The Parler platform suffered a planned censorship by Big Tech that to this day prevents its operation. Parler immediately filed a lawsuit in federal court in Seattle against Amazon, Apple, and Google seeking an injunction to restore its services. But on Jan. 21 the court denied the lawsuit and demonstrated that it will be difficult for conservatives to counter the power of Big Tech.
Apple and Google removed the social networking platform Parler from their app stores, arguing that the app will remain suspended until it could moderate “egregious content.” Shortly thereafter, Amazon Web Services removed the site due to alleged violations of its internal rules.
The action carried out jointly by the major technology firms, destroyed the application that was beginning to be a rage mainly among the conservative public and receiving thousands of users who abandoned platforms such as Twitter for its constant censorship of freedom of expression.
As reported by The Federalist, Parler in its lawsuit alleged three claims, one federal antitrust and two state law claims, one for breach of contract and one for tortious interference with Parler’s contractual relationships (or potential business relationships) with third parties.
To obtain an injunction allowing him to reinstate on the web, Parler first needed to convince the court that he had “a likelihood of success on its merits” on one of these three claims.
However, the court found that Parler was unable to do so and the court thus denied the claim in question. The legal precedent formed by the denial makes it unlikely that anyone seeking to challenge a ruling on the judgment will ever succeed.
Given Amazon’s monopoly power, it’s easy to think that an antitrust lawsuit against the giant would mean a solid path forward for Parler. However, that was not how the judiciary wanted to understand it.
Parler also alleged that Amazon and Twitter conspired to deny Parler’s web hosting services, but the court said there were no facts to support that theory.
Beyond the unfortunate situation that implies that a platform that promotes freedom of expression such as Parler cannot be available to the public, it is worrying the precedent that this ruling leaves, which suggests that the legal avenues to confront Big Tech are practically null.
While Parler has the possibility of appealing the court’s ruling, it will be very difficult to be heard, at least using the same arguments.
Regarding censorship, Parler CEO John Matze told Fox News, “If free speech is truly the enemy and we must restrict and censor people’s voices to keep our country safe, then our country is already lost.”