Alt Right ‘Journalist’ Who’s Lost Every Lawsuit Over Banned Accounts Files Another Lawsuit Over Banned Accounts

from the failboat-sets-sail-again dept

Laura Loomer still thinks she can sue her way back onto Facebook and Twitter. In support of her argument, she brings arguments that failed in the DC Appeals Court as well as a bill for $124k in legal fees for failing to show that having your account reported is some sort of legally actionable conspiracy involving big tech companies.

For this latest failed effort, she has retained the “services” of John Pierce, co-founder of a law firm that saw plenty of lawyers jump ship once it became clear Pierce was willing to turn his litigators into laughingstocks by representing Rudy Giuliani and participating in Tulsi Gabbard’s performative lawsuits.

Laura Loomer has lobbed her latest sueball into the federal court system and her timing could not have been worse. Her lawsuit against Twitter, Facebook, and their founders was filed in the Northern District of California (where most lawsuits against Twitter and Facebook tend to end up) just four days before this same court dismissed Donald Trump’s lawsuit [PDF] alleging his banning by Twitter violated his First Amendment rights.

Trump will get a chance to amend his complaint, but despite all the arguments made in an attempt to bypass both the First Amendment rights of Twitter (as well as its Section 230 immunity), the court’s opinion suggests a rewritten complaint will meet the same demise.

Plaintiffs’ main claim is that defendants have “censor[ed]” plaintiffs’ Twitter accounts in violation of their right to free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution… Plaintiffs are not starting from a position of strength. Twitter is a private company, and “the First Amendment applies only to governmental abridgements of speech, and not to alleged abridgements by private companies.”

Loomer’s lawsuit [PDF] isn’t any better. In fact, it’s probably worse. But it is 133 pages long! And (of course), it claims the banning of her social media accounts is the RICO.

The lawsuit wastes most of its pages saying things that are evidence of nothing. It quotes several news reports about social media moderating efforts, pointing out what’s already been made clear: it’s imperfect and it often causes collateral damage. What the 133 pages fails to show how sucking at an impossible job is a conspiracy against Loomer in particular, which is what she needs to support her RICO claims.

The lawsuit begins with the stupidest of opening salvos: direct quotes from Florida’s social media law, which was determined to be unconstitutional and blocked by a federal judge last year. It also quotes Justice Clarence Thomas’ idiotic concurrence in which he made some really dumb statements about the First Amendment and Section 230 immunity. To be sure, these are not winning arguments. A blocked law and a concurrence are not exactly the precedent needed to overturn decades of case law to the contrary.

It doesn’t get any better from there. There’s nothing in this lawsuit that supports a conspiracy claim. And what’s in it ranges from direct quotes of news articles to unsourced claims thrown in there just because.

For instance, Loomer’s lawsuit quotes an authoritarian’s George Soros conspiracy theory as though that’s evidence of anything.

On or about May 16, 2020, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and the Hungarian Government called Defendant Facebook’s “oversight board” not some neutral expert body, but a “Soros Oversight Board” intended to placate the billionaire activist because three of its four co-chairs include Catalina Botero Marino, “a board member of the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights, funded by Open Society Foundations” — Soros’s flagship NGO — and Helle Thorning-Schmidt, former Prime Minister of Denmark, who is “unequivocally and vocally anti- Trump” and serves alongside Soros and his son Alexander as trustee of another NGO, and a Columbia University professor Jamal Greene who served as an aide to Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) during Justice Kavanaugh’s 2018 confirmation Hearings.

Or this claim, which comes with no supporting footnote or citation. Nor does it provide any guesses as to how this information might violate Facebook policy.

Defendant Facebook allows instructions on how to perform back-alley abortions on its platform.

Loomer’s arguments don’t start to coalesce until we’re almost 90 pages into the suit. Even then, there’s nothing to them. According to Loomer, she “relied” on Mark Zuckerberg’s October 2019 statement that he didn’t “think it’s right for tech companies to censor politicians in a democracy.” This statement was delivered five months after Facebook had permanently banned Loomer. Loomer somehow felt this meant she would have no problems with Facebook as long as she presented herself as a “politician in a democracy.”

In reliance upon Defendant Facebook’s promised access to its networks, Plaintiffs Candidate Loomer and Loomer Campaign raised money and committed significant time and effort in preparation for acting on Defendant Facebook’s fraudulent representation of such promised access to its network.

On or about November 11, 2019, Loomer Campaign attempted to set up its official campaign page for Candidate Loomer as a candidate rather than a private citizen.

On November 12, 2019, Defendant Facebook banned the “Laura Loomer forCongress” page, the official campaign page for Candidate Loomer, from its platform, and subsequently deleted all messages and correspondence with the campaign.

On page 94, the RICO predicates begin. At least Loomer and her lawyer have saved the court the trouble of having to ask for these, but there’s still nothing here. The “interference with commerce by threats or violence” is nothing more than noting that Facebook, Google, and Twitter hold a considerable amount of market share and all deploy terms of service that allow them to remove accounts for nearly any imaginable reason. No threats or violence are listed.

The “Interstate and Foreign Transportation in Aid of Racketeering Enterprises” section lists a bunch of content moderation stuff that happened to other people. “Fraud by Wire, Radio, or Television” consists mostly of Loomer reciting the law verbatim before suggesting Facebook and Procter & Gamble “schemed” to deny her use of Facebook or its ad platform. Most of the “fraud” alluded to traces back to Zuckerberg saying Facebook would allow politicians and political candidates to say whatever they wanted before deciding that the platform would actually moderate these entities.

There’s also something in here about providing material support for terrorism (because terrorists use the internet), which has never been a winning argument in court. And there’s some truly hilarious stuff about “Advocating Overthrow of Government” which includes nothing about the use of social media by Trump supporters to coordinate the raid on the US Capitol building, but does contain a whole lot of handwringing about groups like Abolish ICE and other anti-law enforcement groups.

All of this somehow culminates in Loomer demanding [re-reads Prayer for Relief several times] more than $10 billion in damages. To be fair, the ridiculousness of the damage demand is commensurate with the ridiculousness of the lawsuit. It’s litigation word soup that will rally the base but do nothing for Loomer but cost her more money. Whatever’s not covered by the First Amendment will be immunized by Section 230. There’s no RICO here because, well, it’s never RICO. This is stupid, performative bullshit being pushed by a stupid, performative “journalist” and litigated by a stupid, performative lawyer. A dismissal is all but inevitable.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,
Companies: facebook, twitter

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Alt Right ‘Journalist’ Who’s Lost Every Lawsuit Over Banned Accounts Files Another Lawsuit Over Banned Accounts”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Reminder: Laura Loomer once handcuffed herself to Twitter headquarters with the demand that her account be reinstated, only to ask to be removed a few hours later without getting her account back and without being arrested by the police. Everything she does in this regard is performative nonsense; any judge who takes her latest bullshit seriously doesn’t deserve to sit on a bench in traffic court.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: 'She did what? Eh, who cares, back to work.'

Loomer: I’m staying here until I get what I want, no matter what!

Twitter: Yeah, we don’t care.

Loomer: This is mildly uncomfortable, can someone let me go?

Nothing like throwing a tantrum for attention only to be faced with people who understand that ignoring you is by far the most effective response.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Pffft not remotely interesting enough.
I just went back and looked up how many pages Tiff v Twitter 2nd Amendededededed complaint was… 150+

This is just more performance art for her to sucker a few more rubes into supporting her doing this instead of having to get a real job.

In other interesting news Alex Jones turned on QAnon… the shit show is gonna be epic.

Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:

[Alex] Jones told people that Q helped the Dems steal the election.

I’m in two minds about this one. Is he asinine enough to actually believe that, or perceptive enough to realise that the majority of his audience will? Everyone that bothers to use their brain knows that QAnon is on the Republicans’ side.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

He “embraced” Q only insofar as he had Q morons regularly on his show as guests and while he’d fully hitched his wagon to Trump he could use that group as a handy way to remain relevant after he got kicked off mainstream platforms he could use to grift. But, go back and listen to older episodes, he was very much opposed to Q.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Jones is an interesting one. He’s the type that will give any thought or idea a look. And plays the roll of interested party well.
The problem with simply dismissing home is he historically been at-least minimally right more than wrong; though only slightly.
And that’s where moron credibility comes from.

The problem for people like him is that the drive to take on ANY conspiracy theory … people focus on the bizarre thought failures.
If your non-partisan: Jones is entertaining. A showman the likes of which we’ve lost over the years.

PaulT (profile) says:


“In other interesting news Alex Jones turned on QAnon”

As someone who keeps an eye on him via the safe distance provided by the Knowledge Fight podcast… this isn’t new. He’s had a deep hatred for Q for a long time, because they’re filling the impotent rage conspiracy space that he once controlled. He was forced to pay some lip service at one point to retain some kind of relevance among the reality-opposed community, but anyone who thinks he was a full supporter until recently hasn’t been paying attention.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re:

He took their cash and promoted their ideas to a larger audience than they could get on their own.

He obviously didn’t hate them enough to not profit from the misery they create.

He could have called them out, but it was easier to just ride along until they went too far… and now he claims Q cause the insurrection while pretending his hands are clean in it.

I look forward to the looney bathshit flung back and forth thats coming.

David says:

Re: Re: Oh come on.

“The court agreed with our reasoning and that was what we really wanted so we didn’t feel the need to prolong the battle we have already won.” sounds like a perfectly legit Alternate Reading of “Not every single claim was dismissed with prejudice: some claims might have been able to make it into trial if refiled supported by facts or evidence”.

I mean, just take a look at the traveling Kraken shitshow that managed to draw a paying audience during months of legal embarrassments in courts all over the land.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

ISIS calling for brutal violence to utterly destroy the West

Twitter/Facebook: “Meh.”

Trump says, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

Twitter/Facebook: “OMG!!!!! He’s a threat to our very existence!!!1!1!”

Who gives a shit if ISIS promotes death to the West, because you hate it too.

bhull242 (profile) says:


ISIS calling for brutal violence to utterly destroy the West

Twitter/Facebook: “Meh.”

[citation needed]

Trump says, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

I don’t recall the word “peacefully” being said there, but he also said a hell of a lot more that kinda meant the opposite of “peaceful”.

Twitter/Facebook: “OMG!!!!! He’s a threat to our very existence!!!1!1!”

Banning someone for inciting unlawful actions and multiple violations of ToS is not at all saying that person is a threat to your existence. It’s saying, “We’ve had enough of you and won’t be your megaphone anymore.”

Who gives a shit if ISIS promotes death to the West, because you hate it too.

[citation needed]

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I don’t recall the word “peacefully” being said there,

Now some idiots ignored that and broke the law. They should be, and most have been, punished. Again, I remind you that the claimed “insurrection”, actual people who entered without permission and broke various laws (and property) was a tiny handful of the generally peaceful but spirited protest.

50 Angry people in a stairwell is a mob. Not an insurrection.
20 people watching one break a glass panel from a door is a mob. Criminals.

Those who break the law should be punished no matter what the protest is about.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
danderbandit (profile) says:

Oh the Irony

If they could see it that is.

Defendant Facebook allows instructions on how to perform back-alley abortions on its platform.

Never mind that any such instructions are protected by 1A, the irony, I’m sorry utter hypocrisy, of this ass-hat making that statement when the Alt Right stance against legal abortion is why there is a need for those instructions in the first place.

Anonymous Coward says:


Defendant Facebook allows instructions on how to perform back-alley abortions on its platform.

This is entirely confusing since their stance on freeze peach demands that content like this is not to be ‘censored’ by social media.

They’re so used to complaining about everything that they don’t know what they believe anymore.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...