'Anyone know how this lawsuit is going?

Some of the plaintiffs are John Doe

but I recognize a few:

Praying Medic (Dave Hayes)

Destroying the Illusion (Jordan Sather)

Amazing Polly (Polly St. George)

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20399666/doe-v-google.pdf

74 pages

ARMENTA & SOL, PC

M. Cris Armenta (SBN 177403)

Credence E. Sol (SBN 219784)

11440 West Bernardo Court, Suite 300

San Diego, CA 92127

Telephone: (858) 753-1724

Facsimile: (310) 695-2560

cris@crisarmenta.com

credence@crisarmenta.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

JOHN DOE, an individual; MICHAEL

DOE, an individual; JAMES DOE, an

individual; HENRY DOE, an individual;

ROBERT DOE, an individual;

CHRISTOPHER DOE, an individual;

MATHEW DOE, an individual; POLLY

ST. GEORGE, an individual; SCOTT

DEGROAT, an individual; DAVID J.

HAYES, an individual; DANIEL LEE,

an individual, MISHEL McCUMBER, an

individual; JEFF PEDERSEN, an

individual; JORDAN SATHER, an

individual; SARAH WESTALL, an

individual,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

GOOGLE, LLC., a Delaware limited

liability company; YOUTUBE LLC, a

Delaware limited liability company;

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.

Defendants.

Case No.

COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF

CONTRACT, BREACH OF THE

COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH

AND FAIR DEALING AND

VIOLATION OF THE FIRST

AMENDMENT

'[Demand for Jury Trial]

[Emergency Injunctive Relief

Requested]

the pdf was linked from here:

15 QAnon influencers sue YouTube for removing their content from the platform

RACHEL E. GREENSPANOCT 28, 2020

https://www.businessinsider.in/thelife/news/15-qanon-influencers-sue-youtube-for-removing-their-content-from-the-platform/articleshow/78901898.cms

continued:

>>11826266

continued:

15 QAnon influencers sue YouTube for removing their content from the platform

RACHEL E. GREENSPANOCT 28, 2020

https://www.businessinsider.in/thelife/news/15-qanon-influencers-sue-youtube-for-removing-their-content-from-the-platform/articleshow/78901898.cms

A person holds a banner referring to the Qanon conspiracy theory during a alt-right rally on August 17, 2019 in Portland, Oregon.Stephanie Keith/Getty Images

( It seems to me: The picture in the article and this post is probably a FF type of pic as that blue hair dude, staple face is not likely pro MAGA or Pro QAnon)

15 former YouTube creators are suing the platform for removing their channels as part of its crackdown on QAnon and other conspiracy-theory content.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, filed Monday in California, include some of the top promoters of QAnon, the baseless far-right conspiracy theory.

Though YouTube removed the channels for spreading misinformation or other conspiracy-theory content, the lawsuit alleges the platform banned these users out of anti-conservative bias.

After YouTube's crackdown on QAnon and other conspiracy-theory content, the platform is being sued by 15 former creators who allege their removals were part of anti-conservative bias.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in US District Court in Northern California, seeks a temporary restraining order to reinstate the accounts of the 15 plaintiffs, some of whom had hundreds of thousands of subscribers.

YouTube, which is owned by Google, announced on October 15 that it would prohibit content promoting "conspiracy theories that have been used to justify real-world violence." While the move stopped short of a ban on QAnon — which Facebook, TikTok, and other platforms have enacted — it effectively shut all QAnon-related content off of the website, where it used to thrive as part of YouTube's infamous rabbithole video-recommendation algorithm.

Suing YouTube are some of the internet's top promoters of QAnon, the baseless far-right conspiracy theory alleging that President Donald Trump is fighting a deep-state cabal of human traffickers.

These plaintiffs, all of whom were removed from YouTube on or after the October 15 ban, include Jeff Pedersen, better known by his social-media handle "InTheMatrixxx"; Jordan Sather of the channel "Destroying the Illusion"; and Polly St. George, known as "Amazing Polly," who is believed to be a creator of the false Wayfair conspiracy theory that went viral on mainstream social media platforms over the summer.

As the Verge reported Monday, one plaintiff, listed anonymously in the lawsuit, had already been suspended from the platform in 2018. The channel "SGT Report" had spread the "Frazzledrip" conspiracy theory, the false claim that Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin sexually abused a child and drank her blood.

continued:

>>11826266

>>11826283

OCT 28, 2020

continued: https://www.businessinsider.in/thelife/news/15-qanon-influencers-sue-youtube-for-removing-their-content-from-the-platform/articleshow/78901898.cms

In a press release, Cris Armenta, the attorney representing the 15 creators, highlighted a Pew Research Center study that found "many Americans get their news from independent YouTube channels" rather than traditional news sources.

The lawsuit claims that YouTube targeted conservative voices

Alleging a breach of contract and a violation of the First Amendment, the complaint claims that YouTube targeted conservative voices in their ban, rather than conspiracy-theory content. "YouTube's massive de-platforming, which occurred just three weeks before the 2020 Presidential election, worked to the severe detriment of both conservative content creators and American voters who seek out their content," the lawsuit says.

The complaint claims that the removed channels of the 15 plaintiffs "address issues of public concern that are highly relevant to the November 3 election and its anticipated aftermath," and that "the public will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an immediate and affirmative injunction."

As tech companies struggle to moderate misinformation ahead of the election, they've been met with swarms of allegations of anti-conservative bias. Donald Trump Jr. has claimed without concrete evidence that Instagram and Twitter shadow-banned his content to make him reach fewer people.

The lawsuit also alleges that YouTube violated its own terms of service by not offering "sufficient notice" and explanations of the removals.

Advertisement

In a statement, a YouTube spokesperson told Insider that the platform is unbiased in the moderation of its rules.

"We cannot comment on pending litigation, but our policies are updated regularly to meet new challenges, like harmful conspiracies that have been used to justify real-world violence. We have a dedicated policy team that works to review our policies and adjust them as needed. We apply our policies consistently regardless of who owns the channel," the statement said.

YouTube and other social platforms are protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which prevents "interactive computer service" providers from being seen as the "publisher" of content uploaded by users, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Advertisement

Protection from Section 230 has already dismissed a similar lawsuit. When a company sued YouTube and Google in December 2019 over the removal of its channel and videos, a federal judge found that Section 230 granted YouTube the right to "good-faith removal of objectionable content," Bloomberg reported.

A Senate hearing on Section 230 is scheduled for Wednesday, as the protection has faced increased scrutiny amid allegations of social media censorship.

This article has been updated to include a statement from the attorney representing the plaintiffs.

>>11826266

Suing Google and Youtube

>Anyone know how this lawsuit is going?

>Some of the plaintiffs are John Doe

>but I recognize a few:

>Praying Medic (Dave Hayes)

>Destroying the Illusion (Jordan Sather)

>Amazing Polly (Polly St. George)

>>11826266

>>11826283

>>11826291

>>11826266

Case 5:20-cv-07502

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND INTRODUCTION

This lawsuit and request for an emergency injunction addresses YouTube’s October 15,

2020, purge of accounts in which YouTube abruptly deleted conservative content from its

platform and terminated the accounts and channels that had hosted that content. YouTube’s

massive de-platforming, which occurred just three weeks before the 2020 Presidential election,

worked to the severe detriment of both conservative content creators and American voters who

seek out their content. YouTube took this draconian action so swiftly that the Plaintiffs,

conservative content creators with whom YouTube had a contractual relationship memorialized by

YouTube’s Terms of Service, received no advance notice and were not able to download their

own content. Why did YouTube do this? To frustrate the contracts and to mollify its partner,

Congress, which just days before had passed H.R. 1154, a resolution condemning the existence of

conservative content—which it characterized as conspiracy theories—on the Internet.

In this action, Plaintiffs seek immediate and emergency relief from Defendants’ breaches

of their contract with Plaintiffs, which have worked to completely deny Plaintiffs the benefits of

the contracts and services for which they bargained, to obliterate Plaintiffs’ livelihoods, and to

deprive both Plaintiffs and their subscribers of their First Amendment rights. Given that the

Presidential election is approaching on November 3 and that Plaintiffs routinely provide news,

commentary and information about issues that are directly relevant to that election, Plaintiffs

seek immediate and emergency relief by way of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or

Injunction to avoid irreparable harm that cannot be cured or later resolved through monetary

damages alone. Once the issue of emergency relief has been resolved, Plaintiffs intend to amend

this Complaint to add claims for money damages along with causes of action for, inter alia,

intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. However, given the urgency of

this action, this initial Complaint is directed exclusively to the emergency relief that Plaintiffs

seek.

>>11826266

>>11826304

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. Brief Overview of Plaintiffs and Their Channels: The fifteen Plaintiffs are

journalists, videographers, advocates, commentators and other individuals who regularly exercise

their right to free speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Plaintiffs have created seventeen individual news channels and published those channels on the

YouTube platform. Plaintiffs’ channels were categorized on YouTube as “News” or “News and

Politics.” Plaintiffs’ commentaries, channels and videos have had an enormous audience reach

both in the United States and throughout the world. On October 15, 2020, Plaintiffs’ reach was so

widespread that they collectively had more than 4.5 million subscribers to their channels and had

attracted more than 771 million views. Taken together, these subscriber counts far exceed the

individual viewership of the YouTube accounts maintained by legacy cable, journalism, and news

networks such as C-SPAN (806K subscribers), The New York Times (3.21M subscribers), Fox

News (6.52M subscribers), MSNBC (3.62M subscribers), NBC News (4.1M), and CBS News

(3.06M subscribers). Although it is clear that millions of Americans get their news, information

and commentary on issues of national importance from the Plaintiffs’ conservative channels,

YouTube excised them and their political viewpoints off the YouTube platform without notice,

just days 19 before the 2020 Presidential Election.

1. YouTube is Becoming More Important than Television. YouTube is a popular

online service for sharing videos and related content. YouTube’s domain, www.youtube.com,

was activated on February 14, 2002. The first YouTube video was published on April 23, 2005.

On October 9, 2006, Google purchased YouTube for $1.65 billion. By May 2010, YouTube

served more than 2 billion views each day. By March 2013, YouTube was seeing 1 billion

monthly active users. According to statistics published by Brandwatch, a leading social

intelligence company, 6 out of 10 people prefer online video platforms to live TV, and it is

predicted that by 2025, half of the population under the age of 32 will not subscribe to a pay-TV

service. YouTube is the world’s second-largest search engine and the world’s second most-visited

site (after Google). YouTube, which has 1.9 billion users, is the second most popular social media

platform in the United States and the world. Quoting from the Pew Research Center study,

Brandwatch reports that one in five YouTube users say that YouTube is very important to

“understanding things happening in the world.” See https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/youtubestats/.

1. Many Americans Get Their News from Independent YouTube Channels.

According to the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan think tank based in Washington, D.C. that

provides information about social issues, public opinion and demographic trends shaping the

United States and the world, legacy and independent media are thriving side by side, and

established news organizations no longer have full control over the news Americans watch. Most

YouTube news consumers view both legacy and independent news videos on the platform. An

extensive survey conducted by the Pew Research Center confirms that independent news channels

occupy a prominent position in YouTube’s media ecosystem. The 377 most popular YouTube

channels represent a mixture of established news organizations (49%) and independent channels

(42%). See Stocking, Gale et al., “Many Americans Get News on YouTube, Where News

Organizations and Independent Producers Thrive Side by Side,” Pew Research Center, Sept. 28,

2020, https://www.journalism.org/2020/09/28/many-americans-get-news-on-youtube-wherenews-organizations-and-independent-producers-thrive-side-by-side/.

1. YouTube Partners with Content Creators, Allowing Them to Create Channels and

Publish Content Such as News Channels Pursuant to Their Terms of Service. To create a channel

and post videos, Plaintiffs and YouTube agree that their relationship will be governed by

YouTube’s published Terms of Service (“TOS”) and their incorporated Community Guidelines.

The TOS provide, inter alia, that “YouTube is under no obligation to host or serve Content.”

However, once YouTube actually hosts the content, YouTube and the creator agree to be bound

by the TOS. When the creator publishes content on YouTube, the terms of the TOS dictate the

procedure for content removal and/or account termination. The relevant ground rules are as

follows:

>>11826266

>>11826304

>>11826307

>>11826299

Filed in Northern California

read all the 74 pages here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20399666/doe-v-google.pdf

>>11826266

I guess I recognize all of them.

It seems they all may even be Christans?

How will that be heard by the jury?

censoring Christians who are reporting news.

HMMM?

>>11826266

Just informed Talk Jordan Sather

SGT Report Michael Doe

X22 Report James Doe

SpaceShot76 Henry Doe

TRUreporting Robert Doe

RedPill78 Christopher Doe

Edge of Wonder Matthew Doe

Amazing Polly Polly St George

Woke Societies Scott DeGroat

Praying Medic Dave Hayes

dnajion7 Daniel Lee

DeceptionBytes Mishel McCumber

In The Matrixx Jeff Pedersen

Sarah Westhall Sarah Westahll channel

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20399666/doe-v-google.pdf

>>11826402

>>11826266

Remember that "banned" Comedian Owen Benjamin won against Patreon in a very similiar suit:

https://www.cernovich.com/patreon-lawsuit-owen-benjamin/

Patreon, by banning a Creator, disrupts the economic relationship between Creator and Backer. In legal terms this is called tortious interference with a business relationship.

>>11826396

baker

>>11826266

these go with as well vvvvvvvvvvvvvv

>>11826402 many will recognize the handles many are Christians/ they want a jury trial

>>11826430 banned over trtans kids a now go and more

Jason Galinas

Qmap.pub guy

should have a pro-bono attorney take his case up

as they took down Qmap.pub and got him fired from Citibank

and doxxed him

>>11826456

>>11826396

>>11826419

>>11826456

>>11826266

>>11826438

why are you shooting the messengers

we get it you have a hard on for cernovich

he also broke susan rice unmasking

conyers resigns

and so much more

>>11826469

>>11826480

>>11826486

who cares free speech

not everyone is awake completley

and many like Owen see all the shit

and he just happens to have a platform to spout shit

he will come bacak around

he has THREE very small boys and in the back of his head may be a bit freaked out

at what seems to be going on that even he may not understand

asshole

>>11826501 <<<<<zactly but some are very dense and just see the "headline" of his rants

>>11826430

same with cernovich

he got burned bad with pizzagate

he is a fence sitter and he stirs up BOTH sides now

he know what he is doing

and when big news breaks he spreads it to both sides

nearly 800K followers now

he knows the pedo shit is real

that is why he is all over epstein island shit and ghislaine

some of you are really dense at irregular warfare manuevering

>>11826402

>>11826266

>>11826519

some of you asshats dividers would have bad mouthed Paul Revere I am sure

take the messages and ponder what is what

this a war

with real people in the mix

citizen jounalists

comedians

youtubers

twitter accounts

anons like you and me as well

digital warfare is real

some of you need to realize it can get foggy

and some are out in the fog on purpose

in the end WE WIN

quit being divisionfags

fuck i even watch cnn and msnbc and still fox

picked up newsmax and oann

real soldiers take in the entire battle field to see it all

so all you complainers of ones you don't like

in the end may be shocked who is who

think of all on the Q board we thought were great and now we are not sure

keep your feet dry

>>11826266

>>11826438

why are you shooting the messengers

>>11826469

>>11826480

>>11826486

>>11826501 <<<<<zactly but some are very dense and just see the "headline" of his rants

>>11826430

>>11826402

>>11826266

>>11826549

>keep your feet dry

some of you complain and do nothing but shitpost

never ever got your damn feet wet for three years of Q

but you sure have a shit ton of complaints

about the ones on the battlefield

and digital battlefield

many have wives and kids

most of you are probably sitting with your dick in one hand right now

fags

>>11826266

>>11826438

why are you shooting the messengers

>>11826469

>>11826480

>>11826486

>>11826501 <<<<<zactly but some are very dense and just see the "headline" of his rants

>>11826430

>>11826402

>>11826266

>>11826561

i my be wrong but i aint lying

>>11826638

Trump said basically the same about Sessions

and even wrote off Flynn for a while

so we will see what is what someday

>>11826638

anyone who is atraitor or seditous or against us

the Q team knows

so why even worry

if cerno is a bad dude he will be made found out by all

when the time is due

if a patriot

then that will come out as well

fyi i have many pictures with celebs

like celine dion and elton john

does not make me a bad person

just like cerno with hotwheels from back in the day

many people take pics with famous or well known people

it is/was a thing

cerno with hotwheels is meanigless unless you have sauce

cerno was involved in the whole gamergate thing

long before he was a household name

hotwheels most have no idea who he is

cerno probably knew who he was and did the pic ask or hotwheels asked cerno

who cares unless you have sauce cerno is somehow bad connected to hotwheels

>>11826628

yep

and most never understood the gra'em by the pussy talk

deercamps, lockerrooms, barracks, some males are just faggy and may get it someday, but don't immediatley

as they are surrounded by retarded homos and weird moms

and are softy feely guys