article - https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/20/remember-when-maga-thought-a-few-stern-emails-from-the-govt-made-twitter-a-state-actor-about-that/
Response from Lisa Weingarten Richards, counsel for Plaintiff, Thomas Richards
I appreciate your acknowledgment that this case addresses
"a legitimate question," and I agree with your statement: “These
aren’t just fun law school hypotheticals anymore. They go to the heart of how
we balance free speech rights in an era where government officials aren’t just
trying to influence social media through stern emails and mean tweets — they’re
actually buying, creating, and running the platforms themselves.” I also agree
with the point about the hypocrisy (though you don’t use that word) of Elon Musk
condemning Biden censorship of leaked photos as being unconstitutional while
now doing the same thing
Beyond this, your analysis contains factual errors and
dismissive characterizations that I will address as I summarize some details
about our important lawsuit for those who may read this comment:
The Unprecedented Government Entanglement Must be Addressed:
We brought this suit because unjust censorship and shadowbanning of Tommy
Richards must stop. Mr. Richards is the administrator of SpirituallySmart.com, is
on X at https://x.com/tlthe5th, Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/SpirituallySmart/,
and his bot with his bible teachings can be reached at tlthe5th.ai. One can
also interact with a chatbot to learn more about the lawsuit at lwrbot.ai. The
lawsuit itself is available at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69885455/richards-v-x-corp/
This case involves far more than someone with a government
title - it's about systematic purchasing of governmental power and deep
government involvement which transcends this:
- Financial
Investment : Musk invested $300 million to elect Trump,
immediately followed by creation of a personalized government department
(DOGE) bearing Musk's own branding
- Manipulation
of Visibility on X : Computational analysis documented that after
Musk's July 2024 Trump endorsement, X's algorithms were manipulated to
boost Republican content while suppressing Democratic posts
- Musk
Boosts and Deboosts Tweets for his own gain: Twitter engineers were told
to boost Elon Musk's tweets after Joe Biden's Super Bowl post was more
popular https://www.techspot.com/news/97614-twitter-engineers-told-boost-elon-musk-tweets-after.html
- Massive
Government Contracts : Musk's companies hold over $15.4 billion
in federal contracts, creating permanent financial entanglement
- Intelligence
Access : Musk maintains Top Secret/SCI clearance with
unprecedented agency access
- March-April
2025 Intelligence Tour : Within one month, Musk conducted
high-profile visits to Pentagon (80 minutes with Defense Secretary
Hegseth), NSA, and CIA (personally hosted by Director Ratcliffe). He also
indicated he had been there before and offered Hegseth to Musk was
overheard telling Defense Secretary Hegseth, "If there's anything I can
do to be helpful, I'd like to see you" -- explicitly establishing
back-channel communications that will continue to operate regardless of
formal title. (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hegseth-meeting-elon-musk-innovation-efficiencies/;https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4131400/defense-secretary-hosts-elon-musk-at-pentagon/)
- Ongoing
Authority : Despite officially leaving DOGE, Musk committed to
work for Trump "a day or two per week" for the remainder of
Trump's term. https://fortune.com/article/elon-musk-special-government-employee-doge-trump-countdown/
- Recent
Defense Contracts : SpaceX is projected to receive billions more
in new government contracts even amidst DOGE cuts. (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/23/us/politics/spacex-contracts-musk-doge-trump.html);
https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-inking-multibillion-dollar-pentagon-deal-amid-doge-cutsreport-2055663)
Your Section 230 Analysis Is Incorrect: You claim I
"conflated" 230(c)(1) and (c)(2) - I did not. Section 230(c)(1)
protects platforms from being treated as publishers of third-party content.
Section 230(c)(2)(A) provides separate immunity for actions "voluntarily
taken in good faith" to restrict content. My argument: X's systematic
deception about shadowbanning fails the "good faith" requirement when
X's FAQs promise followers will see users' posts, but only 1-2% of Richards’
followers actually do. Thus they are not immune from suit under Section 230. (“What
does it mean to follow someone on X? Following someone means you've chosen to
subscribe to their X updates. When you follow someone, every time they post a
new message, it will appear on your X Home timeline.” From https://help.x.com/en/resources/new-user-faq)
The Local Counsel "Rules Violation" Never
Happened: Your article states I "seem to violate the rules" -
actually, Local Rule 83.10 explicitly permits motions to proceed without local
counsel, which I filed April 13 (Doc.
3-1) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69885455/3/1/richards-v-x-corp/,
the same day I filed Mr. Richards' complaint.[i]
Judge Starr's May 14 order offered appearing without local
counsel as an option,( https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69885455/30/richards-v-x-corp/)
then denied my April 13 motion without
explanation the next day https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69885455/32/richards-v-x-corp/
) . In actuality, it seems you never read the local rules nor the documents in
the docket. One wonders why would you create arguments against someone against
what Musk is doing, which you yourself state is problematic. And yet you
mention Rubenfeld and RFK Jr. arguing against similar government involvement under
a weaker set of facts.
Richards’ case is very strong, and discovery will show more
about the ongoing deceptive shadowbanning against his account and others while
Musk and his team lie and say “You are the media” (https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1929991493835726883;
https://x.com/X/status/1855795018939740478;
https://x.com/lindayaX/status/1874190054660473035)
Judge Starr's Documented Judicial Misconduct: This
Trump-appointed judge has systematically evaded constitutional adjudication
through:
- False
venue claims requiring mandamus correction
- The
local counsel shell game described above
- Selective
assistance (24-hour response on forms- the deputy clerk called me to request that I add N/A in certain boxes
that did not require it, yet Judge Starr spent weeks ignoring the
constitutional violations in my TRO)
- Judge
Starr was recently overturned by 5th Circuit (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67674849/243/1/carter-v-local-556/)
for religious liberty activism (in an opinion in which he referred to the
bible as “historical” truth) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6169419/467/carter-v-transport-workers-union-of-america-local-556/
at 2. Yet Starr is now avoiding identical claims by Mr. Richards, a true
bible believer and bible teacher, against the $300 million contributor who
purchased Trump's election
- This
is laid out in detail in the second petition for a Writ of Mandamus https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70356743/3/1/in-re-thomas-richards/
as well as in the Motion to Recuse Judge Starr filed June 2, 2025. (https://spirituallysmart.blogspot.com/2025/06/we-submitted-this-motion-for-recusal-to.html;
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69885455/39/richards-v-x-corp/)
"Conspiracy Theories" - Address the Substance:
You resort to mockery with "shadowy conspiracy theories" and
"crayon on bulletin boards." The term "conspiracy theory"
was weaponized by the CIA to silence JFK assassination questions - now
declassified records vindicate those "theorists." If my allegations
are wrong, engage the substance:
- Why
did The Independent report the Vatican created a channel to "fight
back" against my client's video "Nazi Germany - A Creation of
the Vatican and Jesuits"? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vatican-launches-youtube-channel-1514238.html;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9zBX4gt0eo&rco=1
- Why
did YouTube's only religious partnership in its history occur with the
Vatican immediately after this controversy? https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/14866/pope-channel-makes-debut-on-youtube
(“He also hailed today’s launch as a “landmark announcement” since it the
first ever global religious institution to partner with YouTube.” Note-- –
there has never been another religious partnership to date.)
- Why do
Musk, Trump, and others publicly express devotion to the Pope while
systematically suppressing criticism of the institution my client has
exposed for over 25 years? https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1543050489050402816;
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/trump-meets-with-pope-francis/
The Damages Question: You question why my client has
only around 4,000 followers after decades of ministry and claim the damages stated
are excessive. That's precisely the point - systematic shadowbanning has
suppressed his audience growth. A defendant cannot avoid damages by pointing to
conditions they themselves created through censorship. (https://x.com/tlthe5th/status/1930455800465523184;
https://spirituallysmart.blogspot.com/2025/06/the-economic-impact-of-shadowbanning.html)
Your Potential Bias: Your connections to Bluesky -- being
on the Board of Directors -- which while public on LinkedIn is not mentioned in
the article may explain your defense of shadowbanning practices and hostility
toward this case challenging Big Tech censorship.
Why Haven't Others Challenged This Unprecedented Power? A
Texas attorney explicitly told me he feared Musk's retaliation and unlimited
resources - documented in court filings. When someone can spend $300 million to
purchase governmental authority while controlling major communication
platforms, that chilling effect demonstrates the constitutional crisis.
The complete docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69885455/richards-v-x-corp/
[i]
Complaint will be amended with additional arguments as it was initially
submitted with some haste to get the emergency Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction heard as quickly as possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment