⁣The people's dependence on social media for communication, and commerce
is undeniable. Every aspect of society is influenced, and entwined with
the technology that collectively make up our modern internet culture.
Corporate entities operating as private actors are using unchecked power
to infringe on the free speech of the people under the guise of
community guidelines.
One example is the recent policy of FaceBook to censor content, and
remove users in order to avoid possible legal ramifications of any
Government regulation that may exist.
According to the Supreme court in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co.,
Inc., 500 U.S. 614 (1991), "Although the conduct of private parties lies
beyond the Constitution's scope in most instances, governmental
authority may dominate an activity to such an extent that its
participants must be deemed to act with the authority of the government
and, as a result, be subject to constitutional constraints."
The first Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances."
Congress did just that when they recently made it legal to censor and
discriminate against the demographic described as, "Q-anon white
supremacist conspiracy theorists". Although this label is not accurate,
and may only describe a tiny segment of the entire affected demographic,
this, "Instance of Governmental Authority", has been cited as the cause
for these actors to create discriminatory policy that is subject to
constitutional restraints.
The new censorship policies are used to not only remove Q-anon voices;
but any others that dispute mass media propaganda, religious free
speech, or any attempt to organize petition the Government for a redress
of grievances. In Edmondson, the Supreme Court wrote that,
"discrimination, though invidious in all contexts, violates the
Constitution only when it may be attributed to state action."
Both houses of congress are responsible for this assault on the first
amendment, and the recent POTUS did not veto it.
Therefore it should be clear that the actions of Google, FaceBook, and
others may be shown that for the "State Action Requirement" showing that
a plaintiff having standing to sue over the law being broken, has been
achieved because we can show that the Government was responsible for the
violation, rather than a private actor.

The purpose of this effort is to extract damages, force upon social
media corporate entities responsibility for complying with
constitutional constraints, and to begin the restoration of all of our
constitutionally guaranteed first amendment rights


Email [email protected] for more information on how to participate in
restoration of our rights, and compensation for violation of said
rights.