Your understanding is correct, except for a technicality: it’s the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San Francisco. In California, the superior courts are the lowest level of courts that have general jurisdiction on civil (and criminal) actions. Lawsuits like this, in California, start in superior court.
There already is an alt-right Twitter equivalent called Gab, which is run by libertarians and free speech absolutists
I would very much like to read the rules of the Internet, and to know who is responsible for enforcing those rules. Because the Internet is available coast to coast and around the world, including the ISS, I guessing they must be enforced by the Galactic Police. Or maybe just the UN.
A few years ago, I was hanging out with some of my friends, including several attorneys. One of them had a very nutso landlord who was very intrusive into the lives of his tenants. When he found that one of them was interning at a big law firm in DC, the landlord became outraged and filed a case in Arlington County that alleged that the law firm was practicing slavery because the firm was not paying interns.
Everyone had a good laugh at that, but clearly the biggest laugh from the attorneys came from when one of them pointed out that this crazed landlord, such a babe in the adult world of The Law, filed his lawsuit in the wrong jurisdiction! LOLZ! Stupid non-lawyers!
I feel like this thread has just taken a similar turn.
So what’s the problem? Taylor has the means to express himself - just not via Twitter. He can use Gab or even set up his own medium if he wants.
I have brought shame to the family.
Whether or not this solves the problem is one of the questions this lawsuit is supposed to address. And to address that question, you have to deny an anti-slapp motion.
Read Bricker’s explanation. An anti-slapp motion’s purpose is to dismiss suits that are calculated to harass someone into giving up their rights. That’s not what’s happening here. Twitter is perfectly capable of defending itself in this case. This is a case in which the plaintiff is arguing, perhaps plausibly, that his free speech is being suppressed. He’s not using the financial burden of a lawsuit to prevent Twitter from exercising its free speech.
Ok, I should have said censor unreasonably. Again, it is not censorship based on content, it is censor ship based on the plaintiff’s associations.
That’s a nonsense analogy. If you want a house analogy this is about the government allowing the public street your house is on to be cut off from the rest of the public roadways so that you cannot get to your house without permission of private property owners, and then allowing those private property owners to deny you that permission arbitrarily.
So there’s a new protected class if it pertains to communications: racists.
Can a TV station deny a KKK request to run an infomercial?
Honestly most of the thread was arguing with TriPolar.
I’m uncertain the SLAPP rules are relevant to my question except in the purely technical sense of lawsuit procedure in California, but no matter.
Do you not understand the difference between content and association with content?
Look, you’ve already reversed one of your statements in this thread when I called for a closer examination of it. Don’t blame me for not understanding your opinions when you are challenged to stick with them in the first place.
Can a TV station reject a request by the KKK to run an infomercial? Or, if you prefer, when is a TV station allowed to reject a KKK infomercial, and when are they not?
This made me smile 