their use of the public forum.

14. The account of his campaign committee, @SenatorBrittain (Craig R.
Brittain for US Senate), was suspended after over 2,000 people retweeted a

post asking for his campaign committee to be veri?ed by Twitter.

 

 

 






Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 6 of 78 Page 6 of 73

15. This lawsuit implicates Twitter's responsibility as a public forum as
recently ruled in Knight First Amendment Institute V. Trump et. al. (1 :17?cv?
05205), where the honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald, Judge for the Southern
District of New York, ruled that President Donald J. Trump must unblock all
Twitter users, regardless of the content of their messaging, and also ruled that
President Trump's Twitter space is an interactive public forum. The ruling also
implicates that Twitter itself is a public forum space under the US
Constitution, and thus all First Amendment Protections (must) apply to its use.

16. In regards to Knight First Amendment Center V. Trump, Defendant
must reasonably provide access to that public forum space by unsuspending all
users who are followers of President Donald J. Trump or any other public
of?cial or candidate, as well as any/all public candidates and officials, whether
they are supporters, critics, or neutral to the points of view of the President of
the United States or any other candidate or elected of?cial.

17. Likewise, being as President Donald J. Trump is one of many
politicians whose tweets create such a public space, Twitter must extend that
same public forum to followers and critics of all US politicians and
subsequently all journalistic outlets, in order to protect two-way freedom of
speech established by the First Amendment.

18. By Plaintiffs' estimate, over 5 million users with over 15 million
human accounts have been unreasonably permanently suspended, and
evidence, including testimony from many notable users, indicates over 50
million users and over 150 million accounts have been temporarily suspended
and/or 'Shadowbanned? where Shadowbanned shall be de?ned as the process
where Tweets by users, especially public of?cials and world leaders to include
President Trump, as well as push noti?cations and other means of conducting
public discourse, have been hidden/obscured ?om their viewing in such a way

that does not constitute acceptable formatting/?ltering, but rather

 

 

 

 






 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 7 of 78 Page 7 of 73

but rather censorship of public speech. Other variations of the term shall
include the action verb (?shadowbanning?) and noun (?shadowban?). 19. The
combined set of users banned/ shadowbanned/ otherwise silenced by Twitter
will henceforth be referred to as ?Plaintiffs and Others? to indicate public
interest. Alternatively, ?Plaintiffs and Others? can be read as ?any/all users
who are subject to by
Twitter.

20. Defendant has also created an unlevel playing ?eld for speech by
promoting ideas which it agrees with on its @Policy account, by engaging in
retweeting and promoting views which the Defendant agrees with from
corporate accounts which should be neutral moderators and conducting news
media interviews in which they declare political views while hiding and even
censoring the accounts of those they disagree with if the space is to be
upheld as a public forum, this is a clear violation as rather than a public forum,
Defendant has held itself selectively to be representing and championing the
opinions of private citizens over the interest of public discourse, and cannot be
considered a 'good actor' by a reasonable standard, where a 'good actor' is a
neutral platform moderator whose only interest is civil discourse. The
promotion of set beliefs runs counter to the pledge of free speech presented by
Twitter, as the company itself is now openly taking political/social stances
rather than presenting private views as unaffiliated with the company.

21. Examples of Tweets from @Policy (which are the official views of
Defendant as a company) include: ?Twitter stands for strong #NetNeutrality
rules because they're essential for innovation! tree speech Oand public
safetya. If you agree, make your voice heard today?t.? (Tweeted on May 15,
2018), ?Twitter is moving forward on our commitment to providing
transparency for online ads. We believe the Honest Ads Act provides an

appropriate framework for such ads and look forward to working with bill

 

 

 






Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 8 of 78 Page 8 Of 78

sponsors and others to continue to re?ne and advance this important proposal.?
(Tweeted on April 10, 2018), ?Twitter stands with Dreamers. Before the year
runs out, there is still a chance for bipartisan agreement in Congress. Please
consider reaching out to your members of Congress and urge them to act.
#DreamActNow? (Tweeted on December 13, 2017), and ?Blocking a world
leader from Twitter or removing their controversial Tweets would hide
important information people should be able to see and debate. It would also
not silence that leader, but it would certainly hamper necessary discussion
around their words and actions.? (Tweeted on January 5, 2018).

22. The example tweets from @Policy can be used to measure that
Defendant is partisan, rather than neutral, and also that they have acted against
their own policies by suspending, shadowbanning, ?ltering and/or otherwise
limiting candidates for office and elected of?cials, as well as their supporters,
staff members, friends, and families, thus limiting the access of those people to
the public forums created by candidates and public of?cials. Logically, an
elected official and/or candidate for public of?ce is a 'world leader'.

23. As Defendant currently champions and promotes many controversial
speakers (to include Charlie Sheen, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Shaun
King, Deray McKesson, James Comey, John Brennan, Barack Obama, Hillary
Clinton and a long list of others), it cannot reasonably claim to maintain a non-
controversial standard nor can Twitter be considered a neutral entity in the
eyes of the law or any reasonable person. At any given time, no less than 16 of
the top 20 trending topics would be considered controversial by the
average user.

24. Controversy is the very nature of the public forum and the Twitter
Space, where the promoted and primary trending topics on the Twitter platform
are almost always controversial and incendiary, which is the very reason users

utilize the platform Twitter is a space for controversial and dif?cult

 

 

 

 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 9 of 78 Page 9 0f 78

discussions, and being as such, it cannot reasonably arbitrate a controversial
space based on personal values, and should defer to Law Enforcement to
arbitrate ?abuse' under Federal and State Law, and to decline to intervene itself.
25. In unilaterally removing Plaintiffs and Others from their open,
public platform Defendant seeks to censor them solely based on their
political/ social viewpoints and perceived af?liations, demonstrating a
declarative bias While listed as a neutral public forum.
26. Defendant's banning of public speakers due to the controversial
nature of their speech and af?liations nulli?es the free speech guarantee of the
US Constitution. In the words of the late Supreme Court justice Oliver
Wendell Holmes, J12, ?if there is any principle of the Constitution that more
imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free
thought?not ??ee thought for those who agree with us but ?eedom for the
thought that we hate.? United States v. Schwimmer, (1929) 279 US. 644, 654-
655 [49 S. Ct. 448] (dis. opn. of Holmes, 1.).
27. The loss of the Accounts is a Crippling Blow to Plaintiffs and
Others, and presents a Chilling Effect to the First Amendment and other
Constitutional Rights, where a Crippling Blow shall be de?ned as 'an
unconscionable and substantial loss with no de?ned legal remedy or recourse',
and a Chilling Effect shall be de?ned as ?an action which suppresses
similar/related rights including but not limited to the First Amendment right to
access and utilize a public forum for speech as well as the desire of other users
to speak out against similar actions, for fear of action(s) such as censorship,
suspension/ban, shadowban or downranking being taken against them as well'.
28. Indeed, Plaintiffs regularly spoke out for previously suspended
users, especially when the suspensions were wrongful, leading Twitter to
unreasonably target them in turn, Twitter suspended, either permanently or

temporarily, the accounts of supporters of Plaintiffs and Others simply for

 

 

 

 

 






 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 10 of 78 Page 10 of 78

speaking out against existing suspensions which they felt/feel were/are
unwarranted. This retaliatiory behavior is unacceptable for a platform which
lists itself as neutral, and creates a Chilling Effect.
29. The Accounts permitted Plaintiffs and Others to communicate
instantly with a broad base of supporters, donors, and readers, as well as
campaign in a Federal Election. Plaintiffs and Others used the Accounts to
alert their followers to their recent publications, forthcoming conferences,
public appearances, articles, videos, podcasts, commentary, speeches, policies
and other matters of discourse. This drove traffic to their websites, and kept
the ideas of Craig R. Brittain and Brittain for US Senate constantly before the
public. In a single month (January 2017), Brittain's tweets were viewed by
over 90 million users worldwide.
30. The Accounts also supported Plaintiffs? fundraising efforts, vital to
both Brittain himself and later to Brittain for US Senate as a principal
campaign committee. Indeed, the Accounts were as invaluable way to extend
Plaintiffs? reach. Tweets from the Accounts were retweeted well beyond
Plaintiffs and Others' own follower bases, leading to continually increasing
numbers of followers. New followers, in turn, became supporters and donors
of Brittain and Brittain for US Senate.

31. There is no public platform comparable to Twitter that allows
Plaintiffs and Others to express their Views.
32. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek an injunction to prevent Defendant from
terminating Plaintiffs and Others' accounts on its public forum and from

restricting Plaintiffs and Others? speech in violation of the US Constitution.

 

 

 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 11 of 78






 

Page 11 of78

IURISDICTION AND VENUE
33. Federal Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1331, 28 U.S.C. 1332 and 28 U.S.C. 2201?2202.
34. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2). A
substantial part of the events giving rise to this claim occurred in this District.

THE PARTIES

35. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every
preceding paragraph as though set forth fully herein.
36. Plaintiff Craig R. Brittain ?Brittain? is, and at all relevant times was,
a natural person residing in the State of Arizona and County of Maricopa. Due
to extensive previous damage to his reputation and troubles in his personal life,
he has committed himself to reinventing and rehabilitating his life and image
in the previous 5 years. Twitter gave him a means to do this and he gained
hundreds of thousands of supporters who supported his cause to receive a real
second chance at living a positive and successful life after a felony conviction
for Vehicular Eluding in Colorado at age 18 (2002), and running the
controversial free speech/adult website Is Anybody Down?, which closed in
April of 2013.

37. Since May 2013, Brittain has immersed himself in using his voice
for positive change in society, including volunteering for the Republican Party
as a Precinct Committeeman and working for campaigns at the Local, State
and Federal level, including campaigning and providing in?uence to President
Trump?s success?il election campaign. His personal effort to rehabilitate
himself and his image was working successfully prior to his suspension, as he
had acquired the following of a great many public

?gures/celebrities/politicians (see below).

 

 

 





 

Case 2:18- - 1 - 
cv 714 888 Document 1 Flled 06/05/18 Page 12 of 78 Page 12 of78

38. Brittain?s primary means of work was via Twitter as a crowdfunded
independent journalist and pundit, specializing in documentary?style coverage
of protests and political events, notably covering in?person and broadcasting
the ?January 20?, ?Travel Ban? and ?Black Lives Matter? protests via live
stream and Periscope throughout 2016 and 2017. His Periscope broadcasts
were viewed over 200 million times.

39. On November 3, 2016, Twitter granted Craig R. Brittain
veri?ed/blue check user status, the mark of authenticity granted to accounts
associated with celebrities and high pro?le users, marking his achievements as
a political in?uencer and celebrity. Out of over 3 billion Twitter users, at the
time, approx. 150,000 were veri?ed.

40. Brittain has been a lifelong champion of ?ne and even dangerous
speech as a natural right. His accumulated total followers (over 400,000) have
made him the most popular anarchist/libertarian thinker in world history,
where anarchism is de?ned as Iself-government by peaceful and voluntary
interaction and exchange', governed by the Non-Aggression Principle, de?ned
as 'to not harm anyone or their property'. I

41. Brittain is a libertarian/anarchist and not a member or supporter of
any race, identity or Violent extremist groups, he is, however. of mixed Jewish
descent and strongly opposed to racism and antisemitism. He is not 'alt?right',
'far right', ?white supremacist?, 'racist?, etc. The banning of his accounts has lead
to impersonators making fake Twitter accounts which have written/posted
racist, sexist and other offensive things using his name, as well as the false
labels of 'alt?right', 'far right?, 'white supremacist' 'racist', etc. which constitute
defamation resulting ?om his perceived vulnerability to Twitter's actions. In
turn these fake social media posts have circulated and caused additional
damage to his reputation. The best remedy for fake social media posts is a

disputing post from an authentic account,

 

 

 






Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 13 of 78

 

Page 13 of 78

as the cure for false speech or 'bad' speech is more speech. Brittain's
adversaries dared not spread lies about him while his account was active,
instead resorting to blocking or muting his tweets after they had tweeted
haphazard and failed attempts to threaten, harass, insult, or defame him to his
account.

42. Brittain's celebrity/notable followers included but were not limited
to Fox News host Sean Hannity, Jenna Jameson, Jenna Marbles, Tyrus
(wrestler), EC3 (wrestler), Darren Young (wrestler), Eric D. July and members
of the band BackWordz, Phil Labonte of the band All That Remains, Vince
Russo, Lauren Southern, Milo Yiannopoulos (before his own suspension),
Martin Shkreli, and over 1,700 total users that Twitter deemed to be
notable/celebrities and/or worthy of veri?ed/blue check status. His tweets,
images and videos were featured on Twitchy, Tucker Carlson/Fox News,
Breitbart, CNN, and numerous other mainstream outlets
and received a total of over 1 billion views on Twitter in 4+ years, receiving
over 90 million views in a single month (January 2017). If the full list of
followers was not currently hidden by Defendant's acts, an extended list of
celebrities could be presented which fully demonstrates the extent of loss
incurred by Twitter's suspension of the Accounts. I

43. Plaintiff Brittain for US Senate is the principal campaign committee
for Craig R. Brittain as a candidate for United States Senate in 2018. The
purpose of Brittain for US Senate is to promote Craig R. Brittain as a
Republican candidate for Federal Of?ce and organize/rally his supporters.

44. Defendant Twitter, Inc. is, and at all relevant times was, a
corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its

principal place of business in San Francisco, California.

 

 

 





Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 14 of 78

 

Page 14 of 78

ALLEGATIONS
45. Plaintiffs re~allege and incorporate by reference each and every
preceding paragraph as though set forth fully herein.

A. Twitter

46. Twitter is a social media platform with more than 330 million
estimated active/2.5 billion estimated total users worldwide, including over 80
million estimated active users and 200 million estimated total users in the
United States. The platform allows users to publish short messages, to
republish or respond to others? messages, and to interact with other Twitter
users in relation to those messages. Speech posted on Twitter ranges from

personal insult to poetry, but particularly relevant here is that a signi?cant

amount of speech posted on the platform is speech by, to, or about the

government.

47. Users. A Twitter ?user? is an individual who has created an account
on the platform. A user can post ?tweets,? up to 280 characters in length, to a
webpage on Twitter that is attached to the user?s account. Tweets can include
photographs, videos, and links. Some Twitter users do not tweet?Le, publish
messages?Wat all. Others publish hundreds of messages a day.

48. Timelines. A Twitter user?s webpage displays all tweets generated by
the user, with the most recent tweets appearing at the top of the page. This
display is known as a user?s ?timeline.? When a user generates a tweet, the
timeline updates immediately to include that tweet. Anyone who can View a
user?s public Twitter webpage can see the user?s timeline.

49. A Twitter user must have an account name, which is an symbol
followed by a unique identi?er @realDonaldTrump), and a descriptive
name Donald J. Trump). The account name is called the user?s ?handle.?
Alongside the handle, a user?s webpage will display the date the user joined

Twitter and a button that invites others to ?Tweet to? the user.

 

 

 





 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 15 of 78 Page 15 0f 78

button is visible only to other Twitter users.) A user?s Twitter webpage may
also include a short biographical description; a pro?le picture, such as a
headshot; a ?header? image, which appears as a banner at the top of the
webpage; the user?s location; a button labeled ?Message,? which allows two
users to correspond privately; and a small sample of photographs and videos
posted to the user?s timeline, which link to a full gallery.

50. Tweets. An individual ?tweet? comprises the tweeted content 
the message, including any embedded photograph, video, or link), the user?s
account name (with a link to the user?s Twitter webpage), the user?s pro?le
picture, the date and time the tweet was generated, and the number of times the
tweet has been replied to retweeted by O, or liked by other users.
51. By default, Twitter webpages and their associated timelines are
visible to everyone with internet access, including those who are not Twitter
users. However, although non?users can View users? Twitter webpages, they
cannot interact with users on the Twitter platform.

52. Following. Twitter users can subscribe to other users? messages by
?following? those users? accounts. Users see all tweets posted or retweeted by
accounts they have followed. This display is labeled ?Home? on Twitter?s site,
but it is often referred to as a user?s ?feed.?

53. Veri?cation. Twitter permits users to establish accounts under their
real names or pseudonyms. Users who wanted to establish that they are who
they claim to be could previously request that Twitter ?verify? their accounts.
This process was removed by the Defendant for partisan political reasons, as
Twitter veri?ed many notable people via the process who held viewpoints that
contrast/dispute the views of Twitter and their staff. When an account is
veri?ed, a blue badge with a checkmark appears next to the user?s name on his

or her Twitter page and on each tweet the user posts.

 

 

 






Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 16 of 78
Page 16 of 78

Veri?ed users also receive ?priority placement? in trends/hashtags and user
timelines, with Twitter displaying Veri?ed user tweets up to 10,000 times each
for every View received by a non-Veri?ed user. Veri?ed users can also follow
unlimited people per day, as opposed to regular accounts which can only
follow 300-l,000 per day, which is another sign of Twitter's partiality. Twitter
has also removed numerous veri?cation badges for partisan reasons a
process which is also a Breach of Contract and unconstitutional when it is
done to elected public of?cials and public candidates. The process of removing
a veri?cation badge is called ?unverifying? or ?deverifying? a user.
Unverifying/deverifying removes the ?priority placement? bene?t and the
?unlimited follows? bene?t.

54. Retweeting. Beyond publishing tweets to their followers, Twitter
users can engage with one another in a variety of ways. For example, they can
?retweet??i.e., republish?the tweets of other users, either by publishing
them directly to their own followers or by ?quoting? them in their own tweets.
When a user retweets a tweet, it appears on the user?s timeline in the

same form as it did on the original user?s timeline, but with a notation
indicating that the post was retweeted.

55. Replying. A Twitter user can also reply to other users? tweets. Like
any other tweet, a reply can be up to 280 characters in length and can include
photographs, videos, and links. When a user replies to a tweet, the reply
appears on the user?s timeline under a tab labeled ?Tweets replies.? The
reply will also appear on the original user?s feed in a ?comment thread? under
the tweet that prompted the reply. Other users? replies to the same tweet will
appear in the same comment thread. Reply tweets by veri?ed users, reply
tweets by users with a large number of followers, and tweets that are
?favorited? and retweeted by large numbers of users generally appear higher in

the comment threads.

 

 

 

 





 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 17 of 78
Page 17 of 78

56. Comment threads. A Twitter user can also reply to other replies. A
user whose tweet generates replies will see the replies below his or her original
tweet, with any replies-to? replies nested below the replies to which they
respond. The collection of replies and replies-to- replies is sometimes referred
to as a ?comment thread.? Twitter is called a ?socia media

platform in large part because of comment threads, which re?ect multiple
overlapping conversations among and across groups of users. Below is a
recent @realDonaldTrump tweet that prompted tens of thousands of
comments:

57. Favoriting. A Twitter user can also ?favorite? or ?like? another user?s
tweet by clicking on the heart icon that appears under the tweet. By ?liking? a
tweet, a user may mean to convey approval or to acknowledge of having seen
the tweet.

58. Mentioning. A Twitter user can also ?mention? another user by
including the other user?s Twitter handle in a tweet. A Twitter user mentioned
by another user will receive a ?noti?cation? that he or she has been mentioned
in another user?s tweet.

59. Tweets, retweets, replies, likes, and mentions are contrOlled by the
user who generates them. No other Twitter user can alter the content of any
retweet or reply, either before or after it is posted. Twitter users cannot
prescreen tweets, replies, likes, or mentions that reference their tweets or
accounts.

60. Protected tweets. Because all Twitter webpages are by default Visible
to all Twitter users and to anyone with access to the internet, users who wish to
limit who can see and interact with their tweets must affirmatively ?protect?
their tweets. Other users who wish to View ?protected? tweets must request
access from the user who has protected her tweets. ?Protected? tweets do not

appear in third-party search engines, and they are searchable only on Twitter,

 

 

 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 18 of 78 Page 13 of 78





 

and only by the user and their approved followers.

61. Blocking. A user whose account is public not protected) but
who wants to make his or her tweets invisible to another user can do so by
?blocking? that user. (Twitter provides users with the capability to block other
users, but, importantly, it is the users themselves who decide whether to make
use of this capability.) A user who blocks another user prevents the blocked
user from interacting with the ?rst user?s account on the Twitter platform. A
blocked user cannot see or reply to the blocking user?s tweets, View the
blocking user?s list of followers or followed accounts, or use the Twitter
platform to search for the blocking user?s tweets. The blocking user will not be
notified if the blocked user mentions her; nor will the blocking user see any
tweets posted by the blocked user.

62. If the blocked user attempts to follow the blocking user, or to access
the Twitter webpage from which the user is blocked, the user will see a
message indicating that the other user has blocked him or her from following
the account and viewing the tweets associated with the account. This is an
example of a noti?cation from Twitter that a user has been blOcked.

63. The Twitter-initiated
process of 'ghosting' a user so that some of) or all (100% of) Twitter
users cannot see the user's Replies, Tweets, Photos, or other content which
they have posted. This includes their Followers, who follow them in order to
see their tweets. A large portion of shadowbanning is automated and
performed by Twitter's sorting algorithm, integral to the timeline/feed process,
and is a key example of subtle bias, where users have stated and provided
evidence that politically left-leaning tweets perform better than politically

right-leaning tweets by default.

 

 

 





 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 19 of 78 Page 19 0f78

64. Suspensions/Bans: When a user is suspended/banned temporarily or
permanently by Twitter, they are unable to post any Replies, Tweets, Photos or
other content, their Followers cannot access their old or new Tweets, and their
account is effectively scrubbed from the website, either permanently or
temporarily, thus creating large missing pieces in the fabric of the public
forums of Twitter, and destroying part of the 'shared history' created by social
media annotations.

65. Limits/Filters: When a user is prohibited by Twitter ?om following
other users, posting tweets, etc., the most common are rate limits which restrict
the number of fellow users that another user can follow or the number of
tweets which can be posted in a single hour, but limits can also include
Shadowbanning/Shadowbans. These are unconstitutional bedause they limit
the ability of users to instantly follow/unfollow any no public forum on

Twitter as it is being created, and to interact in an unlimited fashion in

accordance with the First Amendment.

66. Downrank/Downranking: Defendant pledged to ?down rank?

popular content which it considers to be ?low quality? in the May 28,- 2018

revisions to its Terms of Service. This is another form of

shadowbanning/ limiting in which Twitter is now openly admitting that
shadowbanning, which they previously denied, is now an active internal
process in which Twitter can pick and decide, in direct violation of popular
representation in public forums (A First Amendment guarantee), which

Tweets/Replies appear/are read, and which ones are not.

B. The @realDonaldTrump account
67. Donald J. Trump established @realDonaldTrump in May 2009 and
used the account for several years to engage with his followers about politics,

celebrities, golf, and his business interests, among other topics. After his

 

 

 

WOONQUI-PUJNM



 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 20 of 78 Page 20 0f78

inauguration in January 2017, he began to use the account as an instrument of
his presidency, and today he and his aides use it almost exclusively as a
channel for communicating with the public about his administration. Because
of the way he uses the account, President Trump?s tweets have become an
important source of news and information about the government, and the
comment threads associated with the tweets have become important forums for
speech by, to, and about the President.

68. President Trump presents the account to the public as one that he
operates in his of?cial capacity rather than his personal one. The Twitter page
associated with the account is registered to Donald J. Trump, ?45th President
of the United States of America, Washington, The account bears a blue
badge indicating that it has been veri?ed by Twitter. On July 7, 2017, the
header photograph showed an American ?ag. Over the past few weeks, the
header photograph has shown images of President Trump performing his
of?cial duties, such as making a speech to the Department of Energy, ?anked
by Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of Energy Rick Perry.

69. The @realDonaldTrump account is accessible to the public at large
without regard to political af?liation or any other limiting criteria. President
Trump has not ?protected? his tweets, and anyone who wants to follow the
account can do so. He has not issued any rule or statement purporting to limit
(by form or subject matter) the speech of those who reply to his tweets. The
account has 53 million followers. The only users who cannot follow
@realDonaldTrump are those whom the President and/or his aides have
blocked, and those whom Defendant Twitter has permanently or temporarily
suspended or limited.

70. President Trump and his aides have made clear that they consider
statements published on @realDonaldTrump to be of?cial statements of the

President. On July 2, 2017, President Trump tweeted from

 

 

 






 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 21 of 78 Page 21 of 78

@realDonaldTrump, ?My use of social media is not Presidential it?s
MODERN DAY A month earlier, White House Press
Secretary Sean Spicer stated at a press conference that tweets from President
Trump should be understood as ?of?cial statements by the President of the
United States.? On June 23, 2017, the White House responded to a request
from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for of?cial White
House records by referring the Committee to the President?s ?statement? made
on Twitter on June 22, 2017. The White House social media director, Dan
Scavino, promotes @realDonaldTrump, and @WhiteHouse equally
as channels through which ?President Donald J. Trump . . . communicat[es]
directly with you, the American people!? The @WhiteHouse account?s
description directs Twitter users to ?Follow for the latest from 
@realDonaldTrump and his Administration.? Further, tweets from 
are frequently retweeted by @realDonaldTrump, and tweets ?om
@realDonaldTrump are frequently retweeted by 

71. With the assistance of his aides, President Trump uses
@realDonaldTrump, often multiple times a day, to announce, describe, and
defend his policies; to promote his Administration?s legislative agenda; to
announce of?cial decisions; to engage with foreign political leaders; to
publicize state visits; and to challenge media organizations whose coverage of
his Administration he believes to be unfair. President Trump sometimes uses
the account to announce of?cial decisions and policies before these decisions
and policies are announced through other of?cial channels.- For example, the
President used @realDonaldTrump to announce on June 7, 2017, for the ?rst
time, that he intended to nominate Christopher Wray for the position of FBI
director. Likewise, on June 22, 2017, he used @realDonaldTrump to
acknowledge for the ?rst time that he did not possess tapes of conversations

with former FBI Director James Comey.

 

 

 






 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 22 of 78 Page 22 0f 78

72. White House aides assist President Trump in operating the
@realDonaldTrump account, including by drafting and posting tweets to the
account. According to news reports, President Trump also sometimes dictates
tweets to White House Director of Social Media Dan Scavino, who then posts
them on Twitter.

73. Federal agencies and the federal courts treat President Trump?s
statements on @realDonaldTrump as of?cial statements. The National
Archives and Records Administration has advised the White House that the
President?s tweets from @realDonaldTrump, like those from are
of?cial records that must be preserved under the Presidential Records Act. The
Ninth Circuit cited one of the President?s tweets in striking down Executive
Order 13,780, the order that temporarily suspends nationals of certain
countries from entering the United States. Hawaii v. Trump, 859 F.3d 741, 773
11.14 (9th Cir. 2017), cert. granted sub nom. Trump V. Int?l Refugee Assistance
Project, No. 16-1436, 2017 WL 2722580 (US. June 26, 2017). In citing the
tweet, the Ninth Circuit observed that the White House Press Secretary had

indicated that the President?s tweets should be treated as of?cial statements.

74. Foreign leaders similarly treat President Trump?s statements ?om
@realDonaldTrump as re?ective of his views and decisions as President.
President Trump?s tweets about London Mayor Sadiq Khan and the June 4,
2017 London Bridge terrorist attack ultimately resulted in the inde?nite
deferral of President Trump?s planned state visit to Great Britain. A series of
tweets from @realDonaldTrump endorsing the suspension of economic
relations with Qatar, a longstanding ally of the United States, prompted a
public response from the Qatari Foreign Minister. A series of tweets from
@realDonaldTrump insisting that Mexico should pay for a wall along the
U.S.?Mexico border caused the Mexican President Enrique Pe?a Nieto to

cancel a previously planned meeting with President Trump shortly after his

 

 

 

 201714 BSB Document 1 Flled 06/05/18 Page 23 of 78 Page 23 of78





7 members of the public use the reply function to respond to the President and

his aides and exchange views with one another.

 

inauguration.

75. Because of the way in which President Trump uses
@realDonaldTrump, the account has become an important channel for news
about the presidency and the US. government. Those who are blocked,
suspended from Twitter or otherwise unable to access the account are impeded
in their ability to learn information that is shared only through that account.
76. The comment threads associated with tweets from
@realDonaldTrump are important forums for discussion and debate about the
President, the President?s decisions, and government policy. Typically, tweets
from @realDonaldTrump generate thousands of replies, some of which
generate hundreds or thousands of replies in turn. The @realDonaldTrump
account is a kind of digital town hall in which the President and his aides use

the tweet function to communicate news and information to the public, and

C. Censorship and the First Amendment

77. Twitter states: ?We believe in free expression and believe every
voice has the power to impact the world.? Twitter describes itself as ?the live
public square, the public space a forum where conversations happen.?
Twitter?s CEO, Jack Dorsey, has stated, ?Twitter is a communication utility.? It
allows users who have established accounts to post short messages, called
Tweets, as well as photos or short videos. Anyone can join and set up an
account on Twitter at any time.

78. Twitter is the platform in which important political debates take
place in the modern world. The US. Supreme Court has described social
media sites such as Twitter as the ?modern public square.? Packingham v.
North Carolina (2017) 582 US. [137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737]. It is used by

politicians, public intellectuals, and ordinary citizens the world over,

 

 

 






Case Document 1 Flled 06/05/18 Page 24 of 78 Page 24 of78

expressing every conceivable viewpoint known to man. Unique among social
media sites, Twitter allows ordinary citizens to interact directly with famous
and prominent individuals in a wide variety of different fields. It has become
an important communications channel for governments and heads of state. As
the US. Supreme Court noted in Packingham, Twitter, users can petition
their elected representatives and otherwise engage with them in a direct
manner. Indeed, Governors in all 50 States and almost every Member of
Congress have set up accounts for this purpose. In short, social media users
employ these websites to engage in a wide array of protected First Amendment
activity on topics as diverse as human thought.? 137 S. Ct. at pp. 173 5?-36
(internal citations and quotations omitted). The Court in Packingham went on
to state, in regard to social media sites like Twitter: ?These websites can
provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to
make his or her voice heard. They allow a person with an Internet connection
to 'become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could ?om
any soapbox.? Reno v. ACLU (1997) 521 U. S. 844, 870 [117 2329].

79. It is universally understood that Tweets re?ect the viewpoints of the
user who posted the Tweet, and not Twitter itself. All Tweets are clearly
identified with the user who posted the Tweet. Indeed, Twitter clearly states in
its Terms of Service: ?You are responsible for your use of the Services and for
any Content you provide, including compliance with applicable laws, rules,
and regulations.?

80. It goes on to state: ?You retain your rights to any Content you
submit, post or display on or through the Services. What's yours is yours 
you own your Content (and your photos and videos are part of the Content).?
Id. Twitter and its executives have numerous accounts which they use to
publish their own viewpoints on the platform. Tweets are published by

individual users, not Twitter, except for tweets from Defendant's official

 

 

 

 






 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 25 of 78 Page 25 of78

company accounts such as but not limited to @Policy, @TwitterSupport and
@TwitterSafety.

81. For 5 years, Plaintiff Craig R. Brittain ?Brittain? has been a well-
known in?uencer and independent journalist, primarily focusing on politics,
protest movements, and free speech. He has been interviewed countless times
by national/international print/electronic media on free speech and journalism.
82. Brittain takes the view that centralized government is unnecessary
for society. He argues that the evidence shows that society functions better
under self?government than under the rule of the state. He believes that all
people have the natural right to secede and that secession does not create an
impermissible state of anarchy or chaos, as Canada resides peacefully on the
US border(s).

83. Brittain originally joined Twitter in 2009, with his primary veri?ed
account being registered in 2013. The veri?ed @CraigRBrittain account had
over 150,000 followers at the time of its suspension on February 1, 2017. The
@AuditTheMedia account had 106,000 followers at the time of its suspension
on February 2, 2017. The @SenatorBrittain (Britain for US Senate) account
had 118,000 followers at the time of its suspension on March 30, 2018. The
accounts of Brittain's staff members totaled over 32,000 combined followers at
the time of their suspensions on May 23, 2018.

84. Over the course of over ?ve years, Plaintiffs and Others invested
countless hours and significant time and effort into cultivating a large follower
base and Twitter presence for the Accounts that would generate new
supporters.

85. At the time Plaintiffs and Others joined Twitter, there was no
provision in Twitter?s Terms of Services that permitted it to suspend or

terminate accounts for any or no reason.

 

 

 






 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 26 of 78 Page 26 of 78

86. On May 17, 2015, Twitter amended its Terms of Service to read:
?We may suspend or terminate your accounts or cease providing you with all
or part of the Services at any time for any or no reason.?Twitter?s current
Terms of Service include this same language.

87. The provision allowing Twitter to terminate a user ?at any time for
any or no reason? is unconscionable as it materially violates the First
Amendment right to hear and access a public forum.

88. These terms were unilaterally added by Twitter after Plaintiffs and
Others joined the platform without their knowledge or consent, and purport to
allow Twitter to unilaterally cancel and destroy the bene?t of its bargain with
Plaintiffs and Others for arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory or illegal reasons,
without affording Plaintiffs and Others any rights or remedies and purporting
to cancel any rights or remedies they might have legally held.

89. The Twitter Terms of Service state: ?We may revise these Terms
?ont time to time. The changes will not be retroactive, and the most current
version of the Terms, which will always be at twitter.com/tos, will govern our
relationship with you. We will try to notify you of material revisions, for
example Via a service noti?cation or an email to the email associated with your
account.?

90. On February 1, 2017, February 2, 2017, March 30, 2018, and May
23, 2018, Defendant suspended the Accounts without explanation in what is
presumed to be an automated process. Plaintiffs and Others immediately
appealed the suspensions. Twitter replied Via automated email that the
suspensions were permanent because the Accounts were connected to a user
who was previously suspended (the @CraigRBrittain account). Twitter did not
specify any actual violations of the rules or contract. Plaintiffs and Others
immediately sent emails to Twitter expressing astonishment at the reason given

for the permanent suspensions and seeking clari?cation,

 

 

 

Case 2:1 - - - 
8 cv 01714 BSB Document 1 Flled 06/05/18 Page 27 of 78 Page 27 of78






 

but Twitter did not provide a human reply, as all correspondence Via Twitter's
Customer Service system is automated. To be clear, there is no proof that a
human decided that Plaintiffs and Others broke any rules, nor is there any
specific claim of Violation of Twitter's Terms of Service by the Defendant.

D. Twitter as Biased, Partial Moderator
91. As Twitter has randomly and permanently suspended members of its
own staff to include the automated suspension of its own CEO Jack Dorsey
ack) on November 23, 2016, it can be concluded that Twitter itself does not
properly manage the suspension process, likewise the fallibility/ credibility of
the process of suspending an account itself cannot be proven, thus all existing
suspensions should be overturned and re?examined by humans, rather than
automated process(es).
92. On November 3, 2017, The 45th President of the United States,
Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) had his account suspended by an
alleged ?rogue employee? for ll minutes, but many commentators concluded
that it was actually a ?test run? or ?experiment? to see what would happen if
Twitter suspended the President of the United States. If the President of the
United States can be suspended from a platform, either temporarily or
permanently, it creates a widescale Chilling Effect and Crippling Blow for
supporters of the President as well as anyone with an interest in free speech on
social media. This likewise constitutes a recursive denial of the President's
ability to create a public forum, a violation of the First Amendment rights of
the President of the United States of America.

93. As Knight First Amendment V. Trump concluded, President Trump's
tweets are a public forum on Twitter, and being that is the case, then Twitter
likewise has a recursive responsibility to provide access to the public forums
provided by the President himself and all other elected officials and public

candidates, as well as all of their followers without limit, suspension, ban, etc.

 

 

 





 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 28 of 78 Page 28 of 78

to use the Twitter-created public forum to conduct speech, where Law
Enforcement shall have rightful and proper jurisdiction over public forums,
and any violations of the US legal code shall be handled by the proper
authorities rather than Twitter staff, who have no rightful control over a public
forum other than as commentators.

94. On July 19, 2016, Twitter permanently suspended Breitbart
journalist Milo Yiannopoulos (@Nero) over tweets written by some of his
random followers to actress Leslie Jones. Milo was alleged to be culpable even
though his tweets were the simple criticisms ?barely literate, looks like a man,
[her work] isn't very good?, not different from those regularly directed towards
the President of the United States or any other public ?gure. However, some
random followers with no association or relationship with or to Milo
Yiannopoulos tweeted things which could be considered racist towards Leslie
Jones. Twitter stated that the tweets of these random followers were the reason
for Milo?s permanent suspension. It has been almost 2 years and his account
has not been restored it is unreasonable to deny access to a public forum for
over 2 years.

95. On December 28, 2016, after the death of actress Debbie Reynolds,
actor Charlie Sheen tweeted: ?Dear God, Trump next please!? The tweet was
featured on the front page of the Twitter website, endorsed by Twitter as a
company, and it has received over 57,000 retweets and over 111,000 ?likes?.
Many of the replies to the tweet include direct threats to the President of the
United States. Charlie Sheen's Twitter account was not suspended, and the
tweet continues to be promoted and endorsed by Twitter.

96. Celebrity YouTuber Sky Williams (@SkyWilliams) was permanently
banned on April 23, 2018, for responding to a tweet and telling a person who
was tweeting very derogatory things to ?kick rocks?. His account was later 

restored, but no formal apology was issued by Twitter for their mistake.

 

 

 






Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 29 of 78 Page 29 of 78

97. On May 12, 2016, musician Azealia Banks (@AzealiaBanks) was
given a permanent Twitter suspension for criticizing One Direction member (at
the time) and musician Zayn Malik, a public ?gure and celebrity. Her account
has not been restored in over 2 years.

98. On February 11, 2018, Paul Nehlen (@pnehlen), a candidate for
Federal Of?ce in Wisconsin, was permanently suspended from Twitter over
accusations of apparent antisemitism. While antisemitism is wrong and
abhorrent, it should not constitute removal from a public forum, as all
candidates for political of?ce have the right to express their views, no matter
how offensive or absurd they might be. His account has not been restored.

99. On February 21, 2018, Twitter conducted a massive temporary
suspension of several million accounts, without advance notice or proper
reasoning, in violation of their Terms of Service. This was a Breach of
Contract in which millions of users were required to complete multiple

CAPTCHA tests and phone veri?cation in order to access their accounts. This

was documented in the trending hashtag #TwitterLockout.

100. On January 11, 2018, independent investigative journalism group
Project Veritas (@Project_Veritas) and James O?Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIH)
released a video in which current and previous Twitter employees disclose(d)
the existence of ?shadowbanning? affecting over 150 million accounts on the
platform, which is a direct Breach of Contract.

101. On April 13, 2018, Twitter permanently suspended the account of
street artist Sabo (@unsavoryagents), based on art he had created in the real
world. His account has not been restored.

102. On January 8, 2017, Twitter permanently suspended CEO Martin
Shkreli for parody photos he created of himself and Teen

Vogue journalist Lauren Duca. The account has not been restored.

 

 

 

 






 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 30 of 78 Page 30 of 78

103. On May 28, 2015, Twitter permanently suspended journalist Chuck
Johnson (@ChuckCJohnson) for crowdsourcing money for a 'hit piece' of
critical journalism against Deray McKesson (@deray). Deray McKesson
falsely alleged Via his Twitter account that Chuck Johnson was threatening his
life. No police report was ever ?led by Mr. McKesson, and thereby logically,
Mr. McKesson knew that the police would not interpret Mr. ohnson's tweet as
a threat. However, because of Deray McKesson's intimate personal
relationship with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey (having been invited to Twitter's
HQ on a semi-regular basis), Mr. McKesson was able to have Mr. Johnson
permanently suspended, and this is the third year where Mr. Johnson has been
denied access to the public forums of Twitter.

104. On November 15, 2017, Twitter removed the veri?cation
badge/blue check of Jewish independent journalist Laura Loomer
(@LauraLoomer), alleging that she was a white supremacist, Nazi, or
connected to a hate group, without evidence. This is another form of breach of
contract and censorship. The veri?cation badge has not been restored.

105. On January 2, 2018, Twitter removed the veri?cation badge/blue
check of Wisconsin Sheriff David Clarke (@SheriffClarke) for posting what
they alleged were ?violent threats?. However, Law Enforcement would
logically conclude as they were not aimed at anyone in particular, the
metaphors used were merely ?gures of speech. The verification badge has not
been restored.

106. On April 16, 2018, Documentary director/producer and author
Mark Dice's Twitter account (@MarkDice) was temporarily suspended, and he
was forced to delete a tweet in which he stated that there are only two genders.
His account was then restored.

107. On October 29, 2017, Twitter permanently suspended the account
of political adviser and public ?gure Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) for using

 

 

 





Case Document 1 Flled 06/05/18 Page 31 of 78 Page 31 of 78

profane language while criticizing several journalists. His account has not been
restored.

108. On August 30, 2017, Twitter permanently suspended the account
@nemuismywife, owned by a man who killed a mosquito that had been
bothering him, and then tweeted: ?Where do you get off biting me all over
while I'm just trying to relax and watch Die! (Actually you're already
dead)." He added a picture of the dead insect to his tweet. The account has not
been restored.

109. On March 28, 2018, Twitter permanently suspended Tommy
Robinson (@TRobinsonNewEra) over a speech he gave in the real world
about Islam and radical Islamic terrorism. This suspension is completely
unconstitutional because he is being suspended for speech made in a public
forum. His account has not been restored.

110. On August 15, 2017, Twitter permanently suspended Carl
Benjamin, better known by his online username Sargon of Akkad
for videos he made on his YouTube channel criticizing
Islam. His account has not been restored.

111. On August 31, 2016, YouTuber PewDiePie (@pewdiepie), real
name Felix Kj ellberg, was stripped of his Twitter veri?cation checkmark and
temporarily suspended from Twitter for making a joke about ?joining 
He was forced to delete the joke. His veri?cation checkmark was not restored
un?12018.

112. On April 5, 2018, comedian Owen Benjamin was permanently
suspended from Twitter after criticizing public ?gure/ activist David Hogg. His
account has not been restored. Mr. Benjamin wrote on his Facebook page:
?Both twitter accounts suspended and now my ability to make an income has

been revoked. Please become a [Patreon link] supporter. That will be place I

can post things.

 

 

 

 

0 00?s] 0\ UJVN 

rm


 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 32 of 78 Page 32 of 78

This is disgusting. I have a two year old and a pregnant wife and they just set
my life back to 0 with on big swoop. I just worked tirelessly for the last 5
months building my online ability to make a living and it?s all gone. You will
be next. Fight it now.? 

113. On September 1, 2017, a black activist from Atlanta, Georgia who
uses the online aliases ?Charlie Peach? and ?Peach Politics? was falsely
labeled as a Russian agent and her Twitter account, @PeachPolitics, was
permanently suspended. She says that in part it was because she criticized
other prominent activists like Deray McKesson. Her Twitter account has not
been restored.

114. On August 22, 2016, Twitter suspended the popular professional-
wrestling account? which posted animated videographic images,
@DeathToAllMarks. It has not been restored.

115. On April 20, 2018, Twitter suspended @FootballUGA, the
University of Georgia Football team?s Twitter account, over false copyright
claims regarding content which it legitimately owns. The account was restored
after one week of downtime.

116. On December 18, 2017, Twitter permanently suspended Egyptian
journalist Wael Abbas (@WaelAbbas). His account has not been restored and
his suspension is being used by the government of Egypt in order to label him
as an extremist and potential insurgent/terrorist. This is one of the
consequences of Twitter's censorship The idea that an individual may face
criminal consequences from their government over the suspension of their
Twitter account shocks the conscience.

117. On March 14, 2018, comedian Steven Crowder (@scrowder)
received a one-week ban from Twitter for sharing a comedy video he made on

Twitter via a YouTube link, in which he told jokes at a ?gender ?uidity? event.

 

 

 






 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 33 of 78 Page 33 0f78

118. Twitter openly admits that it cannot correctly gauge the political
stances of its users. On April 27, 2018, CEO Jack Dorsey apologized for
falsely labeling conservative commentator Candace Owens as ?far right? in a
promoted trend. This was a direct public admission of the lack of neutrality at
Twitter, as well as Breach of Contract.

119. Numerous notable/veri?ed people who use Twitter have noted
instances of shadowbanning/downranking.

120. On January 29, 2018, Indian professor Madhu Purima Kishwar
(@madhukishwar) tweeted: have been informed that @Twitterlndia has put
my handle under #ShadowBan . Therefore, my tweets not reaching my
followers. My average increase of followers used to be 2500 to 3000 per day.
Now stagnant my posts being #ShadowBanned . @TwitterSupport?. Ms.
Kishwar has over 2 million followers, and less than 1% of them were able to
see her tweet.

. 121. On May 23, 2018, independent journalist Tim Pool (@timpool)
tvizeeted: ?Can Twitter shadowban people for their political views if they are
responding to the @realDonaldTrump. I'm really interested to see the
rami?cations of this. Does this turn Twitter into a privately owned public
space??

122. On May 15, 2018, Breitbart journalist Allum Bokhari
(@LibertarianBlue) tweeted: ?Twitter lied to the Senate. They told @tedcruz
they don't shadowban, and yet: 1. Their employees were caught on camera by
@Proj ect_Veritas, admitting to it 2. They have announced that they will hide
content w/o telling users GOP must call them out.?

123. On May 22, 2018, actor and professor James Marchese
(@JLMarchese111)tweeted: ?Bill my impressions dropped from over a
million a month to 150,000 after Twitter suspended my account for "hate

speech" aka retweeting an article on immigration impact in Europe.

 

 

 





 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 34 of 78 Page 34 Of7g

#Shadowban #censorship is real.?

124. On May 12, 2018, independent journalist Wayne Dupree
(@WayneDupreeShow) tweeted: ?Twitter, why the shadowban since
December? Why am i not allowed to reach the people that follow me?.

125. On January 13, 2018, video game developer Mark Kern
(@Grumrnz) tweeted: ?Today, someone tried to get me ?red for tweeting
against Twitter?s shadowban policy and for using the term SJ W. Yes, there
really are horrible, petty and small minded people out there. They are called
SJ Ws.? On April 9, 2018, Mr. Kern also tweeted: ?Twitter testi?ed before
congress that they suppress tweets. They just disagree about calling it
"shadowbanning" or that it is biased.?

126. On April 6, 2018, journalist David Reaboi (@davereaboi) tweeted:
is .@tedcruz being ?shadowbanned? by Twitter? @jimgeraghty
takes a look. It sure looks that way.? Ted Cruz is a current US Senator from
Texas, previous Presidential candidate, and his tweets constitute a public
forum in the same way that President Donald J. Trump's tweets constitute a
public forum.

127. On December 31, 2016, University of New Mexico professor Nick
Flor (@ProfessorF) tweeted: ?When Twitter ?rst started cracking down on
GG, my impressions were cut in half. They de?nitely shadowban based on
tweets association.?

128. On October 1, 2016, Nicholas Sarwark (@nsarwark), candidate for
Mayor of Phoenix and chairman of the Libertarian National Committee (LNC,
Libertarian Party), tweeted: ?Since @twitter has me on a #shadowban, I wrote 

a post about it on @facebook (which has veri?ed my account)?

 

 

 






 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 35 of 78 Page 35 of 78

129. On February 16, 2016, journalist and YouTuber Lauren Southern
(@Lauren_Southern) tweeted: ?"For site owners, the ideal shadowban is when
a user never realizes he?s been shadowbanned" this is why some of you can
still see our posts.?
130. On June 1, 2018, Boston Herald journalist Adriana Cohen
(@AdrianaCohen16) tweeted: ack @TwitterSupport Can you explain why
my Conservative opinion columns get minuscule traction on Twitter but
48,000 shares on @facebook? This recent column went viral. 
picked it up many other MSM.
8/ 05/ democ
rats_russia_truth_coming_wout #ShadowBanning @foxandfriends

131. On May 23, 2018, TV host and Playboy Playmate Dalene Kurtis
(@DaleneKurtis) tweeted: ?Twitter Amendment violation - WATCH
VIDEO: @JamesOKeefellI @Project__Veritas 
#ExposeTheWicked #ShadowBanning conservatives, ?Free Thinkers?.
#PatriotsFight #EndWitchHunt #Bored with this bullsh*t.?
132. On May 15, 2018, professor and activist Mar Hicks (@histoftech)
tweeted: ?"When Twitter?s software decides a certain user is ?detract[ing] from
the conversation,? all of that user?s tweets will be hidden from search results 
public conversations until their reputation improves. And they won?t know that
they?re being muted in this way" #ShadowBanning? she continued in a second
tweet: ?Problem is, Twitter's already been lowkey doing this??it's called
shadowbanning, guess what? Twitter doesn't do it to white nationalists 
misogynistic jerks--they do it to activists 

133. On April 2, 2018, NewsmaX/The Rebel journalist John Cardillo
ohncardillo) has 2.1M followers, only 104
RTs on this. #Shadowbanning?.

 

 

 






 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 36 of 78 Page 36 of 78

134. On March 16, 2018, Federalist editor/j ournalist Robert Tracinski
(@Tracinski) tweeted: ?So we get shadowbanning, and totally arbitrary Twitter
suspensions, and Twitter throttling the traf?c of people they don?t like and
controlling what articles you can and can't tweet links to.?

135. On March 9, 2018, The Canary journalist Steve Topple
(@lVIrTopple) tweeted: ?Twitter is stopping disabled activists from ?ghting for
their human rights. Everyone should know about this.

My article on the '#ShadowBanning? of @Nico1aCJeffery, @paulapeters2,
@depresseddawg74 @BobEllardl of @Dis_PPL_Protest.

READ AND SHARE WIDELY:

8/ 03/ 09/twitter?stopping?disabled-


136. On March 3, 2018, independent journalist Bill Mitchell
(@mitchellvii) tweeted: ?Twitter #ShadowBanning? Today it took me 237
tweets to achieve fewer impressions than 90 tweets 2 weeks ago. That folks, is
shadow banning. My whole team at YourVoiceTM America has seen their
impressions per tweet cut in half over the past two weeks.?

137. On October 27, 2017, journalist and author Vlolet Blue
(@violetblue) tweeted: ?Here?s a good explanation of the shadowbanning that
Twitter is ramping up on sexuality-related accounts (site NSFW):
erosblog.com/ 20 
shit-saturdays-sossl?.

138. On April 14, 2017, Dilbert creator Scott Adams
(@ScottAdamsSays) tweeted: ?Is Twitter shadowbanning my tweets? Twitter
says no. My followers say yes.?

139. On October 6, 2017, Comedian Corinne Fisher
(@PhilanthropyGal) tweeted: Twitter is now shadowbanning who

have Views they don?t agree with, but rape threats any time I talk about sexual

 

 

 





Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 37 of 78 Page 37 0f78

are 

140. On April 9, 2018, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted:
?I?m sure they?re not doing anything with their algorithms to block or stymie
conservative thoughtl??! #amiright?. On May 10, 2017, Donald Trump Jr. also
tweeted: ?Amazing that numerous people told me @twitter censored this tweet
but not the stuff you savages (endearing form of the word) put up daily!?!?

141. On May 25, 2018, author Piper Kerman (@Piper) tweeted: ?Hello,
@TwitterSupport. Please remove the shadow ban on @brownblaze. 

142. On May 11, 2018, activist Eva Nagao (@evanagao) tweeted:
?When you shadow ban a user, their followers can see their tweets, but their

tweets don?t appear under hashtags they use, or in a general search of their

handle by non-followers. Why is @prisonculture under a shadow ban

@TwitterSupport??

143. On February 21, 2018, Republican Mayoral candidate Angelo Ray
Gomez (@AngeloRayGomez) tweeted: am really REALLY starting to get
pissed at the blatant attack on Trump Supporters the discrimination we are
receiving. Someone needs to say something about this. About the shadow ban
on social media, the physical attacks, ANTIFA, college campus.
discrimination.?

144. On January 29, 2018, Jenna Jameson (@jennaj ameson) tweeted:
?Why would twitter shadow ban little ole me??

145. On January 16, 2018, Project Veritas (@Project_Veritas) tweeted:
?Question we'd like to see asked at Senate Terrorism and Social Media:
#IsBigTechDoingEnough hearing tomorrow: Is @Twitter shadow banning
terrorists as actively as they shadow ban those strongly opposed to terrorism??

146. On May 23, 2018, political commentator and Turning Point USA
founder Charlie Kirk (@charliekirkl 1) tweeted: ?Wait, @realDonaldTrurnp is

not allowed to block accounts but @Twitter is allowed to shadowwban

 

 

 

 






 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 38 of 78 Page 38 of 78

conservatives, delete tweets, terminate accounts, censor materia1, and block
opposing views??

147. On February 20, 2018, commentator Candace Owens
(@RealCandaceO) tweeted: ?Twitter is currently purging the followers on
conservative accounts only. I just lost 3000 followers in one minute. Check out
the trending hashtag to con?rm that it is ONLY conservative accounts that are
being affected. Holding for an On January 15, 2018, Owens
also tweeted: am blocked by this account. What about you guys?
#shadowban @Proj ect_Veritas 

148. On January 12, 2018, actor James Woods (@RealJamesWoods)
HOW TWITTER CENSORS CONSERVATIVE
CONTENT: THE SHADOW BAN. The idea of a shadow ban is that you ban
someone, but they don't know that they've been banned, because they keep
posting, but nobody sees their content. So they just think that no one is
engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it.?

On March 14, 2018, President Donald Trump's Campaign Manager,
Brad Parscale (@parscale) tweeted: ?We won?t tolerate bias toward
conservatives or @realDonaldTrump supporters. We?re standing up for you
and demanding answers. @GOPChairwoman and I have sent the following
letter to @facebook?s Mark Zuckerberg and @Twitter?s @j ack Dorsey.
#StopTheBias?. The letter includes the following: ?Twitter claims its tools are
?ee from political bias, but has allegedly targeted predominantly Republicans
as part of a 'shadow banning' practice, which covertly limits those accounts'
Visibility on the platform.?

150. Millions of unnamed people of all political viewpoints with no
celebrity pro?le/status have also been suspended - an estimated total of over 5

million ?average? or ?reasonable person? users and over 15 million accounts

in the past 5 years.

 

 

 





Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 39 of 78 Page 39 of 78

151. Millions of actual abusers/people who openly violated the Twitter
rules have not been suspended. A simple Twitter search which includes any
variation of the following words: ?kill?, ?die?, ?assassinate?, ?suicide?, ?rape?,
?stab?, ?shoot?, ?bomb?, or any conceivable words associated with
violence, will produce innumerable results in the form of tweets by non?
suspended accounts which clearly violate Twitter's Terms of Service.

152. Twitter has admitted on multiple occasions that it makes mistakes,
both human and automated, which it must be held accountable for, to include
but not limited to the mistakes alleged in this suit, both active/deliberate and
passive/negligent.

153. On March 8, 2018, @TwitterSupport tweeted: ?We have a number
of systems to monitor and review content on Twitter, from safe search to spam.
We were recently alerted to an issue Where some accounts were caught in these
measures for longer than intended, limiting their visibility to people who
didn?t follow them.?

154. On December 22, 2017, @TwitterSupport tweeted: ?We've
identi?ed a bug that incorrectly marked accounts as containing sensitive
media, limiting the visibility of Tweets from affected accounts. We believe the
issue has been resolved. If you are still seeing an issue with your account
please reply here so we can investigate.? This is an admission by Twitter of
their negligence and reckless disregard with respect to the Terms and
Conditions/Contract of use for their public forum. Defendant cannot tell if
users have been affected negligence.

155. On November 15, 2017, @TwitterSupport admitted via tweet:
?Veri?cation has long been perceived as an endorsement. We gave veri?ed
accounts visual prominence on the service which deepened this perception. We
should have addressed this earlier but did not prioritize the work as we should

have. We are conducting an initial review of veri?ed accounts and will remove

 

 

 

 





 

Case Document 1 Flled 06/05/18 Page 40 of 78 Page 40 of78

veri?cation from accounts whose behavior does not fall within these new
guidelines. We will continue to review and take action as We work towards a
new program we are proud of.? This admission-details how viewpoint
discrimination was re-applied to the veri?cation process on Twitter, and how
unverifying/deverifying users is an active process of viewpoint discrimination.
156. Twitter regularly camou?ages its censorship by alleging abuse via
@TwitterSupport and @TwitterSafety. When the unconscionable and
extremely biased perspective of @TwitterSafety is removed from its tweets
and replaced with a reasonable person's interpretation of what actually
happened, viewpoint discrimination becomes apparent.

157. On October 30, 2017, @TwitterSafety tweeted: ?There?s been
confusion around the recent suspension of Roger Stone?s account because we
weren't clear enough. So we wanted to explain what happened, and our
decision. Roger Stone?s account was permanently suspended for violating our
Abusive Behavior policy multiple times this year. His Tweets targeted
individuals with harassment, indirect violent threats, and encouraged others to
harass these individuals.? No police reports were ?led for harassment and/or
threatening behavior, thereby the allegation is not only unfounded but
potentially defamatory (this suit does not allege defamation) in the case that
Twitter as a company knew that Roger Stone was not actually harassing or
threatening anyone, but rather politically criticizing public ?gures in a harsh
but acceptable manner for a public forum, and decided to knowingly render a
false public statement about Mr. Stone in an of?cial press release. The
responses to Twitter's decision by ordinary, reasonable people were
overwhelmingly negative and critical. Thus, this is an admission by Twitter
that they portray viewpoint censorship as solving behavioral problems in order
to skirt fair critique (and legal grounds) regarding their public forum, as is

alleged here. (Moving the goalposts when convenient.)

 

 

 






 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 41 of 78
Page 41 of 78

158. On March 1, 2018, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey ack) admitted that
Twitter should be held accountable for censoring users via tweets: ?We?re
committing Twitter to help increase the collective health, openness, and
civility of public conversation, and to hold ourselves publicly accountable
towards progress. Why? We love instant, public, global messaging and
conversation. It?s what Twitter is and it?s why we?re here. But we didn?t fully
predict or understand the real-world negative consequences. We acknowledge
that now, and are determined to ?nd holistic and fair solutions. We?ve focused
most of our efforts on removing content against our terms, instead of building
a systemic framework to help encourage more healthy debate, conversations,
and critical thinking. This is the approach we now need.? Twitter?s primary
focus as admitted by their CEO is the removal of tweets. Almost 100% of the
responses to Jack Dorsey's tweets on March 1, 2018 were negative/critical,
including many users who asked Dorsey to overturn existing suspensions and
stop participating in viewpoint discrimination.

159. Twitter does not have a human appeals system as part of their

Customer system. Rather, the

existing system is entirely automated, and automatically rejects appeals. Thus,

even a user who has been suspended via a bug has to rely on the hopes that
they have a connection who works at Twitter, or that members of the public
who aren't suspended take up their cause and that the Defendant listens to
them by proxy. The actual suspensions are handled by members of other
departments, such as Twitter VP ?Del Harvey? (@delbius), a person who
operates using a false name in order to avoid public accountability.

160. When Milo Ylannopoulos (@Nero) was suspended on July 19,
2016, over 200,000 users tweeted in the hashtag #FreeMilo, but his account
was not restored. When actress Rose McGowan (@RoseMcGowan) was

suspended from Twitter on October 12, 2017, 60,000 users tweeted for her

 

 

 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 42 of 78 Page 42 0f78

account to be restored, and it was re-enabled Within 6 hours. This presents a
clear double standard where the voice of the reasonable public is ignored on
Twitter, thus Twitter manages its public forums with complete reckless
disregard for the average user and their First Amendment rights.

161. Therefore, logically, it can be assessed by a(ny) reasonable person
that Twitter is not and cannot be a Good Faith manager or neutral
arbiter/arbitrator of its public forums, has admitted so publicly via its CEO
Jack Dorsey ack) and company accounts (to include @TwitterSupport,
@TwitterSafety and @Policy) and that its enforcement of its Terms and
Conditions is inconsistent, selective and subject to incontrovertible bias. This
honorable Court should act based on all of the information listed in this
complaint, and award injunctive and declarative relief.

E. Knight First Amendment Center V. Trump

162. The Southern District of New York Court concluded the following
in Knight First Amendment Center v. Trump (17 Civ. 5205):

163. President Trump and Twitter's actions induced a legally
cognizable injury?.

164. ?We hold that portions of the @realDonaldTrump account the
?interactive space? where Twitter users may directly engage with the content of
the President?s tweets are properly analyzed under the ?public forum?
doctrines set forth by the Supreme Court, that such space is a designated public
forum, and that the blocking of the plaintiffs based on their political speech
constitutes viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment.?

165. ?We conclude that we have jurisdiction to entertain this dispute.
Plaintiffs have established legal injuries that are traceable to the conduct of the
President and Daniel Scavino and, despite defendants? suggestions to the
contrary, their injuries are redressable by a favorable judicial declaration.

Plaintiffs lack standing, however, to sue Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who is

 

 

 

 






 

Case Document 1 Flled 06/05/18 Page 43 of 78 Page 43 of78

dismissed as a defendant. Hope Hicks is also dismissed as a defendant, in light
of her resignation as White House Communications Director. Turning to the
merits of plaintiffs? First Amendment claim, we hold that the speech in which
they seek to engage is protected by the First Amendment and that the President
and Scavino exert governmental control over certain aspects of the
@realDonaldTrump account, includinq the interactive space of the tweets sent
from the account. That interactive space is susceptible to analysis under the
Supreme Court?s forum doctrines, and is properly characterized as a
designated public forum. The viewpoint-based exclusion of the individual
plaintiffs ??om that designated public forum is proscribed by the First
Amendment and cannot be justi?ed by the President?s personal First
Amendment interests. In sum, defendants? motion for summary judgment is
granted in part and denied in part, and plaintiffs? cross-motion for summary
judgment is granted in part and denied in part.?

F. Electronic Frontier Foundation Amicus Curiae Brief on Knight First

Amendment Center v. Trump

166. EFF Attorney Mitchell L. Stoltz penned all of the following:


a. President Trump?s use of @realDonaldTrump to announce US. policy
and communicate directly with the American people is just one example of
how Twitter and other social media are widely used by of?cials and agencies
at all levels of government across the country. Social media has proved to be
an ef?cient way for government to communicate Vital information to the
public. Indeed, as was seen with recent spate of natural disasters, social media
serves critical public safety purposes. It is not surprising that some private

social media platforms are speci?cally designed for such purposes.

 

 

 





 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 44 of 78 Page 44 of 78

b. Given the pervasive use of social media, this Court must recognize
that individuals have First Amendment rights both to receive governmental
messages transmitted through social media as well as to participate in the
communicative forums created by them. And this Court must ?nd that the
President?s viewpoint-based blocking of the plaintiffs burdens their First
Amendment rights, and is thus unconstitutional.

0. President Trump?s use of Twitter has familiar historical analogs. Past
US. Presidents adopted new communication technologies to engage directly
with the public. Fireside Chats were delivered directly into Americans?
homes by radio.

(1. Eisenhower broadcast Presidential announcements on public access
television. And starting with the 1960 election, Presidential candidate debates
were televised as well. And what was so obvious with those historic analogs,
should be as obvious now. It would have been plainly impermissible for the
President to punish certain individuals by making it more dif?cult for them to
get these broadcasted messages than every other American. A court surely
would have rejected a President?s attempt to get a court order barring all
broadcasters from momentarily delivering their signal to certain viewers
disfavored by the President.

i e. The result should be no different merely because social media
platforms make such blocking so easy. What might have required a court order
before is now easily accomplishable as a feature of the platforms. But the

effect remains the same: disfavored citizens are punished.

I. SOCIAL MEDIA HAS BEEN VVIDELY ADOPTED BY
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES AND OFFICIALS AT ALL LEVELS TO
COMNIUNICATE TO AND WITH THEIR CONSTITUENTS.

 

 

 






Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 45 of 78 Page 45 of78

f. Governments all over the country indeed, all over the word use
various social media platforms to disseminate important information to the
public, and to debate the policies of the day with each other and with their
constituents, all in a rapid and ?eely accessible manner.

In 2016, a United Nations study on the use of social media and other web"
based tools for the delivery of government services online and for the
participation of the public, reported that 152 member states out of 193
(roughly 80%) include links to social media and other networking features on
their national websites. U.N. Department of Econ and Soc. Affairs, United
Nations Eu Government Survey 2016: E~Government in Support of
Sustainable Development, at 65, UN. Sales No. E.16.II.H.2 (2016).5 And 20
percent of member states reported that engagement through social media led to
new policy decisions and services. Id. at 68. Social media was viewed as a
low-cost, ready-made solution for posting basic public?sector information and

for citizen collaboration, regardless of a country?s economic level.

g. In the last decade as the use of social media has grown generally, the
political use of social media has increasingly factored in US. national and
state elections, the legislative process, and how government agencies offer
services to the public. Over 10,000 social media pro?les for
US. federal agencies and sub?agencies have been registered with the United
States Digital Service.6 And that impressive number is an underestimate since
many agencies remain unregistered despite their active participation on social
media. For example, the United States Department of Agriculture?s Food and
Nutrition Service actively uses Twitter (@USDANutrition) to promote healthy
food options and opportunities for nutrition education but has not registered its

account with the U.S.D.S.

 

 

 

 






Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 46 of 78

 

Page 46 of 78

Federal agencies frequently used and continue to use social media to promote
US. policy interests. The Obama Administration?s Department of Health and
Human Services? social media feeds advocated for passage of the Affordable
Care Act. After passage, it continued to educate the public on enrollment
periods and new protections for healthcare, with digital advertisements driving
at least 4 million users to Sign up with HealthCare. gov in the ?rst year.

h. Similarly, the U.S. Department of State?s Twitter page, @StateDept,
routinely posts statements, photographs, and links regarding of?cial visits with
foreign dignitaries and the US. position on world events. Members of
Congress are also actively engaged in social media as a method of conversing
with their constituents and connecting with their communities. All 100
Senators and the overwhelming majority of Representatives use social media.
Congressional Research Service, Social Media in Congress: The Impact of
Electronic Media on Member Communications, R44509, (May 26, 2016).8 In
a survey of members of Congress and their staff, the Congressional
Management Foundation found that 76% of respondents felt that social media
enabled more meaningful interactions with constituents; 70% found that social
media made them more accountable to their constituents; and 71% said that
constituent comments directed to the representative on social media would
in?uence an undecided lawmaker. Congressional Management Foundation,

#SocialCongressZOlS, (2015).

i. After large policy announcements from the executive branch,
Members of Congress often disseminate their opinions Via social media. When
former Secretary of State John Kerry gave a speech supporting military action
in Syria, members of Congress took to Twitter and even used the'platform to

advance public petitions to prevent military action.

 

 

 






Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 47 of 78 Page 47 of78

j. The use of social media as an ef?cient method of communication
between governmental offices and the public is perhaps best seen with state
and local governments. Local police departments, councilpersons, mayors, and
state legislatures use their Facebook, Twitter, and other social media feeds as
real-time bulletin boards for important community information.
The crucial public bene?ts of social media use by local governments was
made starkly obvious during the recent natural disasters. These uses highlight
the real dangers of denying individuals access to the information disseminated
by their government via social media. Consider the multiple hurricanes that
made landfall in the United States in 2017. The Mayor of San Juan Puerto
Rico used her Twitter feed, @CarmenYulinCruz, to direct the city towards
emergency resources in the wake of Hurricane Maria and alert residents on the
status of the slow and ongoing recovery. Similarly, the Mayor of Houston,
@SylvesterTurner, and the Mayor of Dallas, @Mike_Rawlings, provided their
residents with the latest information on Hurricane Harvey relief through
Twitter and other social media pages. And the governor of Florida,
@FLGochott, tweeted in both English and Spanish to alert citizens on
evacuation from Hurricane Irma, emergency recovery spending in the state
legislature, and state bills to offer support to Puerto Rico in the devastating
aftermath of their own hurricane.
k. During the recent firestorms in California, residents in Sonoma and
Napa counties could rely on local officials and agencies using social media to
transmit important information, including evacuation orders and resources
about fire containment, emergency contact information, medical services, and
food bank need.

1. Crucially, these feeds are viewed as authoritative and reliable in times
of public safety and civic confusion. After Hurricane Harvey, Mayor Turner

published a Facebook post to dispel rumors that citizenship documentation

 

 

 

 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 48 of 78 Page 48 of78

1 was needed to receive disaster aid. This post, translated into six languages, was
2 designed to ensure the people of Houston received accurate information.

3 m. Local police departments also update the public through social media
4 about ongoing investigations, and, in many cases, individual access to these

5 feeds is necessary for residents and other people in the area to timely assess

6 public safety. The Boston Police Department updated the city in the aftermath
7 of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, including telling residents to shelter in
8 place and then alerting when the bombing suspect was captured.

9 n. Similarly, the Las Vegas Police Department used Twitter to give the
10 community real? time updates after the October 2017 mass-shooting at a

11 country music festival, including disclosing to the public that there was only
12 one shooter.

13 0. Public officials commonly use nominally ?personal? social media

14 pro?les for these of?cial communications. For example, when John Kerry

15 became Secretary of State in 2013, he inherited and used the handle

16 @StateDept. But one year later he began promoting U.S. diplomatic policy

17 through the handle @JohnKerry as his of?cial twitter feed. The 

18 handle was not created until 2015. Before then, Former President Barrack

19 Obama used his named account @BarackObama for campaign materials and
20 would sign messages from the @WhiteHouse handle with ?b0? to indicate his
21 authorship. When President?elect Trump decided, as he told British press in
22 January 2017, that he intended to keep his named Twitter handle,
23 @realDonaldTrump, because it garnered more followers than the 
24 handle at the time, he was in no way outside the norm. Heads of government
25 institutions and political leaders will on average have more followers on their
26 individual accounts than on their o?icial or institutional ones. Mickoleit, A.,
27 ?Social Media Use by Governments: A Policy Primer to Discuss Trends,

28 Identify Policy Opportunities and Guide Decision Makers,? OECD Working

 

 

 

 






 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 49 of 78 Page 49 of78

Papers on Public Governance, No. 26, OECD Publishing, Paris (2014).
Additionally, researchers studying the of online news have found
that social media users and news readers do not typically distinguish between
institutional and personal accounts when accessing news stories; therefore, it is
unlikely that the average Twitter user in the United States distinguishes
between President Donald Trump?s use of @realDonaldTrump and his use of
when accessing the accounts or reading about them.

p. In analogous contexts, courts have found of?cials to be conducting
governmental business despite their use of personal accounts on private third-
party communications services. For example, courts interpreting public
records laws have found that emails sent ?'om and received by the private
email accounts of governmental officials to be public records. In so doing,
these courts have focused on the function of the email accounts as, at least in
part, a platform for conducting public business rather than a private account or
a privately?run service.

q. The DC. Circuit recently ordered the disclosure of emails containing
government business sent to and from the personal email account of John
Holdren, the former head of the Of?ce of Science and Technology Policy,
?nding that the use of a private domain does not subvert citizens? right to
know what the department is up to. Competitive Enterprise Institute v. Of?ce
of Science Technology Policy, 827 F.3d 145, 150 (DC. Cir. 2016).

r. States courts interpreting state records laws are ruling similarly, with
the Supreme Court of California most recently determining the accessibility of
public records on private email. See City of San Jose v. Superior Court of
Santa Clara, 2 Cal 5th 608, 629 (2017); Grif?s v. Pinal Cty., 156 P.3d 418, 421
(2007); Bradford v. Director, Employment Security Department, 128
20 (2003); Res Reporter Co., Inc. V. Columbus County, 390,
393 (2007); Burton v. Mann, No. 47488, 2008 WL 8779064 at *3(Va. Cir Jan.

 

 

 






 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 50 of 78 Page 50 of 78

30 2008); O?Neill v. Shoreline, 240 P.3d 1149 (2010). State Attorneys General
have agreed. MD 81 Op. Att?y Gen. 140 (1996); NB. Op. Att?y Gen. 2008-0-
15 (2008); OK AG 12 (2009); Tex. Att?y Gen. ORB-1790 (2001).

II. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT
OF ACCESS TO THE SOCIAL MEDIA FEEDS OF GOVERNIVIENTAL
OFFICIALS AND THIS RIGHT IS INFRINGED WHEN THEY
ARE BLOCKED BECAUSE THE OFFICIAL DISLIKES THEIR
VIEWPOINT.

5. Given that agencies and of?cials use social media to convey important
public safety information, denying individuals access to those feeds because of
a disapproval of their Viewpoints [is a Violation of their First Amendment
Rights]

t. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is tracking the
issue as it arises in state courts throughout the country through their online
comparative Open Government Guide, as it endangers lives. And denying
disfavored citizens access to policy announcements and debates among
legislators hinders their ability to monitor the performance of their
governmental of?cials and otherwise participate in their own governance.

u. Such discriminatory denial of access also violates the First
Amendment. When governmental events and communications are generally
open to the public, viewpoint-based exclusion of some individuals is
unconstitutional.

v. This requirement of equal access was the law before the advent of
social media, when governmental of?cials and agencies communicated to the
public through the press, playing its ?surrogate? role. See Richmond
Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 US. 555, 573 (1980) (explaining surrogate
role the press plays in channeling information from the government to the

public). Discrimination against a newspaper was in effect discriminating

 

 

 





 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 51 of 7&age 51 of 73

against that newspaper?s readers. The law should be no different now that
of?cials and agencies can communicate directly with the public rather than
through news media intermediaries: ?The First Amendment guarantees a
limited right of access to news regarding activities and operations of
government. This right includes, at a minimum, a right of access to
information made available to the public or made available generally to the
press.? Times?Picayune Pub. Corp. v. Lee, 15 Media L. Rep. 1713, 1988 WL
36491, at *9 (ED. La. 1988) (emphasis added) (nullifying a sheriff?s direction
that his officers not process a newspaper?s public records requests, nor notify it
of or allow its reporters to attend press conferences, nor notify it of signi?cant
events, such as shootings and traf?c fatalities).

W. The Second Circuit thus held that the First Amendment rights of ABC
News ?and its viewing public? would ?be impaired by the exclusion? of ABC
from election night campaign rallies that were otherwise open to the news
media. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Cuomo, 570 F.2d 1080 (2d
Cir. 1977). ?[0]nce there is a public function, public comment, and
participation by some of the media, the First Amendment requires equal access
to all of the media or the rights of the First Amendment would no longer be
tenable.? Id. The Second Circuit specifically rejected the argument that the
right of access involved was ?necessarily the outer limit of the constitutional
protection of the First Amendment.? Likewise, in Stevens v. New York Racing
Ass?n, Inc., 665 F. Supp. 164, 175 (E.D.N.Y. 1987), the court ruled that a
photojournalist could not be barred ?om bringing his camera into the racetrack
paddock areas that were otherwise open to all other journalists because the
event sponsor disapproved of the way the photojournalist covered the event.
Such content?based restrictions on access were prohibited. But because of the
important First Amendment rights involved, even content-neutral access

restrictions would be unconstitutional unless the plaintiff could demonstrate

 

 

 





Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 52 of 78 page 52 of78

that ?the restriction does not serve a legitimate government objective or that
the bene?ts derived from the restriction are fewer than the harm it causes.?

x. This equal access rule has wide acceptance in courts around the
country in a wide variety of contexts. The rule was applied to enjoin the
exclusion of a teacher?s union newspaper from the School Board press room in
Florida, United Teachers of Dade v. Stierheim, 213 F. Supp. 2d 1368, 1372?73
(S.D. Fla. 2002), and the exclusion ?om city council meetings in Boston of
TV stations being operated by management during a labor strike.
Westinghouse Broadcasting Co. V. Dukakis, 409 F. Supp. 895 (D. Mass. 1976).
It was applied to ensure that an underground newspaper in Iowa had access to
police records, Quad?City Community News Service, Inc. v.

Jebens, 334 F. Supp. 8, 13 (SD. Iowa 1971) (explaining that the information
?has already been made available to the public insofar as other media?s
reporters are the public?s representatives?),

and to guarantee that all media outlets had access to discovery materials the
judge had shared with one media outlet. Anderson v. Cryovac, 805 F.2d 1, 10
(lst Cir. 1986). And it was applied against the Mayor of Honolulu who had
excluded a reporter, whom the mayor found was ?irresponsible, inaccurate,
biased, and malicious? in his reporting, from an otherwise open press
conference. Borreca V. Fasi, 369 F. Supp. 906, 910 (D. Hawaii 1974).

y. The exclusion of individuals because of government disapproval of
their Viewpoints raises special concerns that of?cials could manipulate the
public?s perception of them by disseminating their messages only through
favorable ?lters. ?Hand-picking those in attendance,? the Borreca court
observed, ?intensi?es the manipulation.?

z. That the public, in these cases through the press, could ultimately get
the information from other, less direct channels does not cure the constitutional

defect. In Southwestern Newspapers V. Curtis, 584 SW. 2d 362, 363, 369

 

 

 

 





 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 53 of 78 Page 53 0f78

Civ. App. 1979), the court enjoined a district attorney ?om requiring that
reporters from a certain newspaper make appointments to gain access to
of?cial news sources, while he made them available without appointments to
all other media. As the court in Westinghouse, 409 F. Supp. at 896, found,
access must be provided with ?equal convenience.? See also Stierheim, 213 F.
Supp. 2d at 1374 (?nding First Amendment Violation where reporters were
?nevertheless deprived of the newsgathering environment and opportunities?
afforded to the other news media). Nor does it matter that the government
shares the access decisions with a private actor. In Telemundo of Los Angeles
v. City of Los Angeles, 283 F. Supp. 2d 1095, 1103 (CD. Cal. 2003), the Court
found that a TV station had a First Amendment right to cover the city?s of?cial
E1 Grito ceremony because the city and its nongovernmental co-presenters
permitted another broadcaster to do so. That the city shared, and in some
situations yielded, decisionwmaking authority with a private civic organization
and another broadcaster, did not diminish the city?s obligation to provide equal
access. See also Southeastern Promotions Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 US. 546 (1975)
(applying public forum doctrine to privately owned theater leased to the city).

aa. The First Amendment thus protects access to governmental
communications, ensuring that individuals are not denied speech alerting them
in times of crisis, distributing necessary information about government
services, and providing transparency about elected and appointed of?cials?
actions and statements.

MENIBERS OF THE PUBLIC HAVE A FIRST AIVIENDMENT
RIGHT TO COMMUNICATE WITH GOVERNIVIENTAL OFFICIALS
THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA WHEN SUCH CHANNELS ARE
GENERALLY OPEN TO THE THIS RIGHT IS INFRINGED
WHEN THEYARE BLOCKED BECAUSE THE OFFICIAL DISLIKES

THEIR VIEWPOINT.

 

 

 






 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 54 of 78 Page 54 0f78

ab. Certain social media platforms in widespread use by governmental
agencies and of?cials allow them not only to communicate to the public, but
allow the public to communicate back to the agency and with each other, thus
creating forums for private speech. In so doing, the government endows the
public with First Amendment rights to speak in these forums. Just what kind of
forum is created will depend on how the official speci?cally operates it. But
viewpoint discrimination resulting in the targeted expulsion of individual
citizens and residents ?om these forums is barred regardless of whether it is a
public, limited or designated, or non?public forum. Perry Education Ass?n v.
Perry Local Educators?s Ass?n, 460 US. 37, 46 (1982) (holding that even in a
non?public forum, a speaker may not be excluded as ?an effort to suppress
expression merely because public of?cials oppose the speaker?s views?).
ac. The social media platforms federal, state, and local governments
commonly use - such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram create such forums.
And government officials and agencies commonly use them for these
democratizing purposes. As the Supreme Court recently recognized, 
Twitter, users can petition their elected representatives and otherwise engage
with them in a direct manner. Indeed, Governors in all 50 states and almost
every Member of Congress have set up accounts for this purpose.?
Packingham v. North Carolina, US. 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1735, (2017). Thus, in
Davison v. Plowman, 2017 WL 105984, (E.D. Va,
an. 10, 2017), the court found that the comment section to the Commonwealth
Attorney?s Facebook page to be a limited public forum since the County
commenters ?to engage [their local government through social
media by submitting . . . comments and questions regarding posted topics.?
These forums are by their nature, and often by default, open to large segments
of the population potentially every person with access to the Internet around

the world and are not constrained by size, capacity, and even time, like

 

 

 





 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 55 of 78 Page 55 of 78

physical spaces.

ad. The US. federal government has operated social media pro?les in
this way for some time. The US. Department of Education, for example,
routinely holds ?of?ce hours? where parents and students can ask
about the federal student loan process on Twitter using the tag SA.
Department of Education uses the Twitter handle SA to reply directly to
individuals? questions and then compiles questions and responses on a
separate site for increased visibility.

ae. The compiled Twitter questions and answers through the tag
SA can be found for each month at 
Similarly, the Transportation and Security Administration maintains a Twitter
feed where individuals, regardless of their nationality, can submit questions
about safety regulations for ?ying to, from, and within the United States by
tweeting to the handle 

af. At the local level, representatives and councilmembers open their
social media pro?les to their constituents by holding online versions of town
halls, even promoting hashtags (searchable links) where constituents can
submit their opinions and advocate for changes to improve their communities.
In 2015, the mayor of Boston, @Marty_Walsh, announced a call for
collaboration on both social media and in the press to revamp Boston?s City
Hall and the surrounding plaza. Residents took to Twitter using the tag
#CityHallPlaza to submit recommendations for the space, upload pictures as a
part of the campaign, and even submit their detailed proposals for the space
so that other engaged citizens could learn more.

ag. In Cleveland, Mayor Frank Jackson, holds ?Twitter town halls?
where residents can tweet questions to him and he responds via live video. The
bene?ts of a direct engagement forum to both government and the public are

readily apparent in the emergency services context.

 

 

 





Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 56 of 78 Page 56 of 73

During Hurricane Harvey, the Mayor of Houston was able to converse with his
constituents on Facebook to deliver important information, dispel rumors in
order to limit confusion during the crisis, and in one case ensure that
emergency medical services could attend to a baby whose breathing machine
would soon lose power.
ah. This single interaction demonstrates that even though government
social media serves a widespread audience, the capabilities for tailored and
direct response are remarkable. On a single tweet from President Trump,
citizens can respond directly to the President and comment on his policy
announcements, other lawmakers can respond to the President and comment
on the policy, and citizens can then respond to those lawmakers? responses. For
example, President Trump?s suggestion that New York Senator Chuck
Schumer bore some policy responsibility for the October 31, 2017 terrorist
attack in New York City started a multi-level debate on immigration policy
that included other U.S. senators and citizens from different sides of the
political spectrum.

ai. After Representative Ted Lieu, @tedlieu, tweeted his letter calling for
a congressional hearing on U.S. military deployment in Niger, individuals both
supporting and opposing his position, responded with comments offering
suggestions on the direction and focus of such a hearing. It is clear then that in
practice, social media platforms like Twitter that allow for the general public
to comment upon governmental posts, or communicate directly with of?cials,
agencies, or to otherwise participate in a publicly viewable debate, ?mction
like the paradigmatic speakers? corner in a public park. [See Perry, 460 U.S. at
45 (identifying streets and parks as?quintessential public forums? for
?assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public
Indeed, governmental social media accounts probably host these

functions more than parks and streets currently do.

 

 

 

 






 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 57 of 78 Page '57 Of 73

As the Supreme Court recognized just last term, ?While in the past there may
have been dif?culty in identifying the most important places (in a spatial
sense) for the exchange of Views, today the answer is clear. It is cyberspace?
the ?Vast democratic forums of the Internet? in general, Reno V. American Civil
Liberties Union, 521 US. 844, 868 (1977), and social media in particular.?
Packingham, 137 S. Ct. at 1735 (included citation abbreviated) (explaining
that a denial of access to social media was a signi?cant abridgement of First
Amendment rights given modern civic and social communication).
Viewpoint discrimination in such forums plainly violates the First
Amendment.
CONCLUSION

aj. The President?s blocking of private Twitter users based on their
disfavorable View of him is unconstitutional. Social media use by governments
around the world, on every level of government is the rule now, not the
exception. And while social media currently supplements other methods of
communication to and with the public, one could credibly predict that it will
shortly become the predominant form of communication. As a result, members
of the public must have a cognizable First Amendment right to receive such
otherwise public communications from the government, and to participate in
the forums that are created. The First Amendment prohibits Viewpoint
discrimination in all analogous, pre-digital situations. It must do so here as
well.?

167. The EFF 's View, seen above, can likewise be interpreted as factual
indirect/direct support for Twitter as public forum from the Electronic Frontier
Foundation in both official and legal capacities.

G. Twitter as Public Forum by extension

 

 

 






Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 58 of 78 Page 58 of 78

168. On March 5, 2007, future President and then-US Senator (D-IL)
Barack Obama joined Twitter. He quickly became one of the most followed
users on the platform. On August 15, 2008, Senator Obama became the most
followed user on Twitter, with 58,000 followers. From that point on, the
majority of new Twitter users joined to follow Senator, Candidate and ?lture
President Barack Obama, who tweeted primarily in an of?cial capacity via his
campaign staff and assistants, using public money in the form of both
campaign contributions and tax dollars. Many journalists and news outlets
cited Barack Obama's use of social media as critical to both of his Presidential
election victories.

169. Barack Obama?s subsequent Presidential victory over the then-
relatively-absent from social media Senator John McCain of Arizona, who had
less than 1,000 followers in August 2008 and ?doesn't use email? was directly
tied to Twitter's subsequent massive in?ux of growth and revenue. Had John
McCain defeated Barack Obama, it is almost certain that Twitter would have
disappeared or been largely vacated by 2009, as previous social networks had
(MySpace, Friendster).

170. Beginning in June 2009 and carrying through to May 2010,
Twitter's servers were overloaded due to an in?ux of user growth as well as
many offshore direct-denial-of?service and other 'hacker' attacks on
their servers. President Barack Obama provided both of?cial public support in
his of?cial capacity and private support as a citizen in order to alleviate the
downtime experienced by Twitter.

172. The material support of the President of the United States of
America was a key factor in venture capital raises for Twitter in 2009
Twitter's biggest pre-Obama?assistance raise was $35 million, and their
valuation was less than $1 billion. Many in the company, including Jack

Dorsey and Dick Costolo had considered ?shutting it down? due to

 

 

the

 

 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 59 of 78 Page 59 of 78

expenses, which exceeded their revenues of only $400,000/year. After

2 President Obama's intervention in/with Twitter and the popular success of the
3 ?Town Hall? events which he participated in as the 44th President of the United
4 States, Twitter was able to raise $200 million in December 2010 and their

5 valuation skyrocketed to $3.7 billion, followed by a raise of $800 million in

6 March 2011, and another $300 million in December 2011, with a valuation of
7 $8.4 billion. The involvement of the US Federal Government made Twitter

8 ?too big to fail?.

9 173. Without (that) direct support from the President of the United

10 States and the United States Federal Government, Twitter would have been

11 unable to continue and maintain its day-to-day operations, and thus a

12 permanent relationship/contract between the US Federal Government and

13 Twitter was formed. Barack Obama (@barackobama, approx. 103 million

14 followers) was the most followed user on Twitter between 2008 and 2018,

15 until being recently dethroned by singers Justin Bieber (@justinbieber, approx.
16 106 million followers) and Katy Perry (@katyperry, approx. 110 million

1 7 followers).

18 174. 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, in his official

19 capacity, conducted multiple ?Town Halls? where taxpayer money was
20 materially used to bene?t both his of?ce and personal status, as well as Twitter
21 as a platform, including the 2009 and 2011 Town Halls which were two of the
22 most followed/engaged/viewed events in Twitter history, as well as two of the
23 most participated?in events in the history of the internet itself.

24 175. On June 17, 2009, the Obama Administration made a formal

25 request to Twitter to remain in operations in order to ?keep Iran tweeting?,

26 instead of shutting down as planned, thus extending the entire platform to

27 'public forum' status via the will and intent of the US Federal Government.

28

 

 

 

 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 60 of 78 page 60 0f78

176. Thereby logically, via use of taxpayer funds as well as the of?ce in
2 its of?cial capacity, in light of the recent ?ndings of Knight First Amendment
3 Center v. Trump, it can be concluded that Twitter, which would have been

4 unsustainable and unpro?table without President Barack Obama?s substantial
5 use of and contributions to the website and company, is entirely a public

6 forum, as taxpayers have paid for it and/or invested in its existence with tax

7 monies and participatory actions resulting in advertising revenue between

8 2008-present, where tax dollars effectively or literally were used to maintain

9 and operate Twitter's tools and services, and thus Defendant Twitter has no

10 right to deny taxpayers access to a public forum which they have

11 funded/invested in/paid for on a semi?regular basis, without a vote or

12 representation.

13

14 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

15 Violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution

16 (Declaratory and Injunctive Relief)

1 7

18 177. Plaintiffs re?allege and incorporate by reference each and every

19 preceding paragraph as though set forth fully herein.

20 178. Defendant?s blocking, suspending, shadowbanning, limiting, and/or
21 unverifying of the Accounts of Plaintiffs and Others from the

22 @realDonaldTrurnp account as well as the ability to follow and interact with
23 other public ?gures/offlcials/candidates violates the First Amendment because
24 it imposes a viewpoint?based restriction on Plaintiffs and Others' participation
25 in a public forum.

26 179. Defendant's blocking, suspending, shadowbanning, limiting, and/or
27 unverifying of the Accounts of Plaintiffs and Others from the

28 @realDonaldTrump account as well as the ability to follow and interact with

 

 

 

 






 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 61 of 73Page 61 of 73

other public figures/officials/candidates violates the First Amendment because
it imposes a VieWpoint?based restriction on the Plaintiffs and Others? access to
official statements the President and other public ?gures/of?cials/candidates
otherwise make(s) available to the general public.

180. Defendant?s blocking, suspending, shadowbanning, limiting, and/or
unverifying of the Accounts of Plaintiffs and Others from the
@realDonaldTrump account as well as the ability to follow and interact with
other public ?gures/of?cials/candidates violates the First Amendment because
it imposes a viewpoint-based restriction on Plaintiffs and Others' ability to
petition the government for redress of grievances.

181. Defendant?s blocking, suspending, shadowbanning, limiting, and/or
unverifying of the Accounts of Plaintiffs and Others from the
@realDonaldTrump account as well as the ability to follow and interact with
other public ?gures/officials/candidates violates the First Amendment because
it imposes a viewpoint?based restriction on Plaintiffs and Others right to hear.

182. Defendant's blocking, suspending, shadowbanning, limiting, and/or
unverifying of the Accounts of the Plaintiffs in particular as candidates for
public office as well as the ability to follow and interact with other public
gures/ of?cials/ candidates in?inges and violates their First Amendment
ability to create a public forum for their followers as well, as candidates for
public of?ce have the same weight in creating public forums as elected
of?cials, and their speech should be likewise equally upheld under the First
Amendment.

183. The dangers that would result from Twitter being able to hold itself
out as a public forum for individuals to communicate in ?Town Hall? forums
with their elected representatives (and other similar public forum
communications), on one hand, while allowing Twitter to ban users from

participating on its forum if it disagrees with their viewpoints, on the other, are

 

 

 






 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 62 of 7$age 62 of 73

self-evident. Individuals could be deprived of their most essential free?speech

rights based on internal Twitter corporate directives.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Federal Election rules, (47 US. Code 315)
(Declaratory and Injunctive Relief)

184. Plaintiffs re?allege and incorporate by reference each and every
preceding paragraph as though set forth fully herein.

185. Defendant's of
US Senate Candidate Craig R. Brittain and his principal campaign committee,
Brittain for US Senate, while promoting and verifying other campaigns such as
the campaigns of Sinema, Kelli Ward, Joe Arpaio, Martha McSally
and Deedra Abboud, constitutes a direct violation of 47 US. Code 315,
which states clearly:

186. ?If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally quali?ed
candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford
equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that of?ce in the use of
such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of
censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section. No
obligation is imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use
of its station by any such candidate.?

187. As Defendant relies on the use of Periscope on its platform to
conduct broadcasts, and numerous candidates have direct access to Periscope
and other methods of direct broadcasting via Twitter, it can logically be
concluded that Twitter is and/ or provides access to a ?broadcasting station? for
the intents and purposes expressed here, provided that President Trump's

Twitter account is upheld as a public forum, logically his Twitter account itself

 

 

 





 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 63 of 78.61%, 63 of 78

has ?broadcast access? as both @realDonaldTrump and have
streamed direct live broadcast content from their tweets.

188. Defendant also streams live video content from cable broadcast
stations to include, but not limited to CNN, ox News, Univision,
and many more, who also have accounts on Twitter which enable them to
communicate with their Viewers during the broadcasts. This furthers the claim
that Twitter itself is, in part or whole, a ?broadcasting station? for the purposes
of 47 US. Code 315, as it is a key part of television networks? increasing and

maintaining their viewership.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of Contract

(Declaratory and Injunctive Relief)

189. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every
preceding paragraph as though set forth ?illy herein.

190. The Twitter Terms of Service and Twitter Rules form a binding
written contract between Twitter and Plaintiffs and Others, governing their use
of Twitter. Implied in those contracts is the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing. This is particularly so because these contracts were presented to
Plaintiffs and Others on a take-it?or?leave-it basis, without any opportunity for
meaningful bargaining or negotiation. To the extent these contracts delegate
broad discretionary power to Twitter, Twitter is obligated to exercise those
powers fairly and in good faith. However, Defendant Twitter was the ?rst to
breach the contract by their own admission. Horton v. Horton, 254, Va.
111/115 (1997), states: ?Generally, a party who commits the first breach of a
contract is not entitled to enforce the contract.? ?Speci?cally, if the initial

breach is material, the other party to the contract is excused from performing

 

 

 






 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 64 of 7?age 64 of 78

[their] contractual obligations.? material breach is a failure to do
something that is so fundamental to the contract that the failure to perform the
obligation defeats an essential purpose of the contract.? In the case of Twitter,
it has committed millions of material breaches prior to the commission of a
single breach of its Terms of Service by any user.

191. Plaintiffs and Others added all existing value to the Accounts,
which have no default value, and Defendant was the ?rst to breach the
contract, converting that value. AS explained in Haslem v. Lockwood (1871):
?But it is said that if the manure was personal property, it was in the
possession of the owner of the fee, and the scraping it into heaps by the
plaintiff did not change the possession, but it continued as before, and that
therefore the plaintiff cannot recover, for he neither had the possession nor the
right to the immediate possession. The manure originally belonged to the
travelers whose animals dropped it, but it being worthless to them was
immediately abandoned; and whether it then became the property of the
borough of Stamford which owned the fee of the land on which the manure
lay, it is unnecessary to determine; for, if it did, the case ?nds that the removal
of the ?lth would be an improvement to the borough, and no objection was
made by any one to the use that the plaintiff attempted to make of it.
Considering the character of such accumulations upon highways in cities and
villages, and the light in which they are everywhere regarded in closely settled
communities, we cannot believe that the borough in this instance would have
had any objection to the act of the plaintiff in removing a nuisance that
affected the public health and the appearance of the streets. At all events, we
think the facts of the case Show a suf?cient right in the plaintiff to the

immediate possession of the property as against a mere wrong deer.?

 

 

 






 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 65 of 7?age 55 0f?78

Thus, Twitter accounts without their owners/authors are useless as manure
without farmers. Twitter's attempts to seize the Accounts likewise mirror the
events of Haslem v.Lockwood, in which the Defendant unlaw?illy took the
Plaintiff?s manure.

192. At all times, Plaintiffs and Others substantially complied with all of
Twitter?s Rules and Terms of Service, none of their tweets violated the letter or
spirit of any term in Twitter?s Terms of Service or Twitter Rules, and never
engaged in harassment or abuse of other users, nor promoted violence against
any individual or group, or used hateful imagery.

193. Defendant was bound by the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing in its agreements, terms, and policies, not to engage in any acts,
conduct, or omissions that would impair or diminish Plaintiffs and Others'
rights and bene?ts under the parties' agreements, and pursuant to the terms of
those agreements, they were supposed to have equal access to Twitter?s
platform so long as they complied with Twitter?s Rules and Terms of Service.
Twitter has, by the acts and omissions complained of herein, intentionally and
tortiously breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by
unfairly interfering with Plaintiffs and Others rights to receive the bene?ts of
their contracts with Twitter.

194. Defendant engaged in the foregoing acts and omissions by Twitter
with the knowledge that it was bound to act consistently with the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing. Those acts and omissions were not only failures to
act fairly and in good faith, but they were acts of oppression, fraud, and
malice. As a direct and proximate result of Twitter?s breach of contract,
Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, immediate and irreparable
injury in fact, including lost income, reduced donor and subscriber base, and

damage to brand, reputation, and goodwill, for which there exists no adequate

remedy at law.

 

 

 






 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 66 of 7?age 66 of 78

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Conversion
(Declaratory and Injunctive Relief)

195. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every
preceding paragraph as though set forth fully herein.

196. Plaintiffs emphasize .in this instance and restate the Third Cause of
Action, Breach of Contract, as the Conversion claim is inextricable from the
Breach of Contract claim.

197. Plaintiffs had ownership over and the right to possess the Accounts,
which they developed and cultivated at great cost, effort and expense. Over
the course of over 5 years, Plaintiffs invested countless hours and signi?cant
time and effort into cultivating a large follower base and Twitter presence for
the Accounts.

198. Defendant maintains an internal valuation of followers on its
platform at $250?$350 per follower. At all times, Twitter recognized that
followers on its platform are assets with independent economic value. It also
recognizes that accounts are assets owned solely by their owners, which
account owners may sell or assign to others. In truth, the valuation, particularly
of followers of a veri?ed account and especially celebrity followers, is much
higher than $250-$350 as celebrity followings cannot be purchased nor
valued. 1,700 celebrity followings each have immeasurable value that cannot
be equated/computed by simple math.

199. The verified @CraigRBrittain account had over 150,000 followers
at the time of its suspension on February 1, 2017. The @AuditTheMedia
account had 106,000 followers at the time of its suspension on February 2,
2017. The @SenatorBrittain (Brittain for US Senate) account had 118,000
followers at the time of its suspension on March 30, 2018. The accounts of

Brittain's staff members totaled over 32,000 combined followers at the time of

 

 

 






 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 67 of 7?age 67 of 78

their suspensions on May 23, 2018.

200. Defendant converted the Accounts by permanently banning
Plaintiffs from having access to them and by refusing to restore access after
Plaintiffs demanded that they be reinstated. Twitter?s interference with
Plaintiffs' right to possess the accounts was unwarranted, without justi?cation,
and has deprived Plaintiffs of their property rights in the Accounts. As a result
of Twitter?s tortious acts in preventing Plaintiffs from accessing the Accounts,
they have suffered, and will continue to suffer, immediate and irreparable
injury in fact, including lost income, reduced donor and subscriber base, and
damage to brand, reputation, and goodwill, for which there exists no adequate

remedy at law (A Crippling Blow).

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Antitrust Laws

(Declarative and Injunctive Relief)

201. Plaintiffs re?allege and incorporate by reference each and every preceding
paragraph as though set forth fully herein.

202. 15 US. Code 2 (Part of the Sherman Antitrust Act) states: ?Every
person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or
conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade
or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be
deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by
?ne not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person,
$1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said
punishments, in the discretion of the court.?

To meet the guidelines for a Section 2 violation, Twitter must be:

a. In possession of monopoly power in a given market.

 

 

 






 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 68 of 78page 6g Of78

b. Willfully acquiring/maintaining that power as distinguished from growth as
a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.
Twitter could also be violating Section 2 via:

c. Qualifying exclusionary or anticompetitive acts designed to establish a
monopoly.

d. Speci?c intent to monopolize; and

e. Dangerous probability of success.

There are currently only 3 major players in US social networking:

f. Facebook, which also owns Instagram, and controls over 33% of the US
social network market.

g. YouTube, owned by Google, which controls over 33% of the US social
network market.

h. Twitter, which also owns Periscope, and controls about 25% of the US
social network market.

i. All others including Tumblr and Pinterest control less than 10% of the US
social network market.

Therefore, it can logically be concluded that Defendant is in possession of
monopoly power.

203. As the Court concluded in United States V. American Telephone 
Telegraph Co., 461 F. Supp. 1314 (D.D.C. 1978) and in United States V.
American Tel. and Tel. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1983), digital providers
are not guaranteed exemptions or exceptions ?om antitrust laws. Evidence of
anticompetitive actions must exist to qualify for Section 2, which exists for
Twitter in the form of the regulation of Third Party services and APIs, and the
?ltering/downranking of competing social networks and their websites, such
as Tweets which promote YouTube
videos, Facebook links, etc. to discourage engagement. APIs which helped

users fully control the engagement of their followers were limited and

 

 

 






 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 69 of 7&)age 69 0f78

suspended in order to reinforce the digital monopoly held by Twitter.

The lack of ability to 'export' followers to another service/ social network,
including one personally owned by a(ny) individual Twitter user, along with
Twitter's interference in any attempt to export followers/ social links or create a
service which does this (as they famously blocked Yahoo, Facebook and
MSNS attempts to use their API to interface between the services, along with
the attempts of other smaller third parties), constitutes anticompetitive activity.
204. The remedy for antitrust must not cripple the company in question,
but must also provide relief for those affected by anticompetitive practices.
Therefore, logically, independent ownership and operation of Twitter accounts
by individual users, hosted on their own compatible websites/platforms is an
acceptable solution, allowing them to keep all of the followers they have
earned without relying on Twitter for a platform, meaning that Twitter will not
display advertising to them but rather the individual user can decide if/what to
advertise at their discretion, enabling the users to compete Via the primary
means of Twitter?s business, advertising, or other means of monetization as the
user sees This would constitute ?reorganization? with regards to United
States v. American Tel. and Tel. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1983), where
the user is the primary owner/ operator of their own Twitter feed/timeline,
rather than Twitter itself.

205. Defendant is not in possession of a superior product, as the product
has not changed signi?cantly since the founding of the company. CEO Jack
Dorsey has been regularly criticized for his lack of business acumen, with
many users and shareholders demanding his ?ring. Several lawsuits have also
been ?led against Twitter alleging the exaggerations of Jack Dorsey and other
executives regarding the pro?tability/ growth of Twitter. It would be inaccurate

to assume that Twitter is the result of some sort of historic accident, as no

evidence suggests that.

 

 

 

 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 70 of 7$>age 70 Of78

206. Therefore, it can logically be concluded that Defendant is in
Violation of 15 US. Code 2, and subsequently that user
likewise constitute
abuses of monopoly power, along with interference with access to public
forums, and declaratory and injunctive relief is due on the largest scale
imaginable. Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction to execute injunctive
antitrust action, a declaration that it is needed should be rendered by this
Court, and the correct Court with jurisdiction should schedule Twitter for

reorganization stated above.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 US. Code 230)

(Declarative Relief)

207. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every
preceding paragraph as though set forth fully herein.

208. Defendant's protections under 47 US. Code 230 stem ??orn its
classi?cation as an interactive computer service. However, the presence of
@Policy and unequal treatment for its users, as well as the promotion of
content it agrees with (?Moments? ?Front Page?) and the ?downranking? of
content which it disagrees with (to include suspensions and shadowbanning)
indicate(s) that Twitter is actually an information content provider. Thereby,
Twitter should be declared liable for content which appears on its platform,
until at which point it ceases to act as an information content provider, and acts

solely as an interactive computer service.

 

 

 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 71 of 78 Page 71 of 78

 

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligent In?iction of Emotional Injury/Distress

(Declarative and Injunctive Relief)

209. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every
preceding paragraph as though set forth fully herein.
210. Defendant's suspension(s) of the Plaintiffs' accounts did cause
substantial mental/emotional distress due to the loss of accounts which took
years to build, support and cultivate. The court in Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal. 2D
728 (1968) ruled: ?the chief element in determining whether defendant owes a
duty or an obligation to plaintiff is the foreseeability of the risk, that factor will
be of prime concern in every case. Because it is inherently intertwined with
foreseeability such duty or obligation must necessarily be adjudicated only
upon a case?bymcase basis. We cannot now predetermine defendant's obligation
in every situation by a ?xed category; no immutable rule can establish the
extent of that obligation for every circumstance of the ?iture. We can,
however, de?ne guidelines which will aid in the resolution of such an issue as
the instant one.? As the risk was unforeseeable/unconscionable to the
Plaintiffs, the subsequent mental/emotional distress was substantial.

211. While this may not have been the Defendant's intent, logically it
can be concluded that relief is due in the form of compensation and a simple
apology, not only to Plaintiffs but to all Twitter users for the actions of the

company with regards to suspension, shadowbanning and limiting of accounts

 

 

 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 72 of 78 page 72 0f78





 

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Tortious Interference

(Declarative and Injunctive Relief)

212. Plaintiffs re?allege and incorporate by reference each and every
preceding paragraph as though set forth fully herein.

213. Defendant's suspensions of the Accounts of Plaintiffs and Others
have caused, whether negligent or intentional, the loss of business/transactions
between users, including recurring donors/sponsors of Plaintiffs and Others
whose business was dependent upon the presence of the Accounts.
Furthermore, the suspensions/Shadowbans by Twitter, along with the semi-
regular changes to Twitter's Terms of Service, without vis~a~vis bargaining
and/or proper noti?cation of users, deliberately and tortiously induce the
Breach of Contract claim(s) listed above, and this claim re-emphasizes the

Third and Fourth Causes of Action.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Promissory Estoppel

(Declarative and Injunctive Relief)

214. Plaintiff remalleges and incorporates by reference each and every
preceding paragraph as though set forth in full herein.

215. As the First Cause of Action is the protection and defense of the
First Amendment, Promissory Estoppel properly invokes the Fourteenth
Amendment in assessing ?state action? with regards to 501 US. 663, Cohen v.
Cowles Media Company (No. 90-634) (1991): ?Promissory Estoppel is a law
of general applicability?.

 

 

 




ooqoxmewmwoxeooqoxGESEES

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 73 of 78 page 73 0f78

Nor is Promissory Estoppel being invoked by the Plaintiff as a means of
avoiding the strict requirements of a libel or defamation claim. Rather, as
Twitter is a publishing platform and media company, Cohen V. Cowles holds
speci?c signi?cance in this situation.

216. Defendant represented to Plaintiff, and the public at large, that it
would enforce its Terms of Service with impartiality as to any social, political,
or religious VieWpoint. Defendant has repeatedly
assured its customers that their accounts would not be banned on the basis of a
political disagreement between Defendant?s management and its users.

217. In reliance on Defendant?s repeated promises that it would remain
politically neutral, Plainti? invested signi?cant time, energy, and money into
growing his pro?le and campaign on Defendant?s platform.

218. Plaintiff?s reliance on Defendant?s promises and assurances was
reasonable and foreseeable. Defendant routinely holds itself out as a platform
for its users to create and grow their business by connecting with other users
who have similar VieWpoints, interests, or hobbies. In order to
use Defendant?s service, users must agree to the Twitter Rules that sets out
rules regarding what actions could cause Defendant to ban an account.
Defendant knew that its users would rely on the rules set forth in its terms of
service.

219. Defendant?s decision to all of
Plaintiff ?5 accounts has signi?cantly damaged Plaintiff ?3 campaign and
business by causing each respectively to lose supporters, income, votes, word
of mouth, and all of the work put into to building up Plaintiff ?5 presence on
Twitter.

220. Therefore, via evidence presented previously, the Defendant must
be held liable for violating the agreement via inconsistent enforcement, and

prohibited from future biased/inconsistent enforcement of its Terms of Service.

 

 

 

 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 74 of 78 page 74 of 78






PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for a judgment as follows:

1. For an injunction which upholds the ?ndings of Knight First Amendment
Center vs. Trump, in which the Court found that users cannot be denied their
Constitutional Right of First Amendment access to the public forums of
President Trump's tweets, and immediately extends restores (that) full access
to all currently suspended, limited, and/or shadowbanned, ?ltered, deveri?ed,

unveri?ed, etc. users of Twitter, requiring Defendant to comply.

2. For a declaration that any/ every denial of access by Defendant to Twitter's

public forums constitutes unconstitutional Viewpoint discrimination,

3. For a declaration that Defendant has engaged in unconstitutional Viewpoint

discrimination against an estimated 50 million people/150 million accounts,

4. For an injunction ordering that Defendant immediately and permanently lift
all of its permanent/temporary ban(s) and Shadowbans, and cease and desist
from any further temporary or permanent limit, suspension, ban, Shadowban
etc. on the Twitter accounts of Plaintiffs and Others (To include but not limited
to @CraigRBrittain, @AuditTheMedia, @SenatorBrittain, @Brittain4Senate,
@AngMartinelli, et 

 

 

 

 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 75 of 78 Page 75 0f78






 

5. For an injunction to immediately and permanently lift any similar
permanent and/or temporary limit, suspension, ban, shadowban, etc. on any
other accounts on the platform, where it is estimated that Defendant has
permanently suspended over 5 million users/ 15 million accounts and

temporarily limited and/or suspended upwards of over 50 million users/ 150

million accounts.

6. For an injunction permanently prohibiting Defendant ?om attempting to
enforce the language in its Terms of Service purporting to allow Twitter

suspend or ban any account ?at any time for any or no reason? and ?without

liability to you?;

7. For an injunction permanently prohibiting Defendant from limiting or
suspending access to any of the public forums on its platform, including
unverifying, shadowbanning, suspending, blocking or otherwise interfering

with the access of any user.

8. For an injunction immediately ordering that Defendant treat all candidates

for public office equally under the guidelines of 47 US. Code 315.

9. For an injunction immediately prohibiting Defendant from possessing
monopoly power under 15 US. Code 2, ordering Defendant to reorganize

and recognizing that Defendant has violated 15 US. Code 2.

 

 

 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 76 of 78 Page 76 01078






10. For an injunction permanently prohibiting Defendant from participating in
Tortious Interference, including Shadowbanning, limiting,
deverifying/unverifying or suspending users without bargaining or notice, and
prohibiting Defendant from altering the Terms of Service Without directly

bargaining with the users who are subject to the Contract.

11. For an injunction permanently prohibiting Defendant from violating

Promissory Estoppel doctrine.

12. For a declaration that Defendant acts as a monopoly/trust in violation of 15

US. Code 2.

13. For a declaration that Defendant has interfered with the 2018 Federal
Elections and violated 47 US. Code 315.

14. For a declaration that Defendant has violated 47 US. Code 230 by acting

as an information content provider While listing itself as an interactive

computer service.

15. For a declaration that Defendant has violated and continues to violate

Plaintiffs and Others? free speech rights under the First Amendment of the US

Constitution.

16. For a declaration that Defendant has participated in Tortious Interference

and 'Shadowbanned' users.

17. For a declaration that Defendant has violated Promissory Estoppel doctrine

and deceived users via their Terms of Service.

 

 

 

 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 77 of 78 page 77 0f78




mnamsmeoomqmmESSES

 

18. For compensatory, special, and statutory damages in an amount to be

proven at trial, including statutory damages.

19. For prejudgment and post-judgment interest;

20. For costs of suit incurred herein,

21. For reasonable attorney?s fees (if applicable), and

22. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper,

23. or an injunction in the form of an additional summary judgment for the
Plaintiff, against the Defendant, in accordance with Defendant's valuation of

over $25 Billion US Dollars, of no less than $1,000,000,000.00 US Dollars.

24. For an injunction ordering a public apology from the Defendant to all users

of their public forums for actions detailed in this suit.

Respectfully submitted,
Craig R. Brittain and Brittain for US Senate ?Plaintiffs?.

 

 

 

Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/18 Page 78 of 78 Page 78 of 73





Plaintiff(s) hereby af?rm under penalty of Perjury that the entirety of this suit
and its allegations are true to the best of their knowledge, were written in Good
Faith with the proper purpose of the interest in the preservation of all speech in
public forums, to modify and create law within this scope, with a strong basis
of evidentiary support and even more to be established during
jury trial/witness examination/eta, that any
denials of the factual contentions presented are warranted on the evidence, or
if specifically so identi?ed, are reasonably based on a belief or lack of
information, and in order to protect Speech, especially the speech with which
we disagree, as well as all of the rights of all people, both natural and
Constitutional, and sign(s) to af?rm with regards to Rule 11 of TITLE of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

 

DATED: June 5, 2018

 

Craig R. Brittain

8625 E. Sharon Dr.
Scottsdale, AZ, 85260
(602) 502-5612

craig@brittainforsenate.com

craigrbrittain@gmail.corn