Court Tosses Lawsuit From Man Claiming Twitter Discriminated Against Him For Being A Heterosexual Christian

from the you-can't-fix-stupid-but-you-can-immunize-against-it dept

Suing private companies over their alleged trampling of First Amendment rights is rarely going to go anywhere. That's not stopping people from trying. Again and again and again. Some of these plaintiffs aren't even represented by Larry Klayman.

Like this guy, Robert Eugene Wilson, who sued Twitter for deleting his accounts. Wilson represented himself, arguing… well, it's perhaps best to quote directly from the dismissal [PDF]. (via Eric Goldman)

Plaintiff, Robert Eugene Wilson (“Wilson”), filed a complaint in this Court on January 23, 2020. (ECF No. 2). In the complaint, Wilson assets that Defendant, Twitter, Inc., (“Twitter”), “has on more than 2 times = 3 times [sic] closed my account based on my freedom of speech and or heterosexual expressions, and or whatever excuses.”

Ah, the 28th Amendment: Congress shall make no law abridging expressive heterosexuality. Of course, Twitter isn't Congress and "heterosexual expression" -- while protected by the First Amendment -- isn't going to turn Twitter into a government body, no matter how incensed the plaintiff is about their revoked Twitter privileges.

Having been deleted once, Wilson tried to create more accounts, three of which were deleted by Twitter before he could create any tweets. The status of the fourth account Wilson created is not listed in the record, but it was apparently deployed to send an "all Caps" tweet to Twitter telling the company "You will not get this account back!"

The deletion of three accounts and the subsequent damage to Wilson's expressions of "heterosexuality and Christian affiliation" allegedly violated the First Amendment, the 1866 Civil Rights Act, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act to the tune of $50 million. Twitter's actions also apparently harmed Wilson's relationship with his neighbors, who were apparently "disturbed" by his "angry outbursts."

In addition to $50 million for rights violations, Wilson asked for $250 million in damages related to Twitter's deletion of his multiple accounts, the first of which graced the platform with this stellar content:

Wilson describes the nature of this content which included “insults” against public figures such as “Oprah Winfrey/Gayle King/President Obama/Sunny Hostin/Michelle Obama and many more insulted.” Wilson also objects to the suspension of his account based on “insults” he levied against “homosexuality” in general. These insults included the terms “‘gayness/Homos/Fagots [sic]/Dykes/Low Down Bi-Bisexuals [sic]/Queer Dogs/Trans Mutants.’”

Wilson also demanded at least half of his requested damages be immediately paid because Twitter's legal reps had the temerity to call him and ask if he was represented by counsel to determine where case materials should be sent.

Wilson asserts that this amounts to “total deception and ‘legal abuse.’” Wilson believes that counsel for Twitter only asked if Wilson was represented by counsel so that they could present a motion to dismiss with “frivolous case references.” Wilson objects to counsel for Twitter’s “‘snake in tall weeds’ tactic” and asks that this Court deny Twitter’s “elementary ‘Motion to Dismiss.’”

All of Wilson's arguments fail. The First Amendment does not govern the moderation efforts of private companies.

Beyond generalized assertions that Twitter’s motion to dismiss contains “frivolous case references” and amounts to “legal abuse,” Wilson does not address Twitter’s assertion that, as a private entity, it is not constrained by the First Amendment. Even if Wilson were to argue that Twitter is subject to the First Amendment under the state-action doctrine, such an argument would fail. While Twitter no doubt provides a valuable public forum, one in which millions of users, including the President of the United States, participate in wide-ranging public discourse, this alone is insufficient to establish that Twitter is a state actor.

So does Wilson's allegation that Twitter discriminated against him because of his race... which he might possibly believe is "heterosexual."

Wilson is clearly unable to state a plausible claim for relief under this section as he does not allege that Twitter discriminated against him due to his race. Wilson states his belief that Twitter was biased against him because of his statements in favor of “heterosexuality,” as well as his adherence to Christian beliefs, however, nowhere in his complaint does Wilson provide any facts that could conceivably suggest Twitter discriminated against him due to his race. In fact, it is not apparent from Wilson’s complaint whether Twitter was even aware of Wilson’s race, much less that the decision to suspend his account was based on such knowledge.

Wilson's theory about being discriminated against for his chosen religion fares no better:

The facts contained in Wilson’s complaint simply do not lay out a plausible factual claim that Twitter’s actions in suspending his accounts were motivated by religious animus, rather than representing Twitter’s neutral enforcement of its rules prohibiting harassment on its platform. In other words, assuming that Wilson’s assertion he was compelled to create tweets denigrating homosexuality and its practitioners because of a sincerely held religious belief is true, and assuming that his account was suspended due to the content of those tweets is also true, he has not successfully established that Twitter targeted him because of his religious beliefs, rather than because of the content of the tweets themselves.

And Section 230 finishes Wilson's lawsuit off:

Wilson is clearly attempting to hold Twitter liable as a publisher or speaker. The Fourth Circuit has recognized that §230 intended to immunize interactive computer service providers where they exercised “a publisher's traditional editorial functions” while hosting the content of others. Zeran, 129 F.3d at 330. This includes “deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content.” Wilson seeks to hold Twitter liable for its decision to delete his posts and terminate (or withdraw) his account. As Twitter’s decision to suspend Wilson’s accounts, based on tweets that reportedly used derogatory slurs for homosexuality, was reached in the course of a traditional editorial function—namely deciding what type of content to publish—Wilson’s claim is precluded by application of §230(c)(1) of the CDA.

Wilson's complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Wilson advanced some seriously dubious legal theories -- something that's perhaps expected from non-lawyer plaintiffs that represent themselves. But it might be one others find useful, especially if they're more concerned with scoring political points than actually winning lawsuits. Here's Eric Goldman's take on Wilson's attempt to claim Twitter engaged in religious discrimination.

Yes, Wilson appears to be arguing that Twitter discriminated against him because he’s a Christian heterosexual–a potentially mockable position in light of the many ways online systems implicitly privilege people with such characteristics. This case might be part of a longer-term trend where “conservatives” counter-intuitively attempt to weaponize civil rights laws to perpetuate majority privilege.

This isn't too far removed from the constant claims from the political party in power that social media companies discriminate against "conservatives" and Republicans -- a demographic largely composed of white Christians. It's a historically-protected group that insists on playing the victim. Fortunately, Section 230 is still alive and (mostly) well, making most legal action along these lines untenable.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, content moderation, discrimination, robert eugene wilson, section 230
Companies: twitter


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 15 May 2020 @ 10:54am

    Two things.

    1. The next time someone comes here and whines about the “publisher vs. platform” distinction, I plan to quote that line about the Fourth Circuit and Section 230.

    2. When someone (e.g., Robert Eugene Wilson) grows used to special treatment, equal treatment can seem like oppression.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2020 @ 11:00am

    So he's claiming that 'Christian' beliefs include the vigorous mocking and provocation of those who do not conform, that's a very dubious claim (if you've actually bothered to learn what Christian tenets are).

    Also: sounds kinda like Twitter banned him more for his intolerance of non-heterosexuals, than for his heterosexuality.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 15 May 2020 @ 11:12am

      he's claiming that 'Christian' beliefs include the vigorous mocking and provocation of those who do not conform

      In fairness, most religions have “shun the non-believers” written into their dogma in some form or fashion.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2020 @ 11:31am

        Re:

        However, actively insulting/harassing people is basically the opposite of shunning

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        TFG, 17 May 2020 @ 8:08am

        Re:

        Meanwhile, the Bible actively exhorts against this:

        14 Remind them of these things, and charge them before God[b] not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. 15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. ~ 2 Timothy 2:14-15

        22 So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. 23 Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. 24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. - 2 Timothy 2:22-26

        I am ashamed of people like Robert Eugene Wilson. They bring a false face to what a follower of Christ is supposed to be.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Toom1275 (profile), 15 May 2020 @ 11:16am

      Re:

      And handing out instabans for ban-evading sockpuppet accounts is hardly unusual.

      Some people are just too narcissistic to accept that they have zero right to be in another's private property unwanted.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2020 @ 12:31pm

      Re:

      So he's claiming that 'Christian' beliefs include the vigorous mocking and provocation of those who do not conform

      Yup - and when faced with any blowback for his insults, he claims "persecution" and whines like a bitch.

      I'll bet he never even stopped to think that perhaps his god got him banned because he was being an asshole. And the dismissal of his case was also god's will because an asshole should not be able to profit from being an asshole.

      Divine plan and all that shit, no? Funny how those things always seem to apply to someone else.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2020 @ 11:44am

    Based on the actions of Twitter and ALL Silicon Valley (straight, white, mail, Christians you are filth, get out) the complainant (Robert Eugene Wilson) has a very good point.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bloof (profile), 15 May 2020 @ 11:50am

      Re:

      Won't someone please think of the evangelical mailmen!?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 15 May 2020 @ 11:55am

      No, it doesn’t. The complaint offers no proof that Twitter banned Wilson specifically for being a straight White Christian male. And the majority of powerful people in technology circles fall under that SWCM descriptor, too. But hey, when you get used to special treatment (i.e., having all the power), “equality” (i.e., diversifying Silicon Valley by hiring more people of color, queer people, etc. and giving some power to marginalized groups) can seem like oppression.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Bloof (profile), 15 May 2020 @ 12:34pm

        Re:

        Hey, anything less than having all the power is oppression, don't you know? Being in the majority group means you should be immune from consequence and minorities should be happy to kneel and laugh at all the horrible things said about us in the hope of being seen as the good ones and being persecuted less! Maybe if they get more power they'll be generous and not create laws to punish us for existing, as straight white evangelical Christian males are known for their kindness and tolerance of people they deem as others.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 15 May 2020 @ 1:01pm

          Re: Re:

          "When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression"

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2020 @ 2:51pm

          Re: Re:

          Being in the majority group means you should be immune from consequence and minorities should be happy to kneel and laugh at all the horrible things said about us in the hope of being seen as the good ones and being persecuted less!

          ... said no 1%er ever...

          Just sayin'

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          R.H. (profile), 15 May 2020 @ 9:49pm

          Re: Re:

          I know that you're joking here but, because of people who truly do think this way, I'll be very happy when there no longer is a majority race in the United States. The way things are going demographically that should happen in the mid-2040s (and it should already be true for the under-18 set I look forward to confirmation with the Census data).

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 18 May 2020 @ 7:11am

            Re: Re: Re:

            "I'll be very happy when there no longer is a majority race in the United States. The way things are going demographically that should happen in the mid-2040s..."

            Why do you think the white trash are having such hysterical shit-fits both on twitter and when they're heiling in the streets? For a significant portion of the population "Being White" is all they have. And now even THAT isn't going to be "special" any more. Outrageous.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 18 May 2020 @ 9:42pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re:

              There's a meme I like on the subject that goes along the line of "You're afraid that whites will be in the minority? Why, does the US have a record of treating minorities poorly?"

              If someone's scared of that happening, it's a tacit admission that they know the abuse they currently heap on to minorties and are afraid of it being poured on to them.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2020 @ 12:18pm

      Re:

      straight, white, mail

      Your comment is a bit confusing. What in the fuck do envelopes have to do with this lawsuit?

      Do you really think Twitter throws out any mail that doesn't arrive in a manila colored envelope?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Vidiot (profile), 15 May 2020 @ 1:19pm

        Re: Re:

        If he could guarantee that all the mail would be straight and white, our President would rush to the aid of the Postal Service.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2020 @ 2:53pm

        Re: Re:

        Aren't manila colored envelopes standard in the Philippines?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Bobvious, 15 May 2020 @ 4:18pm

          Re: Re: Re:straight, white, mail

          Aren't manila colored envelopes standard in the Philippines?

          Yes, and I'm still running the postal-only fan club there for Villi Manilli. The Phillipines has some amazing designs on their stamps.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 15 May 2020 @ 12:21pm

      Re:

      (straight, white, mail, Christians

      Nice try, but no. He wasn't banned for any of those traits, he was banned for being a raging bigot and attempting to create new accounts when his previous one was shut down.

      Now, if you want to argue that being a bigot is equivalent to being a christian you might be able to make a case that of course banning bigots are going to impact christians, because they're the same thing, but I'm pretty sure that most other christians aren't going to agree with that tactic.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        TFG, 17 May 2020 @ 8:20am

        Re: Re:

        We consider the bigots to be demonstrating decidedly unChristlike behavior. This type of lawsuit tactic is straight up counter to Christ's own instructions.

        The whole Sermon on the Mount is relevant, but especially the part about loving your enemy:

        43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

        What Mr. Wilson claims is required by his 'religious faith' is bogus. Rather, he's taken what he wants to do and twisted his ideas of the actual teachings of Christ to fit that.

        It takes only a few simple edits to turn this article from the Onion to be about exactly this litigant:
        https://www.theonion.com/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-consti-181957114 9

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 15 May 2020 @ 12:33pm

      Re:

      "straight, white, mail, Christians you are filth, get out"

      You're saying the hate postal workers now?

      Anyway, the above is only true if you believe that "Christianity" necessarily includes homophobia, bigotry, hated and violence, which says more about your toxic strand of it than them. Lots of normal Christians post there every day without issue.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      James Burkhardt (profile), 15 May 2020 @ 12:41pm

      Re:

      Part of his argument is that twitter, in reaction to the lawsuit, contacted him to determine if he was represented by council, and therefore he should be paid 25 MIllion because....twitter wanted to serve him with a motion as required by law?

      Ignoring the strange conclusion, the rules of court require opposing attorneys to contact each other, rather than clients. Twitter sounds like they were making sure he was in fact not represented by council before serving him personally with legal documents as the court requires.

      The Plaintiffs assertions that Twitter following the rules was a result of twitter acting in bad faith suggest that perhaps the plaintiff's other claims of bad faith on the part of twitter are not, indeed, bad faith, but rather twitter following the rules it has set out, rules the plaintiff had agreed to and then ignored. A lack of pleading of fact on the issue of bad faith action supports this conclusion, and plaintiffs further claims that content was not a factor in his ban, but rather his underlying beliefs, also supports this conclusion.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2020 @ 12:45pm

      Re:

      straight, white, mail, Christians you are filth, get out

      Listen, I know being a straight white male is difficult in these challenging times. I mean hell - you can't even get a baker to bake a cake for a heterosexual wedding anymore without going to court! Don't even get me started on being heterosexual and applying for a marriage license. There's what, a 50/50 shot that some inbred clerk will object to it on their non-religious grounds?

      Just stay strong little trooper! Buck up, as they used to say before they made you stop saying it. Keep fighting the good fight against those heathens on the Twitter!

      We should all unite and file the same suit! I'm sure if more than one of us does this, it'll be different. And as a protest, we should close our collective Twitter accounts and go somewhere else. Somewhere where we can insult all those non-heterosexual denizens without being constantly told that we're wrong. And while we're at it, we can enlist some unemployed farmer from the midwest to build the new site, nay SANCTUARY, so we can stick it to those illegal non-whites in Silicon Valley.

      I'm with you!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2020 @ 12:57pm

      Re:

      What happened to the conservative mantra of "fuck your feelings?"

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 15 May 2020 @ 1:04pm

        Re: Re:

        It conflicts with the other conservative mantra, "It doesn't exist if it doesn't affect me personally". Now that they've been negatively affected by something, it suddenly matters. If these stories were about black gay Muslims being kicked off Twitter, they'd be manning the doors to keep them out, but since it's their group being affected, they consider it wrong.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 16 May 2020 @ 1:25pm

        Re: Re:

        Text has a difficult time portraying tone, which mucks up the second, implied half. The 'full' quote would be more along the lines of 'Fuck your feelings, only my feelings matter.'

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 18 May 2020 @ 3:37am

      Re:

      "...the complainant (Robert Eugene Wilson) has a very good point."

      I think the point the actual judges made was that No, he hasn't.

      Apparently you are similarly of the opinion that not being allowed to sling racist, homophobic slurs around in someone else's living room means that you, the poor bigot, are being discriminated against?

      What are you, a republican?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), 15 May 2020 @ 11:57am

    Interesting

    Interesting that someone can hold these two thoughts:

    1. Businesses should have the right to deny service to LGBTQIA+ people.

    2. Businesses should not have the right to deny service to heterosexual Christian people.

    Can someone please tell me how this isn't hypocritical or evident of a double standard?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 15 May 2020 @ 12:38pm

      Re: Interesting

      Oh that's easy, you see those ichy nasty queer 'people' are terrible sinners, so of course the good and righteous christians should be allowed to choose not to allow service to them, lest their heinous sin spread or it appear that they in any way support said sin.

      A business refusing to allow the god-fearing christians service on the other hand is a terrible persecution of the historically oppressed religious, preventing them from spreading the word of their god and saving the souls of the heretic and/or showing them how people should live.

      It's easy to hold both positions when you don't consider one of the groups worthy of equal treatment or rights. Utterly disgusting, but unfortunately all-too easy enough to justify mentally.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 15 May 2020 @ 1:06pm

      Re: Interesting

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

      They might understand the hypocrisy on some level, but they have been trained not to let that interfere with their tribal mechanisms.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 18 May 2020 @ 3:43am

      Re: Interesting

      "Can someone please tell me how this isn't hypocritical or evident of a double standard?"

      Easy. Fit your two narratives, above, under the prerequisite assumption that you accept that the world is divided in actual human beings, and those who look human but actually aren't.

      If the term "lesser races" spring to mind, straight out of the 18th century, you're on the right track.

      What truly makes Wilson and his ilk so very pathetic is that they usually are aware that naked racism is somehow bad and so they try to exculpate themselves at every term, resulting in them being perceived as mere hypocrites instead of simply as extremely horrible people.

      I don't have much respect for the unapologetic KKK'er but he's not as bad as the whining moral jellyfish exemplified by Wilson (or the current crop of republicans standing in defense of people like him just so they can borrow his "victim" card).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Kevin Carson, 15 May 2020 @ 12:45pm

    Aside from everything else, he thinks banning him for homophobic insults equates to banning him for being heterosexual. Obviously critical thinking isn't his strong suit.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 15 May 2020 @ 12:48pm

    Ah yes, the eternal victims, the poor persecuted christians...

    Truly, the most terrible of persecutions, being faced with the grim fate of knowing that actions have consequences.

    One can only hope that one day, one shining day of glory, the terrible persecution that christians have faced throughout history will come to an end, that at last they will be allowed equality with the other historically blessed groups like the women, people of non-white skin and the non-heterosexuals.

    One day...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 May 2020 @ 1:42pm

    looks over the top of his glasses

    So how is the weather in Narnia Mr. Wilson?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2020 @ 9:50pm

    He should have sued under corruption law rather than making a constitutional argument.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2020 @ 10:36pm

      Re:

      Wouldn't have changed a thing. Dude had no case.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2020 @ 11:22pm

        Re: Re:

        Hard to know but there are some pretty broad corruption statutes if Twitter is the one harrassing the guy.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Toom1275 (profile), 16 May 2020 @ 12:17am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Except for the part where he was harrassing Twitter, not the other way around.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2020 @ 1:23am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Did you figure that out with your psychic abilities?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Toom1275 (profile), 16 May 2020 @ 7:28am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Literacy, as far as I've heard, isn't a psychic power.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2020 @ 9:12am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                You still didn't prove who harassed who, how or who can sue who.

                You have also proven you may not have the highest levels of literacy if there's no way to get that information from any of those documents.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2020 @ 10:20am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  According to the quoted text in the Article, and the filing the article links to: Wilson's own testimony show this to be the case.

                  Wilson describes his own content as 'insults'. So unless you are arguing that a private company deciding it no longer wishes to provide free services to an individual as harassment, it is very hard to argue Twitter harassed Wilson.

                  I would have thought this was self evident to anyhow who read the article.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2020 @ 12:40pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    You forgot to mention his repeatedly making new unauthorized accounts, with the last one

                    apparently deployed to send an "all Caps" tweet to Twitter telling the company "You will not get this account back!"

                    Yep, still seems clear to anyone who can (and has) read the article.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2020 @ 12:59pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      YOU ARE NOT SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW

                      That's also in all caps

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2020 @ 4:45pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Were you dropped on your head several times as a baby or is your current state a later development?

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          That One Guy (profile), 16 May 2020 @ 5:50pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          No need to sink to their level with the insults, their own words are more than enough to show how groundless their argument is.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            TFG, 17 May 2020 @ 8:23am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            Plus, that's not even the same AC. I think the "YOU ARE NOT SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW" was talking about something Wilson sent through.

                            Situation is unclear.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              Toom1275 (profile), 19 May 2020 @ 12:41am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              I'm the "AC" whose post started with "you forgot to mention" and then quoted from the article, if that helps.

                              I don't always notice when Firefox decides to forget I'm supposed to be logged in.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 May 2020 @ 3:32am

          there are some pretty broad corruption statutes if Twitter is the one harrassing the guy

          Banning someone for breaking the rules multiple times and calling him to ask about his lawyer after he filed a lawsuit over said bannings does not equal “harassment” by any reasonable definition of the word.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2020 @ 4:06am

            Re:

            I could probably find a tort theory for it but I don't care enough to read the whole thing.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 May 2020 @ 5:40am

              I could probably find a tort theory for it

              Could you find one that would hold up in a court of law?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2020 @ 4:47pm

              Re: Re:

              No, you probably couldn't. You wingnuts are all the same: Totally full of shit and unable to recognize that fact due to cognitive disabilities.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2020 @ 4:16am

    From His Lips to God's Ear

    "...Twitter Discriminated Against Him For Being A Heterosexual Christian"

    If only it were so.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2020 @ 12:08am

    Twitter is a privacy invading, human and drug ring just like the rest of it/them.

    He must have aged out of their desired demographic.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 18 May 2020 @ 1:36am

      Re:

      "He must have aged out of their desired demographic."

      Then why is the orange man baby on there constantly whining about his horrible response to the current situation stopping him from being able to lay golf instead of doing his job?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2020 @ 10:48am

    While I think this lawsuit is DUMB, I also though the lawsuit against the small business that didn't want to do something with a Gay wedding. Make gay cake? Whatever it was, private businesses, have the right to refuse service and against their own religion. They were screwed over. You can't have it both ways.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.