Laura Loomer, a Republican congressional candidate in Florida, was thrown out of Mark Zuckerberg’s treehouse in May of last year. When asked for details, Facebook’s corporate office claimed that Loomer was banned for being a dangerous hatemonger. Loomer responded by filing a lawsuit.
Facebook’s attorneys argued today that Loomer’s case should be dismissed. Loomer, they asserted, was clearly a dangerous hatemonger.
Usually, when people show up to assert something in court, I expect to see some sort of objective data that supports such people’s argument. What was the basis of their argument? The motion totally seems to consist of a list of other establishment web sites which have banned Laura Loomer.
If Facebook had cause to see Loomer’s lawsuit dismissed, they would have shown up with evidence of the danger she poses to the public. Instead, they showed up claiming that other outlets (including their own subsidiary, Instagram,) had banned Loomer, and this was supposed to prove their claim.