Remember how you openly said you wanted to discriminate against my speech in the first paragraph of your motion to dismiss Berenson v. Twitter?
“—speech that Twitter found violates its COVID-19 misleading information policy and that Twitter does not want to disseminate.”
Yeah, you see it - I mean, your lawyers wrote it, of course you see it!
But then later in the same motion you cited a California Supreme Court’s 2001 decision called Golden Gateway Center at some length to argue that California’s constitutional free speech protections shouldn’t apply to me?
Because you claim to be more like a gated apartment complex which only allows tenants or their invitees than a shopping mall that encourages everyone to visit (let’s leave the patent absurdity of that claim aside for now).
Did y’all miss the part where the decision in Golden Gateway Center made reference to Laguna Publishing, a another California decision you conveniently forgot to mention anywhere in your pleading?
In Laguna Publishing, the Court of Appeal found the discriminatory enforcement of a ban on distributing commercial newspapers in a private, gated community unconstitutional. ( Id. at p. 844.) In contrast, the instant case [i.e. Golden Gateway] does not involve a discriminatory limitation on speech activities.[emphasis added] Because this case does not raise the same issue raised in Laguna Publishing, we decline to address it here and leave its resolution for another day.
Don’t worry, though, we definitely will NOT be raising this point in our response to the motion to dismiss - due in just three days. So no need to figure out which Cooley partner is responsible for that particular self-inflicted wound!
0 subscriptions will be displayed on your profile (edit)
Skip for now
For your security, we need to re-authenticate you.
Click the link we sent to , or click here to sign in.