Libs Of TikTok Has ADA Claims Against Twitter

If her lawyer will pursue the claims.

ABSENT INTENT OR AUTHORITY AS LEGAL ADVICE.

Used under FAIR USE

It’s not illegal for a public accommodation to regard someone as disabled. But, when an entity that is required to not discriminate regards someone as disabled, and then uses that (regarding them as disabled) to discriminated, and deny equal access, that is unlawful.

I’m not an attorney. I do consult with several firms, however, and I have trained lawyers and their staff on how to frame and pursue ADA rights for clients.

Twitter (and other social media public accommodations) have, for some time now, created an air of censorship. I’ve written about this before, here.

By censoring individuals, Twitter has created an actual disability. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) defines a disability as a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities”. The major life activities that Twitter, by their implementation of policy and enforcement of policy that censors free speech, are communicating, speaking, writing, and reading. (There may be more - The ADA is a broadly available law.)

The ADA Play:

As plainly as I can put it, here are the elements of Ms. Raichik’s claim(s) under ADA

1. Twitter, using their policy, creates an actual disability that substantially limits Ms. Raichik’s major life activities of communicating, speaking, writing, and reading; and

2. Twitter, on the basis of the disability they created, has denied equal access to Ms. Raichik - 28 CFR §36.202(a) ; and

3. Twitter on the basis of the disability they created, has provided Ms. Raichik, have provided her with an unequal benefit to other Twitter users - 28 CFR §36.202(b); and

4. Twitter has discriminated against Ms. Raichik on the basis of the disability they created with their policy- 28 CFR §36.201(a); and

5. Twitter has used the unlawful, and prohibited acts found in 28 CFR 36.206(b), namely coercion, intimidation, threats, and interference. (I believe they have used all four prohibited acts); and

6. Ms. Raichik has openly and publicly opposed the unlawful acts of Twitter, and Twitter has retaliated. There is no specific remedy under “retaliation”, but it has happened.See 28 CFR §36.206(a)

If Ms. Raichik’s attorney would take this up, it could benefit a HUGE number of people who have been silenced. I’ve practically written the cause(s) of action in this article.\

She has already threatened to sue them - here.

Just sayin’

P.D., JAY V SHORE, as Certified ADA Advocate.

adarights (at) protonmail (dot) com.