The U.S. Supreme Court has rescheduled for a third time consideration of a case brought by conservative activist and political candidate Laura Loomer alleging Big Tech companies are discriminating against conservatives in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The case has been distributed three times for conference, meetings at which the justices vote on which cases to accept, and rescheduled each time.
Four votes are required for a case to be heard.
Lawyers point out there could be several reasons. One possibility is it's simply a clerical move. Another is that some justices want to hear the case, others don't want to touch it, but neither has the required votes.
Loomer, represented by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, challenged Twitter, Apple, Facebook and Google in antitrust litigation several years before former Attorney General William Barr raised the issue.
Her complaint argues the Big Tech companies' platforms are a "place of public accommodation," meaning they are not allowed to censor conservative content.
Klayman, a former federal prosecutor who was on the trial team that broke up the AT&T monopoly, previously said the case asks the court "to overturn the dismissal of their class action complaint against social media companies for restraint of trade, attempted monopolization and illegal political discrimination in a public forum against conservatives, libertarians and people of faith, as the law in the District of Columbia forbids such discrimination."
Loomer, who has been banned by social-media platforms, said just prior to the 2020 election: "My legal battle against the Silicon Valley Big Tech Tyrants is America’s battle. For far too long, these companies have been silencing peaceful political speech in an effort to support the political agenda of Left. The massive censorship and cancel culture campaign these companies are currently participating in through an anti-competitive and discriminatory collaboration is primarily being used as tool to target and silence conservatives and supporters of President Trump in an effort to help the Democrats win the 2020 election."
The lower court "erred" by affirming a judge's decision to deny the plaintiffs discovery and their right to a jury trial, the complaint says.
"We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will take the petition seriously and grant review for the sake of preserving Freedom of Speech in the United States of America," Loomer said at the time.
"It's time for the Supreme Court step up to the plate in order that all persons and groups will be treated equally by these Big Tech social media giants," Klayman said.
The complaint states the case was brought against the companies "in response to their well-documented and publicized anti-competitive pattern and practice of suppressing and censoring conservative content."
The complaint now includes "admissions from employees [of the defendants] that such targeted suppression and censorship was, indeed, occurring."
Loomer and Klayman both "rely on social media platforms to 'inform the public about [their] conservative advocacy and to raise the funds through donations to further its public advocacy and mission.'"
The companies, according to the filing, "acted anticompetitively to suppress and censor conservative content. For instance, YouTube, which is owned and operated by its parent company, respondent Google, demonetized the channels of conservative Prager University and Western Journal and also targeted conservative pundit Alex Jones of InfoWars due to their conservative political viewpoints," the filing explains.
It alleges Facebook "has in concert with other social media giants anticompetitively censored and suppressed conservative content, including through the admissions of it[s] former employees who admitted that they 'routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers."
Quoted in the filing is Campbell Brown of Facebook, who had explained the company was changing so that it now has "a point of view" on news.
"We are … taking a step to try to define what 'quality news' looks like," she said.
Loomer has been permanently banned from several platforms because of her political opinions, the complaint explains.
The case's arguments are bolstered, the filing states, by the fact that last October the Department of Justice sued Google in federal court over related issues. Following the 2020 presidential election, multiple censorship actions have been taken by tech companies against conservatives.
The motive behind the censorship was to "take down President Donald Trump," who remains eligible to run for president again in 2024, the court filing charges.
The ultimate goal, the justices have been told, is to "have installed leftist government in the nation's capital and the 50 states."
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@wndnewscenter.org.
The post For 3rd time, Supremes delay decision on Big Tech discrimination appeared first on WND.
