Facebook Censorship Plaintiffs Deny Meta Accusations They Failed to State a Claim
Meta’s reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss the complaint of Wise Guys I and II private Facebook groups “raised invalid arguments and misstated facts" for the complaint, said the plaintiffs’ sur-reply Tuesday (docket 3:23-cv-00217) in U.S. District…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Court for Northern Texas in Dallas in opposition. Wise Guys allege Meta “impermissibly censored and blocked” their “protected expressions” on Facebook and unlawfully “de-platformed” at least one of their accounts (see 2301300023), said the sur-reply. They also allege Meta “impermissibly engaged in viewpoint discrimination” by blocking and removing Wise Guys users’ posts in violation of the First Amendment, it said. Meta, in its reply, “makes an unfounded argument” that the plaintiffs “declined to identify facts that plausibly show censorship and/or de-platforming” under HB 20, the Texas anti-censorship social media law, said the sur-reply. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” it said. The complaint details how Meta’s censorship and deplatforming of Wise Guys “rose to the level” of HB 20 violations, it said. The plaintiffs pled factual content that allows the court “to draw the reasonable inference” that Meta “is liable for the misconduct alleged" under HB 20, it said. In the alternative, if the court determines the complaint is inadequate, leave to amend the complaint should be granted, it said.