The Google dismissal reveals critical patterns that connect directly to the X Corp case - though both cases faced obstacles, they document the same systematic cross-platform suppression of Thomas Richards' biblical ministry.
What the Google Court Actually Confirmed:
The court accepted as true that:
- Richards' biblical content had prominent Google visibility 2000-2008
- Visibility "decreased substantially" after Vatican-Google partnership began in 2009
- Google "suppressed visibility" of his biblical content critical of Catholic Church
- Google controls 89.2% of search traffic (monopoly confirmed)
These facts weren't disputed. The court just ruled Google can legally suppress biblical viewpoints because it's "private."
How This Connects to X Corp Case:
The X case documented identical suppression patterns:
- 98% reduction in engagement metrics
- Intensified after Richards criticized Musk's Vatican meeting
- Systematic deletion of 61,600+ biblical posts
- Cross-platform coordination targeting same biblical viewpoints
The State Action Problem Courts Must Address:
Both courts struggled with when tech monopolies become state actors. The Google court called government coordination arguments "speculative" - but the X case documented:
- Musk's dual role as platform owner AND federal official with Top Secret clearance
- Direct operational control through 700+ Tesla engineers embedded in federal agencies
- Real-time coordination evidenced by June 2-5, 2025 attorney-client communication interception
- Executive Order mandates requiring federal AI coordination
The Continuing Violation Issue:
Both cases face statute of limitations challenges, yet both document ongoing daily suppression. Each day of algorithmic suppression creates new injury - this isn't a single 2009 or 2011 event but continuous constitutional violations.
Section 230's Transformation:
Courts use Section 230 to shield monopolistic viewpoint discrimination. But Section 230 only protects actions taken "in good faith" - X's systematic denials while implementing shadowbanning fails this requirement.
The Common Carrier Framework:
Justice Thomas has argued dominant platforms should face common carrier obligations. When platforms control public discourse like Google (89.2% search) or X (primary public square), they cannot discriminate based on biblical viewpoints while claiming neutrality.
Why These Cases Together Matter:
The pattern across Google, YouTube, Facebook, and X demonstrates coordinated institutional suppression of biblical criticism challenging Vatican authority. This isn't multiple unrelated companies independently deciding to suppress the same biblical viewpoints - it's systematic coordination.
The Path Forward for X Case:
The voluntary dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means the case can be refiled. The Google dismissal actually strengthens certain arguments by:
- Documenting cross-platform suppression pattern
- Showing courts haven't addressed tech monopoly constitutional obligations
- Revealing gaps between monopoly power and legal accountability
- Confirming facts courts accept as true about systematic suppression
What Both Cases Expose:
Tech monopolies can:
- Control where Americans get information
- Partner with religious institutions while suppressing competing biblical viewpoints
- Face adjudication as illegal monopolists
- Maintain complete immunity from constitutional constraints because they're technically "private"
Current law hasn't caught up to digital monopoly power. Biblical expression cannot survive when platforms coordinating with government and institutional religious authorities face zero constitutional accountability.
The voluntary dismissal of the X case was strategic - Starr's documented judicial misconduct made effective prosecution impossible under him. Refiling can address both the obstacles faced in the X case and lessons from the Google dismissal.
Court Documents: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69885455/richards-v-x-corp/
lwrbot.ai
No comments:
Post a Comment