I in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the SOUTHERN
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 1:21-cv-22445-KMM Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 1 of 39 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-22445-KMM-LFL DONALD J. TRUMP, the Forty-Fifth President of the United States, KELLY VICTORY, AUSTEN FLETCHER, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION, ANDREW BAGGIANI, MARYSE VERONICA JEAN- LOUIS, NAOMI WOLF AND FRANK VALENTINE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. YOUTUBE, LLC and SUNDAR PICHAI Defendants. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WITH MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION INCORPORATED HEREIN i Case 1:21-cv-22445-KMM Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 2 of 39 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iv INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 FACTUAL STATEMENT ............................................................................................................. 2 A. The Donald J. Trump YouTube Channel ............................................................................. 2 B. Defendant’s Censorship And Prior Restraint Of Plaintiff ................................................... 2 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 3 LEGAL STANDARD APPLICABLE TO MOTIONS FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ............................................................................................................................. 3 POINT I: PLAINTIFF IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS OF HIS FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIM ............................................................................................................. 3 A. Legal Standards Applicable To A State Action Finding ..................................................... 4 B. Federal Actors Repeatedly And Coercively Pressured Defendant To Censor Speech And To De-Platform Plaintiff ............................................................................................................. 6 C. Defendant’s Censorship Of Plaintiff Resulted From Significant Encouragement By The Federal Government.................................................................................................................... 9 D. .. Defendant Has Willfully Participated In Joint Activity With Federal Governmental Actors To Censor Plaintiff’s Constitutionally Protected Speech ......................................................... 12 E. Defendant’s Acts Violated The First Amendment ............................................................. 13 POINT II ................................................................................................................................... 15 SECTION 230, AS APPLIED TO THESE FACTS, VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT......................................................................................................................... 15 A. Neither Section 230(c)(1) Nor Section 230(c)(2) Protects YouTube From Its Discriminatory Treatment Of Plaintiff In Violation Of The First Amendment........................ 15 1. Section 230(c)(1) Does Not Protect YouTube From Liability For Its Unlawful Deprivation Of First Amendment Rights And Unfair Trade Practices................................. 16 2. Section 230(c)(2) Does Not Protect YouTube From Liability For Its Unlawful Deprivation Of Plaintiff’s First Amendment Rights And Unfair Trade Practices ................ 17 B. Section 230 Offers No Protection For Defendant’s Own Unlawful Speech ..................... 18 C. Section 230 Is Unconstitutional As Applied ...................................................................... 19 POINT III: PLAINTIFF IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON HIS FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT CLAIM ........................................................................ 20 A. Florida Deceptive And Unfair Trade Practices Act Standards .......................................... 20 B. Defendant Has Inconsistently Applied Its Standards......................................................... 21 1. Election Integrity .............................................................................................................. 21 2. COVID-19......................................................................................................................... 22 3. Violence ............................................................................................................................ 23 C. Defendant’s Inconsistent Application Of Its Standards Demonstrates Plaintiff’s Entitlement To Preliminary Injunctive Relief........................................................................... 24 PLAINTIFF IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS25 OF HIS STOP SOCIAL MEDIA CENSORSHIP ACT CLAIM ..................................................................................... 25 ii Case 1:21-cv-22445-KMM Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 3 of 39 POINT IV: PLAINTIFF WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM IF AN INJUNCTION IS NOT GRANTED ...................................................................................................................... 27 POINT V: THE BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS FAVORS PLAINTIFF ................................. 28 POINT VI: AN INJUNCTION WOULD NOT BE ADVERSE TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST ................................................................................................................ 28 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 29 Request for Relief ......................................................................................................................... 29 iii Case 1:21-cv-22445-KMM Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 4 of 39 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Ahearn v. Mayo Clinic, 180 So. 3d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) ...................................................... 23 Airbnb, Inc. v. City of Boston, 386 F. Supp. 3d 113 (2019).......................................................... 20 Alvi Armani Med., Inc. v. Hennessey, 629 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (S.D. Fla. 2008) ............................. 18 Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza, 391 U.S. 308 (1968) .................... 6 American Family Association, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco, 277 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2002)........................................................................................................................................ 8, 9 Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart, 807 F.3d 229 (7th Cir. 2015).................................................. 8, 9, 18 Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963)....................................................................... 8 Barrios-Velazquez v. Associcion De Empleados Del Estado Libre Asociado, 84 F.3d 487 (1st Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................................................... 7 Bass v. Parkwood Hosp., 180 F.3d 234 (5th Cir. 1999) .................................................................. 7 Bendiburg v. Dempsey, 909 F.2d 463 (11th Cir. 1990) ................................................................ 14 Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute, 141 S. Ct. 1220 (2021) .............................................. 6 Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988) .............................................................................................. 16 Burton v. Wilmington Parking Auth., 365 U.S. 715 (1961) ............................................................ 6 Burton v. Wilmington Parking Auth., 365 U.S. 715 (1961) ............................................................ 6 Carlin Communications, Inc. v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 827 F.2d 1291 (9th Cir. 1987) . 8 Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303 (2009) ............................................................................... 18 Dobyns v. E-Systems, Inc., 667 F.2d 1219 (5th Cir. 1982) .............................................................. 7 Domen v. Vimeo, 991 F.3d 66 (2d. Cir. March 11, 2021) ............................................................. 28 Domen v. Vimeo, Inc., 2021 WL 3072778 (2d Cir. July 21, 2021) .............................................. 28 Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) ............................................................................................ 29 Evans v. Valero Energy Corp., No. CV F 07-0130, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21402 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2007)........................................................................................................................................ 7 e-ventures Worldwide, LLC v. Google, Inc., No. 2:14–cv–646–FTM–PAM–CM, 2017 WL 2210029 (MD Fla., Feb. 8, 2017) .............................................................................................. 17 Fairley v. Andrews, 578 F.3d 518 (7th Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 9 Focus on the Family v. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Auth., 344 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2003) . 6, 11, 15 Gastaldi v. Sunvest Cmtys. USA, LLC, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (S.D. Fla. 2009) ........................... 23 George v. Edholm, 752 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................