OAKLAND, Calif. (Legal Newsline) – The federal government he once commanded is now fighting President Donald Trump in his effort to sue YouTube.
Trump is suing over YouTube’s decision to ban him after the Jan. 6 siege at the U.S. Capitol, partly by challenging the constitutionality of Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act. That section protects an “interactive computer service” provider from liability for third-party content hosted on the service or for removing or restricting access to material it finds offensive.
The United States is intervening in the case in Oakland, Calif., federal court and filed a defense of Section 230(c) on Dec. 9.
“Section 230(c) does not require online service providers to limit or regulate speech by their users. Instead, Section 230(c) allows companies like YouTube to choose to remove content or allow it to remain on their platforms, without facing liability as publishers or speakers for those editorial decisions,” says a brief prepared by lawyers at the U.S. Department of Justice.
“Section 230(c) does not reflect a preference for restricting content, much less for restricting content relating to any particular viewpoint.”
Trump, the American Conservative Union and others filed a proposed class action on behalf of banned YouTube users in Oakland, Calif., federal court earlier this year.
The booting of Trump from social media has led to litigation and legislation. Texas and Florida passed laws that would make Facebook and Twitter come up with guidelines for banning that would be applied equally to every user despite their “viewpoints.”
Judges have blocked those laws from taking effect in both states. YouTube says courts have also rejected legal challenges to bans, calling the issues raised by Trump “neither new nor difficult.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled YouTube is not a state actor whose editorial choices are constrained by the First Amendment.
YouTube filed a motion to dismiss Trump’s case on Dec. 2.
“By seeking to treat the judgments of a private online service provider as a state action, Plaintiffs flip the First Amendment on its head,” attorneys for the company wrote.
“They misuse the Declaratory Judgment Act to mount a baseless constitutional attack on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. And they improperly invoke Florida law to try to override YouTube’s own choices about what material belongs on its service.
“Mr. Trump also moves for a sweeping injunction that would force YouTube to provide him with a free and unregulated platform for his speech – a request that is improper on its own terms and that would conflict with YouTube’s own First Amendment rights.”