Court Explains 1st Amendment To Tulsi Gabbard In Dismissing Her Ridiculous Lawsuit Against Google

from the that's-not-how-any-of-this-works dept

Just a week after the 9th Circuit easily upheld the dismissal of Dennis Prager’s silly lawsuit against Google for supposed anti-conservative bias, a district court has easily dismissed Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s quite similar lawsuit against Google for… anti-Tulsi bias or some such nonsense. As we pointed out when the lawsuit was first filed, the case stood no chance at all, and was using completely debunked and rejected legal theories.

Judge Stephen Wilson made short work of the case, explaining to Gabbard and her Pierce Bainbridge lawyers how the 1st Amendment works, because the theory of it they presented in her case is… not it. Indeed, the court cites to the PragerU ruling from last week:

Plaintiff’s essential allegation is that Google violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights by
temporarily suspending its verified political advertising account for several hours shortly after a
Democratic primary debate. Plaintiff’s claim, however, “runs headfirst into two insurmountable
barriers—the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent.” Prager Univ. v. Google LLC,

Then we get a bit of 1st Amendment 101 — which is the kind of thing that you would think the lawyers from Pierce Bainbridge had learned in law school, but apparently they needed a refresher course. Perhaps they can try to ask for some Continuing Legal Education credit for the lesson.

The First Amendment provides: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . . .” U.S. Const. amend. I.
“The First Amendment, applied to states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits laws abridging
the freedom of speech.” Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Wasden, 878 F.3d 1184, 1193 (9th Cir. 2018)
(internal quotation omitted). In effect, “the First Amendment means that government has no power to
restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 468 (2010) (quoting Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564, 573 (2002)) (emphasis

Google is not now, nor (to the Court’s knowledge) has it ever been, an arm of the United States
government. “The text and original meaning of those Amendments, as well as this Court’s longstanding
precedents, establish that the Free Speech Clause prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech.
The Free Speech Clause does not prohibit private abridgment of speech.” Manhattan Cmty. Access
Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1926 (2019) (emphasis in original); see Prager Univ., 2020 WL
913661, at *2 (“The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government—not a
private party—from abridging speech.”).

And, once again, the idea that Google becomes a state actor, because advertisers use it to advertise around an election is… not right. Not right at all.

Plaintiff alleges Google has become a state actor by virtue of providing advertising services
surrounding the 2020 presidential election. “Under this Court’s cases, a private entity can qualify as a
state actor in a few limited circumstances—including, for example, (i) when the private entity performs
a traditional, exclusive public function; (ii) when the government compels the private entity to take a
particular action; or (iii) when the government acts jointly with the private entity.” Halleck, 139 S. Ct. at
1928 (internal citations omitted). Plaintiff’s argument is that, by regulating political advertising on its
own platform, Google exercised the traditional government function of regulating elections. “To draw
the line between governmental and private, this Court applies what is known as the state-action doctrine.
Under that doctrine, as relevant here, a private entity may be considered a state actor when it exercises a
function ‘traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.’” Id. at 1928 (quoting Jackson v. Metropolitan
Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 352 (1974)).

Traditional government functions are defined narrowly. “It is not enough that the federal, state,
or local government exercised the function in the past, or still does. And it is not enough that the
function serves the public good or the public interest in some way. Rather, to qualify as a traditional,
exclusive public function within the meaning of our state-action precedents, the government must have
traditionally and exclusively performed the function.” Id. at 1928–29. “Under the Court’s cases, those
functions include, for example, running elections and operating a company town.” Id. at 1929. There is
no argument that webservices or online political advertising are traditionally exclusive government
functions. Plaintiff argues that, by providing some restriction on political advertising on its platform,
Google is in effect regulating elections.

To support its contention that a private actor can regulate elections, Plaintiff directs the Court to
Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461, 463 (1953). However, Terry is utterly inapposite to Plaintiff’s contention.
In 1954, the Supreme Court held that the Fifteenth Amendment was implicated when a political party
effectively prevented black citizens from voting. Terry, 345 U.S. at 463. The Court held: “The evil here
is that the State, through the action and abdication of those whom it has clothed with authority, has
permitted white voters to go through a procedure which predetermines the legally devised primary.” Id.
at 477. But Terry bears no relation to the current dispute, where Google, an undisputedly private
company, temporarily suspended Plaintiff’s Google advertising account for a matter of hours, allegedly
based on viewpoint bias.

And then for those having difficulty catching up, the court explains that hosting election ads is not the same thing as running elections. Also, the court shoots down Gabbard’s wacky theory that efforts to protect its platform from foreign interference makes it an agent of the US government. Once again, that’s just laughably wrong.

What Plaintiff fails to establish is how Google’s regulation of its own platform is in any way
equivalent to a governmental regulation of an election. Google does not hold primaries, it does not select
candidates, and it does not prevent anyone from running for office or voting in elections. To the extent
Google “regulates” anything, it regulates its own private speech and platform. Plaintiff’s “national
security” argument similarly fails. Google protects itself from foreign interference; it does not act as an
agent of the United States. Nearly every media or technology company has some form of cybersecurity
procedure. Under Plaintiff’s theory, every media organization that took steps to prevent foreign
cybercrimes could potentially implicate the First Amendment. Google’s self-regulation, even of topics
that may be of public concern, does not implicate the First Amendment.

The case was so easy that it was dismissed with prejudice, so that Gabbard cannot filed an amended complaint. She might still appeal, though one hopes that she finds lawyers who might advise her on how that’s likely to go.

As a side note, almost within hours of the dismissal dropping, so too did news of a bunch of new lawyers leaving Pierce Bainbridge, including one, Tom Frongillo, who John Pierce had named just weeks ago as helping him in representing Rudy Giuliani.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: google, pierce bainbridge

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Court Explains 1st Amendment To Tulsi Gabbard In Dismissing Her Ridiculous Lawsuit Against Google”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
That Anonymous Cowardsays:


Pookie… what color is the sky in your world?

Google is not the government.
Google is not bound by the 1st amendment.
They can run their platform how they want.

Someone running for president should actually have a grip on reality & not try to cash in on the "they block me for being x" bandwagon.

But please go on how not forcing platforms to carry speech is the end of all the human rights. I’ll call Westboro and tell them you have no problem with them coming to your house & spewing their hate from your property.

That Anonymous Cowardsays:

With all of these stupid lawsuits coming from elected leaders & those seeking that position perhaps we need to make them past a civics test before they can run for office.

We force immigrants to answer questions about the history of America that a huge majority of "real" Americans couldn’t pass, so if they want to run the country perhaps we should make sure they understand the basic principles the country is founded upon.



With all of these stupid lawsuits coming from elected leaders & those seeking that position perhaps we need to make them past a civics test before they can run for office.

Who writes the tests?

Who scores them?

Who certifies the results?

We used to require people to pass tests in order to vote. They were used as an excuse to keep black people from voting. I foresee much the same outcome if we were to introduce tests for holding office.


Re: Re:

If you were to introduce tests for holding office… the requirement should be that they are the EXACT SAME TESTS used for citizenship. This does have the downside that the same people would be prevented from entering the country as would be prevented from entering political office, which is a tad isolationist. But it would prevent a number of other types of shenanigans.


Re: Re: Re:

The testing of civics knowledge belongs in high school and you do not graduate if you fail the test. That is the way is was back in the day when education was funded at reasonable levels and a good education was valued by most everyone.

Contrast that with today where some folk dislike the educated. iirc, pol pot engaged in a campaign to rid cambodia of all educated or so called elites and this included anyone who had a vaccination or dental cavity fillings.

Any similarities with the out of their mind wing nuts of today?



Ah; but the unfairness is that YOUR soap box has gained a reputation over the years to be used by reputable speakers, so people actually congregate near it and listen to what is said.

THEIR soap box is generally ignored due to the history of disconnect with the subjects held dear by the people walking by. It’s so unfair!


Wow, that judge is really dumb. Pretending that Google has no power over elections. HA HA HA! But the commie lefties will have us believe that the Russians DO have power over our elections (Hillary holds that position regarding her own failings, and her glossolalia on the topic is why the suit was filed anyhow). And worry about Cambridge Analytica, of course. But not the actual companies they got their data from lulz all over.

Scary Devil Monasterysays:


"Wow, that judge is really dumb. Pretending that Google has no power over elections."

Hmm. Nope, the judge said nothing about that. The judge stated that "Google is not government". And in this the judge is 100% correct.

You, otoh, have made 6 or 7 assertions in as many sentences, all of which are demonstrably factually wrong.

Shrieking in hysterics and throwing poop is not a good input in a debate, no matter that it appears to be the official rebuttal of the alt-right to anything saner minds have to say.

That One Guysays:


Tulsi. Pierce made a stupid argument that was rightly laughed out of court, but Tulsi is the one who paid him to make it.

Alternatively, option C: The gullible who thought this was a legitimate lawsuit rather than a PR stunt and/or a tantrum by someone angry that the world doesn’t work the way they wanted it to.



"Goggle moderated Tulsi" is a deliberate mischaracterazation of what happened.

It was actually: Google suspended Tulsi’s ads for a few hours until a fraud warning flag triggered by a sudden change in payment account activity could be cleared up.

"We won’t work for you if you can”t pay" is a far cry from the nefarious election-influencing plot it got played up to be.

The first amendment and the false claims of "State actor" and "centaur ship" are wholly irrelevant to the situation, and were only thrown in because the lawsuit was blatantly nothing but an illegitimate PR stunt.


That word, I do not think it means what you think it means?

To quote Inigo Montoya, You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Doesn’t sound like moderation in the slightest to me, moderation would be someone or something reviewing a posting, video, audio clip and deciding that it is to be removed/blocked due to it’s contents.

This on the other hand sounds nothing more than an automatic anti fraud prevention system kicking in when suspicious activity was observed on the account in question, once the issue had been cleared up all services were restored.

All Google was doing (If the claim is true) was nothing more than protecting the user from fraud/losing their account and ensuring that they got paid fairly as I assume they will be made to refund any costs or fee’s if it is found to have been done so under fraudulent means



I would disagree that it is moderation, as the material in question and access was only prevented whilst under fraud checks, it’s not like someone denied their access to the system due to their beliefs, contents, or some other arbitrary reason.

It’s the same as your bank account locking out your bank card due to suspected fraud until you have confirmed everything.



As I understand from google’ing and my knowledge, moderation is the process of eliminating or lessening extremes. It is used to ensure normality throughout the medium on which it is being conducted.

So moderation would be the complete removal of something someone posted or revoking of services due to a breach of rules, an opposing viewset, or such.

I honestly don’t see how a temporary suspension of services due to fraud verification constitutes moderation, if you try to buy something, and your bank blocks the payment until you verify that it’s you, is the bank moderating you or are they just protecting your finances and themselves from fraud? but that’s just my understanding of it, I might be wrong but in my world that’s how I would see it.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
15:51 [UPDATED]: Myanmar's Military Junta Sentences American Journalist To Eleven Years In Prison (8)
12:01 Hong Kong Government Now Directly Censoring Films In Hopes Of Shutting Down Protest-Related Documentaries (21)
10:50 Fifth Circuit Appeals Court Strips Immunity For Officers Who Arrested A Journalist For Asking Questions (16)
10:44 Why Falsely Claiming It's Illegal To Shout Fire In A Crowded Theater Distorts Any Conversation About Online Speech (85)
05:36 Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group (144)
16:07 Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment (28)
12:19 Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate (385)
11:03 LinkedIn (Mostly) Exits China, Citing Escalating Demands For Censorship (24)
12:10 Court Tells Arkansas Troopers That Muting Anti-Cop Terms On Its Facebook Page Violates The 1st Amendment (37)
13:43 Right-Wing Commentator Dan Bongino Runs Into Florida Anti-SLAPP Law, Now Owes Daily Beast $32,000 In Legal Fees (14)
20:41 North Carolina Sued By Flying Dog Brewery Over Regulatory Body Refusing To Allow Sales Due To 'Offensive' Label (19)
09:59 Now Josh Hawley Is Threatening Google Over 1st Amendment Protected Expression (44)
12:08 PETA Sues NIH And HHS Directors For Blocking Comments With 'PETA' And '#StopAnimalTesting' (59)
10:57 Appeals Court Says The First Amendment Protects Minnesota Woman's Right To Be Super-Shitty About Nearby Islamic School (68)
12:00 Elizabeth Warren Threatens Amazon For Selling Books Containing Misinformation; Perhaps Forgetting The 1st Amendment (49)
09:26 8th Circuit's Bizarre Ruling In Devin Nunes' SLAPP Suit Against Reporter Ryan Lizza (13)
10:43 Satire Site Gets Ridiculous Threat Letter From Baseball Team; cc's Barbra Streisand In Its Response (20)
12:12 Commentator Insists That Fact Checking Is An Attack On Free Speech (163)
13:34 Court: Just Because An Anonymous Yelp Reviewer Is Mean, Doesn't Mean You Get To Unmask The Reviewer (26)
12:06 Computer Repair Shop Owner Has To Pay Twitter's Legal Fees Over Bogus SLAPP Suit Regarding Hunter Biden's Laptop (108)
13:36 Report Shows DOJ Engaged In Selective Prosecution To Maximize Punishment For 'Black Lives Matter' Protesters (22)
16:02 Appeals Court Shuts Down Kansas' 30-Year-Old Ag Gag Law (23)
13:39 Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit (102)
10:51 Appeals Court Says Iowa's Ag-Gag Law Is About 50 Percent Constitutional (15)
13:45 Nassau County Executive Vetoes Bill That Would Punish People For Making Cops Feel Bad (15)
12:24 Shiva Ayyadurai Drops His Potentially Interesting Lawsuit About Massachusetts Officials Complaining To Twitter About Tweets (33)
12:03 President Of France Sues Citizen Over Billboard Comparing Macron To Hitler (20)
10:44 Top German Court Says Facebook Must Inform Users About Deleting Their Posts Or Suspending Their Account, Explain Why, And Allow Them To Respond (17)
10:44 Superior Court Dumps BS Charges Brought Against New Jersey Homeowner For Her 'Fuck Biden' Signs (20)
03:27 Appeals Court Denies Immunity To University Officials Who Apparently Banned A Christian Student Group Just Because They Didn't Like It (33)
More arrow
This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it