'I wanted everybody to see': How livestreams change our view of protests

“From Occupy Wall Street to Black Lives Matter, livestreaming is an intimate window into activism.

June 11, 2020 11:20 a.m. PT

Protesters gathered in Washington, DC, and cities around the world.

Getty

As people all over the world livestream protests in the wake of George Floyd's death, Jon Ziegler remembers when he captured a tragic moment that was seen around the globe.  

On Aug. 12, 2017, Ziegler grabbed his camera rig and headed to a counterprotest at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. The night before, neo-Nazis and alt-right activists had descended on the University of Virginia, chanting racist slogans and carrying tiki torches. Ziegler, an independent journalist who goes by the name Reb Z, wasn't new to filming protests. He'd already gained a niche following for livestreaming demonstrations at the Dakota Access Pipeline and in Ferguson, Missouri. Despite the experience, Ziegler couldn't have imagined what was about to erupt. 

While protesters gathered in the city's downtown district, an avowed white supremacist named James Fields drove his Dodge Challenger around the area. Then, he rammed his car into the crowd. "We need the paramedics right now! People are badly hurt!" Ziegler says frantically in the video. "Somebody might be dead." 

The rampage killed Heather Heyer and injured dozens of other protesters. Fields was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. Ziegler's video ricocheted around the world, capturing what had been one of the ugliest moments in America's growing social division. "That clip was able to go viral around the world in less than 10 minutes," Ziegler told CNET in an interview this week. "People saw it before the alt-right was able to start giving their false counternarrative." 

Livestreams are playing a similar role as protesters take to the streets around the world to focus attention on the Black Lives Matter movement. The cause has taken on new urgency since Floyd, a 46-year-old unarmed black man in Minneapolis, was killed after a police officer jammed a knee to his neck for nearly 9 minutes. (The arrest itself was immortalized by bystanders, who pointed their phones at the scene, while imploring police to let Floyd up.) The livestreams have caught scenes of peaceful protest, police clashes and everything in between. 

White supremacists gathered in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017. Jon Ziegler, an independent journalist, streamed the events.

Getty

As the demonstrations continue, livestreams have served as an almost-personal window into the groundswell of the protests. More intimate than a high-definition cable news broadcast and rawer than a tweeted clip, live feeds capture time and place that edited snippets miss. Livestreams record both the mundane and the extraordinary. There are no cuts, no production. Because anyone can stream from their phones, the videos have become a way to hold power to account. And because they are live, they are spontaneous for all involved, including the person behind the camera.  

"You don't know what's going to happen next. They don't know what's going to happen next," says Nancy Van House, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley's School of Information. "It's unfolding live for everyone." 

'Another story is told' 

Like Charlottesville earlier, livestreams of the Black Lives Matter protests have already captured tragedy. The killing of restaurateur David McAtee in Louisville, Kentucky, earlier this month was one of them. 

City police and the Kentucky National Guard sought to disperse a crowd violating curfew outside McAtee's restaurant, a barbecue joint called Dino's where police officers reportedly ate for free. McAtee was struck and killed after authorities "returned fire" on the group, according to Gov. Andy Beshear. Police are missing body camera footage of the shooting because two officers who fired into the crowd didn't turn them on.  

Kris Smith, a 41-year-old security guard, was with friends at the shop next door. Smith wasn't protesting. He and his buddies were listening to music, eating and drinking, he says. Smith had already been streaming on Facebook Live for about half an hour when he heard the gunshots.  

Louisville residents mourned David McAtee, a local restaurant owner.

Getty

He didn't stop recording. "I wanted everybody to see exactly what was going on," Smith said in an interview. In the video, several shots ring out, though the shooters aren't in the frame. Police tell Smith to get in his car, then use the vehicle for cover while he's in it.  

Smith, who is black, says police brutality is a problem. He starts livestreaming every time he sees the cops, he says, because the footage is important in holding them accountable. "A whole lot of times, another story is told if you don't have it. Ain't nobody going to believe anybody over the police. The police can do no wrong."  

Smith isn't alone in using Facebook's livestreaming service to capture interactions with the police. In July 2016, the service made headlines after police in Minnesota shot and killed Philando Castile, a 32-year-old black man, after being stopped for a broken tail light. His girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, streamed the immediate aftermath from the passenger seat. In the video, Castile is slumped in his seat and covered in blood. "You shot four bullets into him, sir," Reynolds says to the police officer. Facebook initially took down the video, but restored it after public pushback. 

Last week, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg reportedly mentioned the Castile livestream as an example of how the social network's tools can highlight injustice. He made the remarks as he justified not taking action against a post by President Donald Trump that alluded to violence against protesters. Zuckerberg likely failed to mention that Facebook Live has more than once been used to stream rape and suicide.  

'There's no question' 

Livestreaming protests goes back further than Facebook and Twitter. It first became a powerful tool for activists in 2011 during the Occupy Wall Street movement. Back then, streamers would record on phones or other consumer cameras and upload them to video services like Ustream and Bambuser from laptops they were carrying with them.  

Streaming became much more accessible when mobile companies joined the fray. Meerkat, the first streaming app to get mainstream attention, debuted in 2015. Still, livestreams didn't take off until Big Tech invested in the tools. In the same year, Twitter bought the startup Periscope before it even launched. By 2016, Facebook Live had taken streaming to the next level, bringing the tools to the 2 billion people on its massive social network.  

The services really began to make their mark on activism during the Black Lives Matters protests around that time, says UC Berkeley's Van House, who has been researching livestreaming's effect on protests since the Occupy movement. Facebook and Twitter declined to comment or share figures on the usage of their livestreaming tools during the George Floyd protests. 

Even though livestreams tend to seem more authentic than traditional media coverage of protests, they can still create warped perceptions. The best livestreams cover hours at a time, says Van House. But many streamers are now doing shorter broadcasts, she says, only turning on the camera during moments of commotion. Cumulatively, those short bursts of video could give the impression that the protests are more violent or chaotic than they actually are. There are also ways to game what streams people actually see. For example, someone who doesn't agree with protesters could falsely report streams for content violations and try to get them taken down. 

Ziegler livestreamed a protest in Minnesota where activists toppled a statue of Christopher Columbus.

Jon Ziegler

Still, livestreams provide a personalized look at what's happening on the ground during a period of upheaval. Unicorn Riot, a media collective based in Minneapolis, has been streaming the George Floyd protests from top to bottom. In Seattle, a streamer going by the handle Future Crystles has been documenting the demonstrations, including confrontations with the police.  

The access is especially crucial now amid the coronavirus pandemic, which has stopped many people from protesting in person. Ziegler has been sidelined for much of the George Floyd protests because of a rib injury, he says, though he livestreamed a protest on Facebook Thursday of protesters in Minnesota who toppled a statue of Christopher Columbus. 

Ziegler has been streaming protests since the Occupy movement, but the day of Heyer's death is seared into his memory. Like a livestream itself, he remembers both the boring and horrific.  

As he began recording that day, Ziegler experienced technical glitches. He had audio problems, so the first 45 minutes of his recording were silent, despite a noisy clash between rival groups of protesters. He'd been shooting on his iPhone and sending the video to his MacBook, so it could be streamed to multiple platforms at once using a special program. But he couldn't get good reception, so he ditched that setup and instead attached two phones to his tripod, one streaming directly to Facebook Live, the other to Periscope. 

Then came the crash, and his fateful footage. He says that day encapsulated the importance of streaming for him, especially as protests play out this week. "Now there's no question of what's going on," he said.”

I wanted everybody to see': How livestreams change our view of protests

it's over

MKBHD X Brian Tong - Being Black in Tech, 24 fps vs 30 fps! Fav Tech in ...

One Year with the Canon EOS R (Yep, It’s Still Incredible)

Canon M50 My Video Rig | TIME TO GO PRO!

Reflecting on the Color of My Skin

Trump vs. Twitter: What you need to know about the free speech showdown - CNET

Ge\" President Donald Trump has been fuming about social networks. Now he's doing more than angrily tweeting about it. On Thursday, Trump signed an executive order that aims to curtail legal protections that shield Facebook, Twitter and other online companies from liability for content posted by its users.

"When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power," the executive order states. "They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators."

The unusual move comes after Twitter labeled two of Trump's tweets about mail-in ballots for containing "potentially misleading information about voting processes." Twitter's action appears to have been a tipping point in a relationship between conservatives and social media companies that has long been fraught. Republicans say their speech is being censored by Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites, though the companies have repeatedly denied doing so. Now these tensions have reached new heights.

On Friday, the dispute took a new twist when Twitter hid an overnight tweet from the president, putting it behind a label that says it violated the company's rules about "glorifying violence." The tweet can still be viewed if someone clicks on a link in the label, per Twitter's determination that "it may be in the public's interest" for the post to remain accessible.

Here's what you need to know about the debate over speech on social media:

Why is Trump going after social media companies?

Trump has accused social networks of censoring conservative speech in the past. He's taken that complaint to the people as well. Last year, his administration launched a website so social media users could share information with the government if they thought their accounts had been suspended, banned or reported because of political bias. He also held a "social media summit" at the White House in 2019 that drew media personalities popular in conservative circles.

Attempts to sue tech companies over claims of political bias have been unsuccessful. This week, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a lawsuit that accused Twitter, Facebook, Google and Apple of conspiring to suppress conservative views and violating the First Amendment.

For the most part, social networks have had a hands-off approach to Trump's posts because they're often considered newsworthy. But on May 26, Twitter fact-checked Trump's tweets for the first time, adding a label that raised questions about the accuracy of his remarks. The president tweeted that mail-in ballots won't be "anything less than substantially fraudulent," a claim debunked by news outlets and fact-checkers. Trump, who has more than 80 million followers, also falsely stated that California will send mail-in ballots to anyone living in the state, when only registered voters will receive ballots.

A label appeared under both tweets that reads: "Get the facts about mail-in ballots." Clicking on the warning notice directs people to a page explaining that experts say mail-in ballots are very rarely linked to voter fraud.

"We believe those Tweets could confuse voters about what they need to do to receive a ballot and participate in the election process," Twitter said in a statement. Trump's remarks about mail-in ballots also appeared in a Facebook post, but the social network didn't label them. Facebook typically doesn't send posts from politicians to fact-checkers, arguing that their speech is already heavily scrutinized.

Trump clearly wasn't happy with Twitter's actions. The company, he said, showed that allegations about political bias are correct, and he vowed in a tweet to take a "big action." Then came the executive order.

What does Trump's executive order do?

The executive order focuses on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects Facebook, Twitter and other online companies from liability for content posted by their users. The law helps ensure that these companies don't get sued for moderating content on their sites. Social networks have rules about what users are allowed to post, barring content such as harassment, hate speech and violent threats.

There are some exceptions under the law. For example, a company could still be held accountable for knowingly allowing users to post illegal content, such as child pornography. 

Trump's executive order aims to reinterpret the law through new regulation. Online companies that moderate their websites in anything other than "good faith" could face more lawsuits.

The order directs the Commerce Department to ask the Federal Communications Commission to propose regulation that clarifies when a company isn't acting in good faith. That includes when a company decides to restrict access to content but their actions are inconsistent with its terms of service or taken without adequate notice or a "meaningful opportunity to be heard."

In essence, the Trump administration is arguing that by labeling the president's tweets, Twitter isn't protected by Section 230.

The order also directs the heads of government agencies to review federal spending on online advertising. It asks the Federal Trade Commission to consider taking action against internet companies for practices under Section 230 and to consider issuing a report about political bias complaints. Under the order, US Attorney General William Barr would work with state attorneys general to study political bias allegations.

Does the executive order have legal limits?

Some experts say the order is just political theater and will likely face legal challenges. Both the FTC and the FCC are independent agencies, so it will be up to them whether to take action.

Experts also say the FCC would likely be challenged in court if it were to impose rules. Ernesto Falcon, senior legislative counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the Communications Decency Act was meant to determine who can or can't be sued and on what grounds. The law has no language giving the FCC or other federal agency rule-making authority to limit what an online company can or can't do. 

It's still unclear whether the FCC will propose new regulation. "This debate is an important one. The Federal Communications Commission will carefully review any petition for rulemaking filed by the Department of Commerce," said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai in a statement.

Marty Lederman, a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center, tweeted that "it's hard to imagine the FCC will do anything" with the executive order and the FTC will likely ignore it.

As I wrote earlier, it's all smoke, no fire. https://t.co/lkj0TEvFhk https://t.co/iWk7B4yvbQ

— Marty Lederman (@marty_lederman) May 28, 2020

Robert McDowell, a former Republican commissioner at the FCC, said in a tweet that the order would violate a private company's protections under the First Amendment. "This speech control is #unconstitutional," McDowell tweeted, adding that the president can't grant the FCC new legal power, either.

ACLU senior legislative counsel Kate Ruane said that the order could also harm Trump because if platforms aren't shielded from legal liability for what their users post then they could be more aggressive in pulling down controversial content including posts by the president.

"Congress and the administration would do well to remember that Section 230 is critical to protecting free speech online. The law allows platforms to publish all sorts of content without fear of being held liable for it," she said. "That includes, as Donald Trump appears to have forgotten, his own tweets — even when they include lies." 

What do social media companies think about the order?

Facebook and Google, pushing back against allegations of political bias, are already raising concerns about the order.

A Facebook spokeswoman said that repealing or limiting Section 230 will curb online speech. 

"By exposing companies to potential liability for everything that billions of people around the world say, this would penalize companies that choose to allow controversial speech and encourage platforms to censor anything that might offend anyone," she said.

A Google spokeswoman said in a statement that "undermining Section 230 in this way would hurt America's economy and its global leadership on internet freedom." 

Twitter declined to comment. 

What's next?

Trump's executive order is only the tip of the iceberg.

US lawmakers are also drafting legislation to strip online companies of legal protections for posts by users. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, both Republicans, are working on separate bills.

"If @Twitter wants to editorialize & comment on users' posts, it should be divested of its special status under federal law (Section 230) & forced to play by same rules as all other publishers," Hawley tweeted. "Fair is fair."

I will introduce legislation to end these special government giveaways. If @Twitter wants to editorialize & comment on users’ posts, it should be divested of its special status under federal law (Section 230) & forced to play by same rules as all other publishers. Fair is fair

— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) May 27, 2020

Getty Images

President Donald Trump has been fuming about social networks. Now he's doing more than angrily tweeting about it. On Thursday, Trump signed an executive order that aims to curtail legal protections that shield Facebook, Twitter and other online companies from liability for content posted by its users.

"When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power," the executive order states. "They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators."

The unusual move comes after Twitter labeled two of Trump's tweets about mail-in ballots for containing "potentially misleading information about voting processes." Twitter's action appears to have been a tipping point in a relationship between conservatives and social media companies that has long been fraught. Republicans say their speech is being censored by Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites, though the companies have repeatedly denied doing so. Now these tensions have reached new heights.

On Friday, the dispute took a new twist when Twitter hid an overnight tweet from the president, putting it behind a label that says it violated the company's rules about "glorifying violence." The tweet can still be viewed if someone clicks on a link in the label, per Twitter's determination that "it may be in the public's interest" for the post to remain accessible.

Here's what you need to know about the debate over speech on social media:

Why is Trump going after social media companies?

Trump has accused social networks of censoring conservative speech in the past. He's taken that complaint to the people as well. Last year, his administration launched a website so social media users could share information with the government if they thought their accounts had been suspended, banned or reported because of political bias. He also held a "social media summit" at the White House in 2019 that drew media personalities popular in conservative circles.

Attempts to sue tech companies over claims of political bias have been unsuccessful. This week, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a lawsuit that accused Twitter, Facebook, Google and Apple of conspiring to suppress conservative views and violating the First Amendment.

For the most part, social networks have had a hands-off approach to Trump's posts because they're often considered newsworthy. But on May 26, Twitter fact-checked Trump's tweets for the first time, adding a label that raised questions about the accuracy of his remarks. The president tweeted that mail-in ballots won't be "anything less than substantially fraudulent," a claim debunked by news outlets and fact-checkers. Trump, who has more than 80 million followers, also falsely stated that California will send mail-in ballots to anyone living in the state, when only registered voters will receive ballots.

A label appeared under both tweets that reads: "Get the facts about mail-in ballots." Clicking on the warning notice directs people to a page explaining that experts say mail-in ballots are very rarely linked to voter fraud.

"We believe those Tweets could confuse voters about what they need to do to receive a ballot and participate in the election process," Twitter said in a statement. Trump's remarks about mail-in ballots also appeared in a Facebook post, but the social network didn't label them. Facebook typically doesn't send posts from politicians to fact-checkers, arguing that their speech is already heavily scrutinized.

Trump clearly wasn't happy with Twitter's actions. The company, he said, showed that allegations about political bias are correct, and he vowed in a tweet to take a "big action." Then came the executive order.

What does Trump's executive order do?

The executive order focuses on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects Facebook, Twitter and other online companies from liability for content posted by their users. The law helps ensure that these companies don't get sued for moderating content on their sites. Social networks have rules about what users are allowed to post, barring content such as harassment, hate speech and violent threats.

There are some exceptions under the law. For example, a company could still be held accountable for knowingly allowing users to post illegal content, such as child pornography. 

Trump's executive order aims to reinterpret the law through new regulation. Online companies that moderate their websites in anything other than "good faith" could face more lawsuits.

The order directs the Commerce Department to ask the Federal Communications Commission to propose regulation that clarifies when a company isn't acting in good faith. That includes when a company decides to restrict access to content but their actions are inconsistent with its terms of service or taken without adequate notice or a "meaningful opportunity to be heard."

In essence, the Trump administration is arguing that by labeling the president's tweets, Twitter isn't protected by Section 230.

The order also directs the heads of government agencies to review federal spending on online advertising. It asks the Federal Trade Commission to consider taking action against internet companies for practices under Section 230 and to consider issuing a report about political bias complaints. Under the order, US Attorney General William Barr would work with state attorneys general to study political bias allegations.

Does the executive order have legal limits?

Some experts say the order is just political theater and will likely face legal challenges. Both the FTC and the FCC are independent agencies, so it will be up to them whether to take action.

Experts also say the FCC would likely be challenged in court if it were to impose rules. Ernesto Falcon, senior legislative counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the Communications Decency Act was meant to determine who can or can't be sued and on what grounds. The law has no language giving the FCC or other federal agency rule-making authority to limit what an online company can or can't do. 

It's still unclear whether the FCC will propose new regulation. "This debate is an important one. The Federal Communications Commission will carefully review any petition for rulemaking filed by the Department of Commerce," said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai in a statement.

Marty Lederman, a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center, tweeted that "it's hard to imagine the FCC will do anything" with the executive order and the FTC will likely ignore it.

As I wrote earlier, it's all smoke, no fire. https://t.co/lkj0TEvFhk https://t.co/iWk7B4yvbQ

— Marty Lederman (@marty_lederman) May 28, 2020

Robert McDowell, a former Republican commissioner at the FCC, said in a tweet that the order would violate a private company's protections under the First Amendment. "This speech control is #unconstitutional," McDowell tweeted, adding that the president can't grant the FCC new legal power, either.

ACLU senior legislative counsel Kate Ruane said that the order could also harm Trump because if platforms aren't shielded from legal liability for what their users post then they could be more aggressive in pulling down controversial content including posts by the president.

"Congress and the administration would do well to remember that Section 230 is critical to protecting free speech online. The law allows platforms to publish all sorts of content without fear of being held liable for it," she said. "That includes, as Donald Trump appears to have forgotten, his own tweets — even when they include lies." 

What do social media companies think about the order?

Facebook and Google, pushing back against allegations of political bias, are already raising concerns about the order.

A Facebook spokeswoman said that repealing or limiting Section 230 will curb online speech. 

"By exposing companies to potential liability for everything that billions of people around the world say, this would penalize companies that choose to allow controversial speech and encourage platforms to censor anything that might offend anyone," she said.

A Google spokeswoman said in a statement that "undermining Section 230 in this way would hurt America's economy and its global leadership on internet freedom." 

Twitter declined to comment. 

What's next?

Trump's executive order is only the tip of the iceberg.

US lawmakers are also drafting legislation to strip online companies of legal protections for posts by users. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, both Republicans, are working on separate bills.

"If @Twitter wants to editorialize & comment on users' posts, it should be divested of its special status under federal law (Section 230) & forced to play by same rules as all other publishers," Hawley tweeted. "Fair is fair."

I will introduce legislation to end these special government giveaways. If @Twitter wants to editorialize & comment on users’ posts, it should be divested of its special status under federal law (Section 230) & forced to play by same rules as all other publishers. Fair is fair

— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) May 27, 2020Trump also said during Thursday's signing that he's considering shutting down social media sites such as Twitter, although he doesn't know how he would do that."I'd have to ask the lawyers. I'd have to go through a legal process," he said. "If it were able to be legally shut down I would do it." \

Trump vs. Twitter: What you need to know about the free speech showdown - CNET

Ocusync RANGE BATTLE - Mavic Air 2 vs Phantom 4 2.0

Appeals court ruling suggests little legal traction for Trump's anti-Twitter campaign - POLITICO

"D.C. Circuit decision spurns claims that social media giants' broke the law by banning a conservative provocateur

A ruling that emerged from a powerful federal appeals court in Washington on Wednesday morning is strong evidence that the courts are unlikely to be receptive to President Donald Trump’s claims that he and his political supporters are being silenced by social media platforms like Twitter.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit resoundingly rejected a lawsuit the conservative legal organization Freedom Watch and right-wing provocateur Laura Loomer filed in 2018 against four major technology companies: Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Apple.

Facebook, Twitter and other platforms have banned Loomer, citing anti-Muslim statements.

The unanimous court decision from a three-judge panel runs to only four pages, but is dismissive of a wide range of legal claims some conservatives and liberals have leveled at social media firms in recent months.

The appeals court judges said that despite the companies’ power, they cannot violate the First Amendment because it only regulates governments, not the private sector.

“Freedom Watch’s First Amendment claim fails because it does not adequately allege that the Platforms can violate the First Amendment. In general, the First Amendment ‘prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech,'” the court said.

“Freedom Watch contends that, because the Platforms provide an important forum for speech, they are engaged in state action. But…‘a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor….’ Freedom Watch fails to point to additional facts indicating that these Platforms are engaged in state action and thus fails to state a viable First Amendment claim,” the judges added.

The court decision was released as Trump mounted an intense flurry of attacks against Twitter, after the social-media messaging firm took the unprecedented step of attaching fact-checks to some of his tweets about potential fraud in vote-by-mail programs being rolled out to address the coronavirus pandemic.

“@Twitter is now interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election. They are saying my statement on Mail-In Ballots, which will lead to massive corruption and fraud, is incorrect,” Trump complained Tuesday on that very platform.

He added in a tweet Wednesday: “Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen."

Trump’s aides have been vague about his plans, but one option reportedly under consideration is a blue-ribbon panel to examine alleged unfair treatment of conservatives by social media platforms.

The Justice Department is also conducting an investigation into whether social-media companies’ policies raise antitrust issues. The new D.C. Circuit ruling rejected antitrust claims raised by Freedom Watch and Loomer, but doesn’t seem to preclude others bringing similar claims with different facts.

While the appeals court designated its new decision as an unpublished “judgment” rather than the customary full opinion, it nonetheless grappled with some thorny issues, including whether a local District of Columbia anti-discrimination law applies to online businesses based elsewhere. One provision in the law prohibits "public accommodations" from discriminating on the basis of political affiliation.

The district court judge who handled the suit, Trump appointee Trevor McFadden, held that law didn’t cover the companies’ virtual, digital platforms. The notion of excluding online businesses from anti-discrimination protections so worried the District government that D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine weighed in with a friend-of-the-court brief asking the D.C. Circuit to reject that position.

But the appeals court judges — Clinton appointee Judith Rogers, George W. Bush appointee Thomas Griffith, and George H.W. Bush appointee Raymond Randolph — said a 1981 decision from another court limited the law to businesses operation in a “particular place” somewhere in Washington.

“The D.C. Court of Appeals has interpreted this statute and at minimum, its interpretation is a reasonable one. We have no basis to believe it would reach a different conclusion on reconsideration,” the D.C. Circuit judges wrote.

Freedom Watch founder Larry Klayman called the decision “outrageous” and vowed to press on with the case.

“We’re going to obviously move for en banc reconsideration and go to the Supremes, if we have to,” he said.

Klayman said the timing of the decision seemed spurred by Trump lashing out against Twitter in recent days. “Obviously, it’s a very political issue….None of those judges particularly care for Trump. It looked like they rushed the decision off their desk to make a point.”

The longtime legal gadfly blasted as “outrageous” the court’s ruling that online ventures are beyond the reach of the D.C. Human Rights Act. “D.C. law can’t just apply if you’re standing in Farragut Square,” he said.

Racine’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the appeals court decision."

Appeals court ruling suggests little legal traction for Trump's anti-Twitter campaign - POLITICO