Altra decisione nella lite Trump e altri c. Twitter (Distr. Nord della California , 6 maggio 2022, case 3:21-cv-08378-JD ) prodotta dalla nota censura operata da Tw. contro il primo.
Anche qui va male all’ex presidente: Tw. no è State ACtor in alcun modo e dunque egli non può appellarsi al diritto di parola del Primo Emendamento.
Notare l’inziale understatement del collegio: <<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>>.
<<Plaintiffs’ only hope of stating a First Amendment claim is to plausibly allege that Twitter was in effect operating as the government under the “state-action doctrine.” This doctrine provides that, in some situations, “governmental authority may dominate an activity to such an extent that its participants must be deemed to act with the authority of the government and, as a result, be subject to constitutional constraints>>.
<< The salient question under the state action doctrine is whether “the conduct allegedly causing the deprivation of a federal right” is “fairly attributable to the State.” >>
Si pensi che, circa la prova della state action nel caso specifico , <<in plaintiffs’ view, these account actions were the result of coercion by members of Congress affiliated with the Democratic Party>>!!
E’ pure rigettata la domadna di esame della costituzionalità del § 230 CDA perchè manca la injury richiesta allo scopo