Connect with us

Politics

Texas AG fights big tech, says or else ‘we may never have our free speech back’

Published

on

Screen Shot 2021 06 14 at 8.45.18 AM

By Jenny Goldsberry

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton appeared on the Sara Carter show Friday to talk about his state’s fight with big tech. According to him, Texas is winning.

A federal judge in California recently threw out Twitter’s case against Paxton. The social media platform attempted to take Paxton to court when he began investigating former President Trump’s ban. But, the judge sided with Paxton, and allowed his investigation to continue.

“We have every right to ask those questions,” Paxton said of the investigation.

Paxton said he was lucky in this case, where others aren’t so lucky.

Big tech companies have every resource at their disposal, often able to employ many more lawyers than their competitors and they also have many Congressional members on their side because of campaign contributions, Carter pointed out. The Texas lawyer is now suing Google for its anticompetitive practices and wants to sue more big tech monopolies like it, but he knows it takes significant resources to stand up to them.

Carter asked the attorney general how these companies have gotten away with cornering the market for so long. Paxton suggested that it was a huge oversight from the beginning.

“I think the reason they do it is because we let them,” Paxton said. “Part of that is we’ve been lax in overseeing them.” He also mentioned Congress gave them special protections. Among them is Section 230, which protects social media companies from being liable for the opinions that are shared on their platforms. So, when fake news is circulated on their sites, they don’t face the consequences for it. But Paxton sees how this can lead to election interference in the future. In fact, it already has.

“I think that if we don’t quickly address this issue at the state level federal level in every possible way through litigations, there are such large monopolies,” Paxton said. “If we do not address this now, we may never have our free speech back.”

You can follow Jenny Goldsberry on Twitter @jennyjournalism.

Continue Reading

Elections

BREAKING: Trump ordered to pay over $350M, barred from operating his business in NY in civil fraud case ruling

Published

on

Former President Donald Trump and his business empire faced a significant setback as a New York judge ruled against them in a civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The 92-page ruling, handed down by Judge Arthur Engoron, barred Trump from operating his business in New York for three years and imposed over $350 million in damages.

The case, which unfolded over months of trial proceedings, stemmed from allegations that Trump inflated his assets and engaged in fraudulent practices. Engoron’s ruling cited a litany of charges, including persistent fraud, falsifying records, issuing false financial statements, and conspiracy to commit fraud.

Moreover, the judge imposed restrictions on key figures within the Trump Organization, including Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, barring them from serving in certain corporate roles in New York for a specified period.

Engoron’s scathing assessment of Trump’s testimony during the trial further undermined the former president’s credibility. The judge criticized Trump for evasive responses and irrelevant digressions, highlighting the detrimental effect on his credibility.

In response to the ruling, Trump’s attorney, Christopher Kise, lambasted the court’s decision, alleging political bias and a disregard for established legal principles. Kise argued that the evidence presented during the trial failed to support the allegations of fraud and emphasized Trump’s substantial net worth.

Kise’s assertions were echoed by Alina Habba, another attorney representing Trump, who denounced the verdict as a “manifest injustice” resulting from a politically motivated witch hunt.

Throughout the proceedings, Trump consistently dismissed the trial as politically motivated, accusing both Engoron and James of partisan bias. His legal team also criticized the absence of a jury in the trial, questioning the fairness of the proceedings.

Attorney General Letitia James, who spearheaded the lawsuit against Trump and his organization, portrayed the ruling as a victory for accountability and transparency in business practices. The lawsuit alleged fraudulent conduct and sought substantial financial penalties, a portion of which would contribute to the state treasury.

The fallout from the case extends beyond Trump and his business interests, with implications for the broader business community and the rule of law. The contentious nature of the trial and its outcome underscored deep divisions and raised questions about the integrity of the legal system.

Trump vows to appeal the decision.

Continue Reading

Trending