Charles Johnson is an Alt Right provocateur whose accounts have been banned by Twitter, his personal account in May 2015 and an account for his "WeSearchr" site banned just recently. His response to the last is an absurd, idiotic plan to sue Twitter for "Discrimination, Censorship, & Antitrust Violations" [1]. Such a suit would cost a good deal of money even before it's thrown out of court. In the very unlikely case it gets a hearing, it would be blocked. In the extremely unlikely event it reaches a higher court, larger entities with millions to throw around - such as Google corporate and Facebook - would assist with the suit.

That said, there are good reasons to oppose Twitter censorship. Which is why I posted five easy ways to stop Twitter censorship. And, why I posted a comment on the wesearhr post suggesting - in as kindly a way as I'm capable of - doing those in addition to the absurd lawsuit [2].

Charles C. Johnson graced me with a reply, saying simply:

Thanks but we have a strategy.

So there you have it. I think my plan is best. Johnson thinks his plan is best, even though also using my plan would take very little effort and is guaranteed to make either the American Civil Liberties Union or the Southern Poverty Law Center look bad.

Rather than taking a small amount of time to help make the ACLU or the SPLC look bad, Charles Johnson has decided to do neither but instead has embarked on something that won't ever happen.

----------
[1] wesearchr dot com/bounties/
lets-suetwitter-for-discrimination-censorship-antitrust-viol
Complete with #FreeWeSearchr and #SueTwitter hashtags with, at post time, very little usage.

[2]

Back in Nov, I posted 5 ways to fight Twitter censorship that are a lot easier and a lot more sure than a suit against a private company that has a right to enforce their rules as they see fit. I then sent it around and got no help with it.

The first way is to get the ACLU to speak out against banning people simply due to ideology. Either they'll do that or they won't, and either way is a success. If they don't, then they look bad for not doing it: that can be used to undercut them when they speak out against stifling speech. If they do, the SPLC and others look bad. Either the ACLU looks bad, or the SPLC looks bad. (As long as enough people get involved and do it in a smart, big tent fashion).

While waiting for your legal case to start and wend its way through the courts (if it gets that far, rest assured Twitter would take it as far as they have to and would get help from Facebook and Google so you'd be up against those who can spend millions upon millions), how about trying that plan out too? Help out with 24ahead.com/u/matt_cagle but there are plenty of other ACLU lawyers on Twitter so ask them too.