The State of New York is urging a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit filed by Elon Musk’s social media platform X (formerly Twitter), which challenges the constitutionality of a new law requiring large social media companies to publicly disclose how they moderate hate speech and harmful online content.

The lawsuit, filed earlier this year by X Corp., takes aim at New York’s Stop Hiding Hate Act, a law signed by Governor Kathy Hochul in December 2024. The legislation mandates that major social media platforms—defined as companies generating at least $100 million in annual revenue—must publish detailed transparency reports outlining their content moderation policies. These reports must explain how they address online hate speech, harassment, extremist rhetoric, misinformation, and foreign interference in political discourse.

The State’s Argument: A Law About Transparency, Not Censorship

In a filing submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Attorney General Letitia James urged the court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the law does not infringe on any company’s First Amendment rights. Instead, James said, the legislation serves a vital public interest by helping consumers understand the digital environments they engage in.

James also emphasized that the law is not a government attempt to control speech or impose editorial oversight. Rather, it’s a transparency measure designed to hold social media platforms accountable for their influence on public discourse and the spread of potentially dangerous online material.

X Corp’s Challenge: ‘Unconstitutional Overreach’

Elon Musk’s X Corp. argues that the New York law crosses constitutional boundaries. According to the company’s complaint, the statute “compels speech” by forcing private companies to disclose internal policies about moderation—decisions that X says are “inherently expressive and sensitive.”

X claims that the law could chill free expression by inviting political scrutiny of moderation choices that often involve controversial or nuanced forms of speech. “Government-mandated disclosures about speech moderation directly interfere with editorial freedom,” X’s legal team wrote in its filing.

The company further argues that the law is vague and overly broad, allowing the state to potentially punish companies for perceived failures in compliance. Violations of the law can lead to civil penalties of up to $15,000 per violation per day, a steep fine that X’s attorneys say could deter open discourse and innovation in moderation strategies.

Legal Precedent and Constitutional Tension

The case reflects a broader national debate over how far states can go in regulating online speech and the policies of private tech companies. X’s lawsuit cites a September 2024 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which struck down portions of a similar California law on First Amendment grounds.

In that ruling, the court found that California’s transparency law unconstitutionally compelled speech by requiring companies to publish information about how they moderate political or controversial speech. X argues that New York’s statute, modeled in part on California’s version, suffers from the same constitutional flaws.

However, Attorney General James pushed back, asserting that the California case was decided incorrectly and that New York’s law is distinct. She maintained that the Stop Hiding Hate Act does not interfere with editorial discretion or compel companies to adopt specific viewpoints—it merely requires disclosure of moderation practices.

A Clash Between Regulation and Musk’s Free Speech Vision

Since Elon Musk acquired Twitter for $44 billion in 2022, the platform—rebranded as X—has undergone sweeping changes in content moderation, staffing, and policy. Musk has described himself as a “free speech absolutist” and rolled back many of Twitter’s prior moderation practices, framing the move as an effort to promote open dialogue and resist censorship.

However, critics say those changes have led to a resurgence of hate speech, misinformation, and harassment on the platform. Civil rights groups and watchdog organizations have repeatedly raised concerns that X’s policies allow harmful content to spread unchecked.

New York lawmakers argued that these developments reinforced the need for stronger transparency laws. Governor Hochul and Attorney General James both cited the Stop Hiding Hate Act as a step toward responsible digital governance, ensuring that platforms as influential as X, Meta, and YouTube are more open about their policies.

Implications Beyond New York

The outcome of X Corp. v. James could set a significant precedent for how states regulate social media companies nationwide. If the court sides with X, it could limit state governments’ ability to demand transparency from major tech firms. On the other hand, if New York prevails, it may embolden other states to enact similar laws aimed at holding social media giants accountable for their role in public discourse.

The case also highlights the growing tension between Musk’s libertarian approach to online speech and government efforts to combat harmful digital content. As misinformation, hate speech, and extremist propaganda continue to influence real-world events, the balance between transparency, free expression, and regulation remains a defining issue for lawmakers and tech leaders alike.

For now, X continues to maintain that the Stop Hiding Hate Act infringes on constitutional rights, while New York insists that it’s a simple call for openness. The lawsuit, filed under case number 25-05068 in the Southern District of New York, remains pending, with a ruling on the state’s motion to dismiss expected in the coming months.

Stay ahead of the latest legal developments shaping technology and free speech. Visit LawCrossing.com to explore in-demand legal jobs in technology, government regulation, and constitutional law.

The post New York Moves to Dismiss Lawsuit by Elon Musk’s X Over Hate Speech Disclosure Law first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The US Supreme Court has declined to hear Elon Musk’s appeal regarding his agreement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over his social media posts. Musk’s request to have an in-house lawyer pre-approve his Twitter activity concerning Tesla Inc. has been left intact.

Knowledge is power, and knowing your earning potential is no exception. Check out LawCrossing’s salary surveys to gain valuable insights.

Background

The legal battle stems from Musk’s infamous tweet in August 2018, where he claimed to have “funding secured” to take Tesla private, resulting in a surge in Tesla’s stock value. The SEC subsequently sued Musk, alleging that the tweet misled shareholders. Musk settled with the SEC, agreeing to step down as Tesla chairman and pay a $20 million fine.

Make informed decisions in real-time. Subscribe to JDJournal and be in the know with the latest legal updates.

Recent Developments

In 2021, Musk reignited the conflict by posting a Twitter poll about selling 10% of his stock. This led the SEC to issue subpoenas to Musk and Tesla. Musk then sought to annul his pre-screening agreement, arguing that it infringed upon his free speech rights. However, a federal appeals court rejected his claims last year.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Legal Arguments

Musk’s legal team contended that the pre-approval requirement constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint on his speech. They argued that the provision continues to inhibit Musk’s ability to freely communicate with the public.

In response, the SEC maintained that parties involved in litigation can waive fundamental constitutional rights, urging the Supreme Court to dismiss Musk’s appeal without further review.

Uncover exclusive insights and strategic approaches through the State of the Lateral Law Firm Legal Market 2024—an in-depth report delving into the intricate patterns and current trends within the lateral law firm market.

Conclusion

With the Supreme Court’s decision, Musk’s agreement with the SEC remains in force, requiring him to obtain pre-approval for his social media posts about Tesla. The case underscores the complexities surrounding the intersection of free speech rights and regulatory oversight in the digital age.

The post Supreme Court Upholds SEC's Oversight in Musk's 'Twitter Sitter' Case first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

In a recent development, a federal judge has ruled that Twitter, now rebranded as X Corp, violated contractual obligations by failing to fulfill promised bonuses amounting to millions of dollars for its employees. The decision resulted from a lawsuit filed by Mark Schobinger, the former senior director of compensation at Twitter, who left the company owned by Elon Musk in May and claimed breach of contract.

Allegations of Unfulfilled Bonus Commitments

Schobinger’s lawsuit asserted that before and after Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter last year, the company assured employees of receiving 50% of their targeted bonuses for 2022. However, Twitter allegedly failed to make the stipulated bonus payments, leading Schobinger to file a breach of contract claim.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Judge’s Ruling on Contractual Violation

In response to Twitter’s motion to dismiss the case, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria upheld Schobinger’s claims, stating that he had plausible grounds for a breach of contract under California law. The judge emphasized that a bonus plan covered Schobinger, and once he fulfilled the required actions as per Twitter’s instructions, a binding contract was established. Consequently, Twitter’s refusal to pay the promised bonus was deemed a violation of the agreement.

Twitter’s Defense and Legal Jurisdiction

Twitter’s legal team argued that the promise was oral and did not constitute a formal contract. Additionally, they contended that Texas law should govern the case. However, Judge Chhabria dismissed these arguments, asserting that California law was applicable and that Twitter’s counterclaims were unsuccessful.

X Corp’s Response

X Corp, the rebranded entity resulting from Elon Musk’s acquisition, did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding the ruling. Notably, the company no longer maintains a media relations office.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Ongoing Legal Challenges for X Corp

This ruling adds to the growing list of legal challenges faced by X Corp since Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, which involved a significant reduction in the workforce. Various lawsuits, including claims of discrimination against older employees, women, and individuals with disabilities, as well as allegations of inadequate notice for mass layoffs, have been filed against the company. X Corp, however, denies any wrongdoing in these cases. The legal landscape surrounding X Corp continues to evolve as it navigates through these challenges.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Twitter, Now X Corp, Found in Breach of Contract for Unpaid Bonuses first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Elon Musk, the prominent billionaire known for his leadership in various high-profile companies, is entangled in a web of legal disputes across his business empire. These legal challenges encompass multiple issues, from securities regulations to employment discrimination lawsuits. In this article, we provide an in-depth look at the various legal entanglements that Musk and his companies face.

Twitter Lawsuits

SEC Lawsuit for Testimony

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk to compel the world’s richest man to testify as part of a probe into his $44 billion takeover of the social media giant Twitter. This legal action is a significant development in the ongoing investigation, with the court filing dated October 5, 2023.

Investor Lawsuit Against Musk

In May 2022, investors in Twitter took legal action against Musk, alleging that he manipulated the company’s stock price by failing to disclose his acquisition of shares in the platform, now known as “X.”

Trademark Infringement Lawsuit

On October 2, 2023, Twitter’s new name, “X,” faced a lawsuit in federal court in Florida. A legal marketing company claimed the social media firm’s new name infringed upon its trademark, which incorporated the letter “X.”

$56 Billion Tesla Compensation Lawsuit

A significant legal battle surrounds Musk’s compensation at Tesla. A ruling is expected soon following a non-jury trial. This lawsuit questions the validity of Musk’s $56 billion pay package at the electric carmaker. The problem featured closing arguments in February, during which a judge probed lawyers for Tesla directors and an investor challenging Musk’s pay regarding the company’s explosive growth and allegations of misleading disclosures about the pay plan 2018.

Employment Disputes

Musk’s major companies, including Tesla, SpaceX, and the X social media platform, are embroiled in several employment discrimination lawsuits.

SpaceX Discrimination Lawsuits

SpaceX faced a proposed class action lawsuit in October. A former female employee alleged that the company promoted women and minorities less frequently than white men. Additionally, the U.S. Justice Department filed a lawsuit against SpaceX in August, accusing the company of discrimination against asylum recipients and refugees during its hiring process.

X Employment Disputes

X is contending with multiple lawsuits alleging sex, age, and disability discrimination stemming from layoffs in the previous year. Two cases claim that the company owes laid-off employees a minimum of $500 million severance pay.

Tesla Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Lawsuits

Tesla and Musk are defending numerous allegations of workplace harassment and discrimination, including lawsuits filed by California’s Department of Civil Rights and a federal civil rights agency. In April, a federal jury in San Francisco ordered Tesla to pay $3.2 million to a Black elevator operator who won a racial harassment lawsuit. Tesla has publicly stated that it does not tolerate discrimination and has taken measures to address workers’ complaints.

Lawsuits Sparked by Musk’s Tweets

Elon Musk’s tweets on the social media platform he now owns have frequently sparked controversy and legal trouble.

Violation of Labor Law

In March, a U.S. appeals court upheld a decision by the U.S. National Labor Relations Board, stating that Musk violated federal labor law by tweeting that Tesla employees would lose stock options if they joined a union. The court is currently reconsidering this ruling.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Misleading Investors

In February, a U.S. jury found Musk and Tesla not liable for misleading investors when Musk tweeted in 2018 that he had “funding secured” to take the electric car company private. This tweet led to allegations of securities fraud by the U.S. SEC and a 2018 settlement in which Musk stepped down as Tesla chairman, paid fines, and agreed to seek legal approval for some of his tweets before posting them. Musk is currently seeking U.S. Supreme Court intervention to challenge the SEC’s authority to enforce this consent decree, which he has called a “muzzle” on his free speech. As part of the settlement, a federal judge announced in September the creation of a “fair fund” to provide a $41.53 million payout to investors who incurred losses due to Musk’s tweet.

Investigations into Tesla’s Driver Assistance Features

Tesla is facing a criminal investigation in the United States regarding claims that its electric vehicles can operate autonomously. Additionally, Tesla is confronting a lawsuit alleging that its Autopilot system contributed to a fatal crash of a Tesla Model 3, resulting in one fatality and injuries to two other passengers. An attorney for Tesla argued in the first U.S. trial over these allegations that the crash resulted from “a classic human error.” Earlier in April, Tesla won a bellwether trial in Los Angeles related to a Tesla crash involving its Autopilot feature. Tesla’s strategy in the prosecution emphasized that the company informed drivers that its technology required human monitoring despite the “Autopilot” name.

Musk’s Corporate Perks and Vehicle Driving Range Claims

Federal prosecutors in New York have initiated an investigation related to Elon Musk’s corporate perks and claims regarding vehicle driving range. The investigation’s focus includes matters about corporate conduct and vehicle performance. The Wall Street Journal first reported on this probe, which adds to the legal challenges Musk is currently facing.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Trump’s Lawsuit Against X

On October 4, 2023, a lawyer representing former U.S. President Donald Trump sought to revive a lawsuit claiming that the social media platform X violated his and other users’ free-speech rights when it suspended their accounts. This case, previously dismissed, has been highlighted, highlighting the legal complexities surrounding social media platforms and free speech issues.

In conclusion, Elon Musk’s legal entanglements are diverse and extensive, reflecting the challenges a prominent figure faces in various high-stakes industries faces. These legal battles encompass securities regulations, employment discrimination, corporate compensation, and even the consequences of Musk’s social media presence. As these cases unfold, they will continue to shape the legal landscape surrounding Musk and his companies.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Elon Musk’s Legal Battles: A Comprehensive Overview first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Former Twitter workers’ legal battle for unpaid severance prompts Elon Musk’s company to return to the table

Legal Victory Spurs Negotiations

Lawyers representing many former Twitter employees who have filed lawsuits for unpaid severance have achieved a significant breakthrough. Their efforts have brought Elon Musk and his company, Twitter (now known as X), back to the negotiation table.

Leaked Memo Reveals Twitter’s Desire for Mediation

A confidential memo from the legal team advocating for former Twitter employees disclosed that Twitter (X) has expressed a keen interest in pursuing mediation to address the plaintiffs’ numerous claims.

Musk’s Takeover Triggers Mass Layoffs

Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter triggered a series of mass layoffs, culminating in the termination of most of the workforce. This left X with a workforce of around 1,500, contrasting the previous 8,000 employees.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Lawsuits Galore: Violations, Discrimination, and Unpaid Severance

As the layoffs unfolded, a wave of lawsuits ensued, with thousands of former employees suing their former employer. These lawsuits encompassed various issues, including alleged violations of California’s WARN Act, claims of layoff discrimination, and assertions of unpaid contractual severance payments amounting to $500 million.

Ignoring Arbitration Claims Adds to Twitter’s Woes

Twitter faced additional scrutiny for allegedly disregarding arbitration claims filed by employees seeking their severance and resolution of other grievances. By the end of the previous month, Twitter (X) had confirmed more than 2,000 arbitration claims against them, resulting in substantial filing fees.

A Ten-Month Battle Yields Success

Despite the escalating costs and challenges, attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, representing the plaintiffs, celebrated a significant victory. After ten months of relentless legal pressure, Twitter (X) agreed to return to the negotiation table.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Law Firm’s Extensive Legal Actions

Liss-Riordan’s Boston-based law firm has spearheaded nearly 2,000 arbitration cases against X. In addition, they have launched a dozen class-action lawsuits aimed at compelling Musk’s social media platform to participate in negotiations.

Demand for Additional Severance Pay and Legal Redress

The law firm firmly asserts that all employees employed at Twitter before Elon Musk’s acquisition and who lost their jobs are entitled to additional severance pay. They also suggest that many other legal claims are yet to be addressed.

Arbitration Set for December

The arbitration proceedings are scheduled to commence in December. However, uncertainties persist regarding Musk and X’s financial capability to cover filing fees and potential settlements, given the reported continued losses since Musk’s takeover. Attempts to elicit a response from X regarding their decision to re-engage in negotiations have gone unanswered.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Ex-Twitter Employees Secure Negotiations with Elon Musk’s X first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

In a recent lawsuit filed by Twitter’s new corporate owner, X Corp, against prominent law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, serious allegations of financial exploitation and fiduciary duty violations have emerged. The lawsuit contends that Wachtell charged an astounding $90 million in fees, which included an unusually high “gargantuan” success fee before Elon Musk acquired the social media giant.

According to the lawsuit filed on July 5, 2023, Wachtell’s initial engagement letter from June 2022 outlined hourly fees for their services. However, just hours before the sale closed on October 27, 2022, Wachtell and Twitter entered into a separate agreement that included the substantial success fee. Twitter argues that Wachtell took advantage of the company’s vulnerable state, with nobody diligently safeguarding its financial interests during the transition to new ownership.

The lawsuit accuses Wachtell of orchestrating a scheme to benefit financially from Twitter’s resources while the company was in the process of changing hands to the Musk parties. It asserts that Wachtell violated its fiduciary duties by exploiting the situation for its own gain, leaving Twitter financially compromised.

See also: Twitter Considers Legal Action Over Threads Against Meta

Wachtell had previously represented Twitter in a legal battle against Elon Musk, aiming to enforce an agreement for him to acquire the social media platform. However, the relationship between the two parties took an unfortunate turn as Twitter’s new owners discovered alleged improprieties related to Wachtell’s billing practices.

Don’t settle for a mediocre legal job. Search BCG Attorney Search for the best opportunities!

Before the new fee agreement was executed, the lawsuit claims that Wachtell submitted excessive invoices based on hourly fees, some of which contained blank time entry descriptions for millions of dollars in billing. The former Twitter executives reportedly approved a payment of nearly $18 million, including a staggering $15.6 million for just a few months of work.

The $90 million fee agreement in question encompassed compensation for the hourly services rendered by Wachtell and an unspecified but significant success fee. Twitter’s lawsuit asserts claims of unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against the law firm.

In response to inquiries, Wachtell’s general line answered the call but failed to transfer it to the media relations department or a law firm spokesperson. As of now, the law firm has not issued an immediate response to the allegations.

This legal battle between Twitter and Wachtell highlights the immense financial stakes involved in high-profile corporate transactions and underscores the importance of upholding fiduciary duties and maintaining transparency throughout the legal process. As the lawsuit unfolds, the outcome will have far-reaching implications for both Twitter and the legal profession as a whole.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Twitter Challenges Wachtell’s Excessive Success Fee in Controversial Legal Battle first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Two US Representatives, Adam Schiff and Mark Takano of California, have called on Twitter CEO Elon Musk to address the growing issue of hate speech on social media since he purchased it in October 2022. Schiff and Takano had originally called on Musk to investigate the increase in hate speech on the platform in December, where they reported a 61.3% increase in anti-Semitic speech. Since Musk’s purchase, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) has reported that anti-Semitic speech on Twitter has increased by 106%, and anti-LGBTQ+ speech has increased by 119%.

The representatives stressed the power that one tweet containing hate speech can have on Twitter and its negative impact on marginalized communities. According to their letter, ten accounts promoting hate speech have garnered 2.5 million impressions since December. Despite Musk’s public condemnation of hate speech, Schiff and Takano argue that Twitter has not taken adequate measures to decrease it and have requested that Musk outline his plan to mitigate hate speech on the platform.

One concern raised by the Representatives is that Musk has drastically reduced Twitter’s staff, including those whose roles contributed to the reduction of hate speech. Therefore, they have asked Musk to identify how he plans to address the issue of hate speech without the same staffing level. In addition, Schiff and Takano have also asked Musk to outline Twitter’s plan to increase user safety, particularly for the Jewish and LGBTQ+ communities.

Musk has also faced criticism over the suspension of journalists on Twitter, including VOA Chief National Correspondent and JURIST Journalist in Residence Steve Herman, whose suspension was upheld until February of this year. This has raised concerns over the human right to freely impart and receive information.

BCG Attorney Search is the go-to source for top legal jobs in your area. Search now!

The issue of hate speech on social media platforms is a growing concern worldwide, with many individuals and groups experiencing targeted harassment and abuse online. The rise in hate speech on Twitter since Musk’s purchase of the platform highlights the need for social media companies to take proactive measures to tackle this issue.

While social media platforms such as Twitter have made some efforts to address the issue, the problem remains pervasive. Many argue that social media companies need to do more to combat hate speech and ensure the safety of all users. This includes providing clear guidelines on what constitutes hate speech and taking swift action against those who violate these guidelines.

In conclusion, the increasing prevalence of hate speech on Twitter is a serious concern, and the response of social media companies is crucial in addressing this issue. The call by Representatives Schiff and Takano for Elon Musk to take action and outline a plan to address the issue is an essential step in holding social media platforms accountable for their role in promoting or combating hate speech online.

The post Congress Demands Action from Elon Musk as Hate Speech Soars on Twitter Under His Leadership first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: Facebook labeled a video posted by President Donald Trump as “partly false.”

On Monday, Facebook joined Twitter in flagging a manipulated video featuring former Vice President Joe Biden, shared by both President Trump and the White House.

A day after Donald Trump shared Joe Biden’s speech that had been edited to make it seem like he was saying President Trump would be reelected, Facebook applied a “partly false” label to the clip. The video, shared by White House social media director Dan Scavino and retweeted by the President, was also flagged by Twitter as “manipulated media” on Sunday.

The original video shows the presidential candidate during his speech warning about the potential of reelecting Trump.

“Excuse me. We can only reelect Donald Trump if we get engaged in this circular firing squad here. It’s got to be a positive campaign, so join us,” Biden said during the speech. 

However, the manipulated version cuts off after Biden says “we can only reelect Donald Trump.” 

The President retweeted the video to his 73.5 million Twitter followers, with the comment “I agree with Joe!”

“The video was not manipulated,” Tim Murtaugh, a spokesman for the Trump re-election campaign, said. “Joe Biden really is that bad.”

The edited clip was shared throughout much of Sunday without any response from the social media networks. It had been retweeted more than 20,000 times and viewed more than five million times. After Twitter users flagged the video, twitter labeled it as manipulated content. This is the first time that the social media network applied a policy announced in February against misleading and fake videos.

Facebook did not remove the video right away and was criticized by the Biden campaign.

‘Facebook’s malfeasance when it comes to trafficking in blatantly false information is a national crisis in this respect,” said Greg Schultz, Mr. Biden’s campaign manager, in a statement.

“It is also an unconscionable act of putting profit above not just our country, but every country,” he added. “Facebook won’t say it, but it is apparent to all who have examined their conduct and policies: They care first and foremost about money and, to that end, are willing to serve as one of the world’s most effective mediums for the spread of vile lies.”

The video was flagged by one of Facebook’s fact-checking partners.

“Fact-checkers rated this video as partly false, so we are reducing its distribution and showing warning labels with more context for people who see it, try to share it, or already have,” Facebook said in a statement Monday.

“As we announced last year, the same applies if a politician shares the video if it was otherwise fact-checked when shared by others on Facebook.”

The post Facebook Flags Donald Trump Post ‘Partly False’ After Biden’s Protest first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

A Brexit supporter has taken to Social Media to vent his frustration at being forced to wait for nearly an hour in the queue at an EU airport in Amsterdam, claiming that “this isn’t the Brexit I voted for.”

Colin Browning from Leicestershire, who describes himself as one of the 17.4 million people who voted for Brexit, complained on Twitter he was forced to wait for 55 minutes at Schiphol airport, posting a photo of an immigration queue.

“Absolutely disgusting service at Schiphol airport. 55 minutes we have been stood in the immigration queue. This isn’t the Brexit I voted for” wrote the disgusted Brexiter on Twitter.

Suffice to say, Tweeters ‘loved’ this. In less than 24 hours Browning’s tweet attracted more than 8,000 replies and the phrase “Oh Colin” was trending on Twitter. 

 “The painful thud of reality. This absolutely IS what you voted for – the restoration of strict border controls, right?”- said one commenter.

“Um actually, yes, this is exactly what you voted for” added another user.

“You voted to lose Freedom of Movement. Did you think it didn’t mean you?” said another.

Browning responded to the ‘this is what you voted for’ comments with a follow-up post claiming he knew exactly what he voted for.

“I didn’t vote to stand in a queue for over an hour why some jobsworth checks our passports.” wrote the Brexit-voter. “I spent more time at immigration than I did in the air getting to my destination,” he added.

While some commenters speculated that the Twitter post may be a parody, Browning’s account shows several Pro-Brexit posts published in recent months, as well as a fair share of anti-vegan and anti-cycling posts. His Twitter bio reads “Love all things Leicestershire, STH at LCFC since 1981. Love a pint of Tiger. Let’s make Britain Great again. One of the 17.4 #Brexiteer.”

Officials at Schiphol airport have previously notified that passengers traveling from the UK could expect delays upon arriving in Amsterdam after Britain’s exit from the European Union.

Frances Coppola, a finance journalist for Forbes, said airports like  Schiphol appeared to have “jumped the gun” by directing British passport holders to non-EU gates but noted that the change would be implemented across all EU countries from next year.

“I’m afraid it is exactly what you voted for. You were told by Remainers that this would be the consequence, but you dismissed their warnings as #ProjectFear,” Coppola wrote in response to Browning’s tweet.

Analysis by the Dutch government has suggested it could take to one hour for passengers on busy flights to get through the system due to additional document checks.

Nevertheless, it’s unlikely the recent delays have something to with Brexit as the UK is currently in a transition period with the EU, meaning it will not affect travel arrangements until January 2021.

“Anyone wanna tell him about the transition period – that he currently has the rights as other EU citizens – and is in the wrong queue? Or, shall we let him carry on with his wait to think things over?”- a user wrote in response to the Brexiter’s post.

“There had been no changes for British travelers arriving at the airport. A spokesperson for Schiphol told The Independent. ” 

“New Royal Netherlands Marrechaussee staff members were being trained yesterday, leading to longer queues at the passport control than usual,” the spokesperson said.

The post Brexiteer Complains He Has to Wait in Queue at EU Airport: ‘This Isn’t the Brexit I Voted For’ first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: Charles C. Johnson is suing Twitter for banning him in 2015.

Since his banishment in 2015, right-wing activist Charles C. Johnson has threatened to sue Twitter for years. Now that day has finally come.

According to Buzzfeed News, Johnson filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court in Fresno on Monday. His attorney Robert E. Barnes said that Johnson was banned from Twitter because of his political views, and this is a violation of free speech. The lawsuit is seeking millions in damages.

“This is going to be a very serious case over the freedom of the internet,” Johnson said to BuzzFeed News. “And whether people have the right to say what they mean and mean what they say.”

Johnson is a former Breitbart reporter who owns the investigations website, WeSearchr. In May 2015, he asked on Twitter for donations to help “take out” Black Lives Matter co-founder DeRay McKesson. Twitter banned the alt-right activist after that, and Johnson claimed his tweet was taken out of context.

Before his ban, Johnson had spread false rumors that President Barack Obama was gay and had posted photos and the address of a person he claimed had been exposed to the Ebola virus. In his lawsuit, Johnson said that emails published by Buzzfeed News proved that Twitter had removed him because he was a “politically disfavored individual.”

“We permanently suspended Chuck Johnson even though it wasn’t direct violent threats. It was just a call that the policy team made,” Twitter’s VP of user services, Tina Bhatnagar, wrote to CEO Jack Dorsey in January 2016.  “That account is permanently suspended and nobody for no reason may reactivate it. Period.”

In Johnson’s lawsuit, he said that Twitter did not conform to its own policy and thus violated the user-platform agreement. However, Eric Goldman, director of the Santa Clara University School of Law’s High Tech Law Institute, told Buzzfeed News that Johnson has a difficult case to win because Twitter essentially has the right to ban whoever they want.

“Twitter can choose to terminate anyone’s account at any time without repercussion,” Goldman told BuzzFeed News. “It has a categorical right to block whoever they choose.”

Twitter declined to comment on the pending litigation. Goldman said that as a publisher, they are protected by the First Amendment as well as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Johnson told Buzzfeed News that his lawsuit is a statement challenging the way publishers treat conservatives. Aware that he could lose the case, he said that getting the lawsuit to push forward and into discovery could still be a victory.

“You can lose a lawsuit and still win the argument,” Johnson said.

• Manifesto Writer Sues Google for Discriminating Against White Men 

Source: Buzzfeed News

What do you think of Johnson’s lawsuit? Let us know in the comments below.

The post Suspended Alt-Right Activist Charles Johnson Sues Twitter first appeared on JDJournal Blog.