top of page

Trump vs Twitter Complaint is an Entertaining Read

Last week, a complaint was filed for First Amendment Violation by Donald J. Trump, Linda Cuadros and ACU vs Twitter and Jack Dorsey.

Given the current state of the world, this may not go anywhere. At minimum, as a high-profile lawsuit by someone who has plenty of money to throw behind it, it will probably be a nuisance for the other side and set an example for the public. And it is an entertaining read if one is into this sort of thing. The main text is not long at 33 pages, spanning over 143 paragraphs.

Below are a few of the more comical paragraphs.

41. Plaintiff established his Twitter account in May of 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 he announced his campaign for the presidential nomination of the Republican Party, Plaintiff used his Twitter account to speak directly to his followers and to the public at large. By using social media, including Twitter, Plaintiff strategically circumvented what he saw as a mainstream media that was biased against him.

Translation: Lamestream media is… well, lame.

48. Democrat legislators in Congress feared Plaintiff’s skilled use of social media as a threat to their own re-election efforts. These legislators exerted overt coercion, using both words and actions, to direct Defendants to censor the views and content which Democrat Members of Congress disagreed with, of both Plaintiff and Putative Class Members.

Translation: Trump has the energy to tweet in the early hours of the morning and demoncrats don’t. Sore losers had to resort to “censorship”. Well, tough titties to both parties because now we file a lawsuit against you.

53. Democrat legislators not only voiced their threats (e.g., new regulations and removing Section 230 immunity) to social media platforms, but they also employed additional measures to deliver their unmistakable message that they were prepared to act against the social media platforms if Defendants did not increase their censorship of disfavored views and content of Plaintiff and Putative Class Members.
54. These additional measures included convening public hearings, issuing subpoenas, dragging in the CEOs of the largest social media companies to testify publicly before Congress, and subjecting these CEOs to lengthy, embarrassing questioning.

A few examples of the above are given in the complaint. No point reproducing here. Also, Section 230 is about protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material.

69. Allegations that Twitter is allowing for the exploitation of children on its platform continue to mount. Twitter has been cited for knowingly violating several obscenity and sex trafficking laws. Twitter is not only promoting child exploitation in the United States, but is allegedly doing so globally.

Not that social media platforms have to take down offensive material but they are permitted to. (If they are actively supporting it, then that’s another matter.) The key is consistency and that is somewhat lacking when a sitting US President is banned but not the other stuff which 47 USC section 230 permits.

72. In relying on the permissive language of Section 230 and statements and actions of Democrat legislators, those legislators made it clear that they had a “strong preference” for the censoring of the views and content of the Plaintiff and Putative Class Members regarding, for example: ● COVID-19 “misinformation,” including the lack of safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and the use of face masks. ● COVID-19 originated in the Wuhan province of China and was a transmission from scientists in a government. ● Questioning the integrity and results of the 2020 Presidential election.

So, of course, one can’t ignore the plandemic.

74. Federal actors are also sharing the fruits of Twitter censorship of Plaintiff and Members of the Class. These benefits include: ● The Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the White House have used Defendants to inexpensively and effectively promote their directives, messages, and policies concerning COVID-19, and to suppress contradictory medical views and content; ● Suppression of information suggesting or showing flaws in CDC and/or other federal governmental policy; ● Increasing the number of visitors to the CDC’s website; ● Boosting the CDC’s highly questionable reputation as reliable and authoritative in its factual and policy determinations; ● Creating a false impression of unequivocal support in the scientific community for the CDC and other governmental directives; ● And suppression of opinions and information that might lead people to take actions contrary to the government’s preferences.
82. Twitter’s censorship (i.e., flagging, shadow banning, etc.) of Users who engaged in speech with a different opinion regarding the COVID-19 vaccination than Twitter advanced for Dr. Fauci and the CDC, irrespective of the credentials of those posting said different opinions, was a closely coordinated interaction between Defendants and a specific government actor (Dr. Fauci) and government agency (CDC) to constrain free speech.
83. When Twitter states or implies that Users who espouse a different narrative regarding the safety and efficacy of the vaccination are spreading “false” information, it is an act of bad faith. It is necessary in society for people to have a robust exchange of ideas, yet Dorsey and Twitter have worked closely with government actors to silence any opposing views.
85. Another example of Defendants working directly with government actors to censor free speech was when Plaintiff and Putative Class Members supported the view that hydroxychloroquine might be an effective, preventative option to protect against the coronavirus.
86. Plaintiff’s support of the use of hydroxychloroquine was censored by Twitter, as only the narrative crafted by Dr. Fauci, NIAID, and CDC regarding best practices for treating the novel COVID-19 was allowed on Twitter.

Translation: Anyone can see the logical inconsistencies. Anyone can look up the potential benefits of HCQ and that the drug has been around for decades. And yet, they have to push the vaccine by resorting to banning opposing views and adopting the retarded lamestream logic of “If Trump says it, then it must be wrong.”


Be sure to subscribe to our mailing list so you get each new Opinyun that comes out!


Recent Posts

See All


Screen Shot 2021-12-09 at 4.49.31 PM.png

10% Off


bottom of page