DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Devin Nunes Sues Twitter for Allowing Accounts to Insult Him

Devin Nunes Sues Twitter for Allowing Accounts to Insult Him

By Daniel Victor
March 19, 2019

Stung by obscene and pointed criticism, Representative Devin Nunes, a Republican from California, has sued Twitter and three users for defamation, claiming the users smeared him and the platform allowed it to happen because of a political agenda.

The complaint, which was filed in Henrico County Circuit Court in Virginia on Tuesday, seeks $250 million in damages. In making his case, Mr. Nunes, a loyal ally of President Trump and the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, repeated several common Republican complaints that Twitter has repeatedly denied: that it censors Republicans, “shadow bans” their accounts and actively helps their opponents.

Though absorbing criticism comes with the territory for politicians, the complaint described the objectionable tweets from the three users as something “that no human being should ever have to bear and suffer in their whole life.”

To make his case, he cited a wide variety of tweets that included accusations of criminal misconduct, crude jokes at his expense and relatively banal criticism. The complaint says the tweets “falsely stated” that Mr. Nunes had brought “shame” to his family and that he was voted “Most Likely to Commit Treason” in high school, and that one of them included a cartoon image of a sexual act with Mr. Trump and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. The complaint lists dozens of other tweets he found insulting.

Mr. Nunes singled out Liz Mair, a Republican strategist who said on Twitter that she would not comment on the lawsuit, and two parody accounts: @DevinNunesMom, which was suspended last year, and @DevinCow, which is still active. The complaint says that Ms. Mair coordinated with the anonymous accounts on “a vicious defamation campaign” but did not offer evidence she was behind them or communicated with them, except for one tweet encouraging people to follow @DevinCow.

Experts generally say the law protects large internet platforms like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube from liability based on what their users publish. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act says they should not “be treated as the publisher or speaker” of the content — allowing the platforms to exist without having to preapprove every post for potential legal issues.

But the complaint by Mr. Nunes seeks to portray the tweets directed at him as evidence of larger efforts by Twitter to undermine Republicans — a frequent rallying cry of conservatives. Mr. Nunes was a key figure in the House’s Russia investigation, and a frequent target for critics who said he was abusing his authority by impeding investigations to protect Mr. Trump.

“As part of its agenda to squelch Nunes’ voice, cause him extreme pain and suffering, influence the 2018 Congressional election, and distract, intimidate and interfere with Nunes’ investigation into corruption and Russian involvement in the 2016 Presidential Election, Twitter did absolutely nothing,” the complaint said.

Twitter declined to comment on the lawsuit. But in public statements, including contentious House committee hearings in September, executives have denied any political bias or agendas. Jack Dorsey, the chief executive of Twitter, told the House committee they had found no difference in the reach of tweets by Democrats and those by Republicans.

Editors’ Picks

An Enthralling New Look at the Mystery of Lizzie Borden

How Parents Are Robbing Their Children of Adulthood

Amy Schumer Doesn’t Care What You Think (That Much)
Mr. Nunes repeated the debunked claim that the social network was “shadow banning” Republicans, including him. Shadow banning — the act of a platform allowing someone to post but not allowing others to see the post, effectively making them invisible — became a political catch phrase in July, when a Vice News article used the term to characterize a Twitter bug that was affecting some prominent conservatives.

In fact, the bug affected their accounts only briefly by not showing up on the network’s search results when a user searched for their names; the reach of their posts was unaffected. But the assertion was still used by many, including Mr. Trump, as evidence of bias against conservatives.

The lawsuit by Mr. Nunes had the perhaps unintended effect of sharply increasing the reach of @DevinCow, the parody account that had around 1,200 followers before the lawsuit was filed. The account was up to 46,000 followers as of Tuesday morning and rapidly growing.

“I’m not quitting my day job,” the account posted on Monday.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/us/politics/devin-nunes-twitter-lawsuit.html

Nunes needs a safespace! LMAO at conservatives and their conspiracy theories. Trump jumps in and tweets about it after tweeting 50 times over the weekend attacking everything. Does the gop have anything to do other that worry about people talking trash about them?

LOL This is crazy.. He lied to the American people over the entire Trump investigation.. He didn't follow up, as is his duty, to claims that there was wrong doing.

He covered everything up.,

Now he wants to sue people,,,,LOL Sorry, but I find that incredibly naive...

Do people have anything better to do than talking trash about other people?

Just saying.

I will say, you'd think a politician would have thicker skin by now.

Trump is thin skinned too. He's ruined the GOP. Nunes is just a symptom of Trumpitis. Hilarious.

People are always going to trash talk those they don't align with or who offend them, that's human nature. People trash talk their boss, their family, the other teams fans, political opponents, etc. Not that it is productive or in anyway necessary, but it's never going to go away.

I think if you put yourself into the public eye, you have to expect scrutiny. I think if you tick people off in the public eye you have to expect backlash. I think if you trash talk political opponents, you have to expect them to trash talk you. I think if you act like a snake in the grass, you have to expect people to bring out the verbal machetes.

lol Nunes is mad at twitter, and trump threatened federal investigation into SNL.

talk about a bunch of snowflakes. conservatives are so PC.

But the crazy libs...

And what about Hillary's emails? She only sat there answering questions for 11 hours,,, we should start over and make it last for 12 hours....

If there is a threat of violence, that's a problem.

If there are lies and false information, go after the poster if you like, but Twitter is just a platform....

If they just hurt your feelings... grow up... maybe Twitter isn't the best place for you.

If there is a 'credible' threat of violence then that is a problem, I agree. And I agree with your other statements.

If he can prove libel that resulted in monetary damages to him, then he has a case.

You would be correct, but that's a huge almost impossible 'IF' in this case. This is frivolous and Nunes sponsored legislation to get rid of frivolous lawsuits, lol.

Not even close to what is happening on social media and this is why Conservatives are suing.

Look at what went down with the Covington kids.

Conservative free speech is being blocked by Google, Twitter, Facebook and others. You will follow a Conservative blogger and suddenly he disappears. Others try to post and find themselves blocked too.

The latest trend is for the Liberal run Southern Poverty Institute to declare someone a threat, which they unjustly do to Conservative groups all the time, then Twitter blocks them, blaming the Southern Poverty Institute.

Not to worry though, Conservatives are on to this now, just like we found out about Obama's IRS blocking Conservative groups from tax exempt status, so now the Courts will be taking a look at the situation.

I know you think that Facebook blocking Russian bots from posting is blocking "conservative free speech". Hell, maybe it is.

Not sure he understands the difference between 'free speech' and 'hate speech'. Social media companies provide a free platform. Most of the site they are complaining about are free but have terms of use. If they don't like them they should get off them. They could start conservative social media sites or go to 4chan-like sites where their rhetoric is welcome. but no, they want to tell a for profit company in the free market what they must do and how to provide their services... sounds like China and the Middle East to me.

I seriously just posted on FB last night that if you think facebook is invading your privacy, get the F off FB. Problem solved. Swish saw it.

I warned for a very long time that political correctness was a bad thing. At the same time I warned that spreading hate would be disguised by saying they weren't being politically correct.

There's a difference between being open and honest rather than just being an ass hat. Some people pretend like they don't know the difference. But they do.

You have warned about a lot of things that just aren't so.

You guys never cease to amaze me at how ignorant you are to American Law and how you speak emotionally on every issue.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that Free Speech is not "Speech you approve of". They ruled there is no such thing as a "Hate Speech" exemption to our right to Free Speech in the Constitution.

Hate Speech is Free Speech, kinda like you calling for Liberals to arm themselves against our President in the other thread.

You do understand that since you're not an attorney yourself it sounds pretty ignorant for you to preach at someone else about knowing the law, right?

And people using the lack of political correctness as an excuse to be an ass hat has nothing to do with law.

But hey, you elected a guy who has brought thousands of stupid lawsuits forward. Of course he lost most of them but I digress. So I'm not surprised that in the age of Trump you now seem proud of the frivolous law suits you used to despise.

More emotional outbursts in the face of facts.

I am not an attorney so that is why I investigate what the Law is before I post.

You should try it sometime.

Once again nothing in that post has anything to do with law. It has to do with at least trying to act like a decent human being. I can see how that concept may escape you though.

But let me ask you this. Since you think it's perfectly fine for a baker to deny service to anyone they do not agree with on religious grounds, then why isn't it okay for a social network not to allow things to be posted on a site they own on moral grounds?

I guess you think those kind of rights for a business only exist for those whose side you agree with.

Yes, free speech is just that. You can say what you want. But sometimes there are consequences for it and you can't force a business to allow something to be published they don't want published on their platform. You have a right to say it. They have the right not to put it on a platform they own.

That is like asking, "Why is it ok with you to step on an ant while you disapprove of stepping on a child?"

Twist away as you like but it doesn't change the facts...

The Supreme Court has already ruled that Free Speech is not "Speech you approve of".
They ruled there is no such thing as a "Hate Speech" exemption to our right to Free Speech in the Constitution.

Wipe your eyes and soak that in for a minute.

But that doesn't mean that Twitter or Facebook has to allow you to spew hate on THEIR platforms. What don't you get about that? Nobody is stopping you from going out on the corner on your soapbox and preaching MAGA BS.

If a private company steps on your rights, they are liable.
You can sue them and win big bucks.
If they say this group can spew anti right speech but we will stifle the right when they spew anti left speech, they have acted unconstitutionally. You can sue and win even bigger bucks.

This is why FOX always has Liberals and Democrats on their shows. "Fair and Balanced" won't get you sued.

Yes they will and we shall see how that turns out.

Yes, and I am glad the Conservatives have dragged this issue into the light for all to see.

The Trumpsters have been dragging a lot of things around lately. Mostly indictments.

But don't accuse conservatives of being Trumpsters.

The Trumpsters have watch their President drag every hard subject into the light in an effort to fix them.

He fears no man.
He fears no issue.

It is Conservatives that Twitter and the others have been squashing, not just those who support Trump.

Good luck proving that's true. Shutting down Russian bots isn't infringing on free speech. I understand they help you win elections but that's still no excuse.

How many votes did the Bots change?
How many people voted for Trump or against Hillary over Bots?

I await your proof.

"Drag it into the light" usually means he ranted about it on Twitter.


I guess this is why they haven't squashed Trump yet.... because he isn't conservative.

Thought everyone knew from before the election that Trump is not a Conservative. He is barely a Republican. His family were all registered Democrats in NY.

His allegiance is to The American People.
He owed nothing to no one and that is what made him popular.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHA

He's the king of debt by his own admission. He owes a lot of people. And his allegiance is only to himself.

Then why is he only really popular with the rightest of the right wing?

Hint.. because they aren't conservative either.. and they are easily played.

Hint... His popularity is near 50 percent and that would mean America is 50 percent hard right.

Work on your math my man.

No, not really. You have zero say about what a company allows and doesn't allow on their website. It's THEIR private property.

The first amendment only says that the Government can't arrest you for what you say. It absolutely does not say that you have the right to behave however you like on someone else's property.

Why do you think that all protests are located OUTSIDE a business in the street, rather than in the business.

From what I understand of this case...

When you operate a platform for the public to converse where you only allow one side to speak while denying others that same right, you are in violation of their rights under the Constitution.
You can not discriminate.

You can limit cursing, calls for violence and personal insults. You can have rules. But it is questionable to what degree and how you go about it.

There is evidence of Google and Twitter emails among management of their decision to limit Conservative speech on their platforms.

This is what the Nunes case is testing.
We will see what the courts decide.
Change may be coming.

I don't think so. Exactly what law are you talking about that says private business is subject to this?

Because personal/private property is not necessarily open to the public at large. And is not a function of the "Public/Government". Business can restrict access and communications however they want. There are plenty of examples of this throughout history and today. Masons, etc

I think you are confusing public (government owned) communication channels with private business.

I am talking about the Constitution and the Rights granted us from it. There are also other civil laws that apply.

When it comes to your statement about Private Property and the protesters being outside on the street, if you invite them into your business, they have a right to sue you if they slip and fall in your store. Right?

With a web site for discussion, have you not invited them into your business when you allow them to post?

Nunes wants to know. He claims Twitter is discriminating against conservative speech.

Please provide proof that the Constitution or any law of any kind states that a private entity may not manage it's property and communications as it sees fit. As in exactly what law is it breaking?

If you can't provide any such proof, than I really have nothing left to say about it.