3 ms·

> The problem is that no one filing these various cases against social media is properly alleging sufficient facts to suggest government coercion… Alex Berenso

• aw1621107 4y ago
  Hardly. The judge tossed all of Berenson's claims that relate to government coercion [0]. The only claims that survived are those for breach of contract and promissory estoppel, which didn't have to do with alleged government coercion. > In sum, plaintiff’s breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims survive for now. Plaintiff’s other claims are futile and are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. [0]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.389677/gov.uscourts.cand.389677.39.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.38...
  • 0x445442 4y ago
    Twitter reinstated him because he has internal communications showing Twitter colluded with the Biden administration to silence him for publishing information that went against the administration’s narrative.
    • aw1621107 4y ago
      That doesn't change the analysis with respect to jcranmer's comment, though, since those were not alleged in a court case, let alone a case where government coercion was deemed plausible. Now, if Berenson sues Twitter again (and/or Biden, presumably) and the judge finds those communications (and other facts) sufficient to establish state action (i.e., the claims survive a motion to dismiss), then that may be sufficient to be a counterexample to the original comment.