Twitter this week permanently banned failed Senate candidate Shiva Ayyadurai, who immediately went to court seeking an emergency order to stop Secretary of State Bill Galvin from using his "massive power" at the social-media company to suppress free speech.
Ayyadurai filed a flurry of motions and statements this morning in connection with one of his two lawsuits against Galvin's office over the outcome of last year's elections, which did not turn out well for the man who claims he invented e-mail - he lost in the Republican primary to some guy who lost to Ed Markey, then he lost again as a write-in candidate against Markey and that other guy in the final election.
Self-lawyering Ayyadurai wants the judge to order Twitter to reveal the true reason behind its decision on Monday to treat him just like some common failed one-term president, even though it's so self evidently obvious, at least to him, that it was the work of Galvin getting Twitter to algorithmically banhammer the Doc, not the fact that Twitter thinks Ayyadurai was making false claims about elections. And he wants the judge in the case to make Galvin get Twitter to give him his Twitter account back.
Ayyadurai alleges the ban only came after he specifically mentioned one particular official in Galvin's office, Michelle Tassinari, whom he claims was part of the plot to keep him from his rightful seat in the Senate by destroying one million electronic ballots - a claim she and Galvin deny because there were never any electronic ballots since all the state's ballots are on paper.
Ayyadurai says he had not mentioned Tassinari on Twitter since last fall and says he did so only as part of a video lecture at the request of devotees of his online lectures on various subjects who, having gotten their fill on topics such as "new scientific data regarding the long term effect on the oral microbiome from wearing a mask daily," wanted to know more about what was happening with Doc Shiva and his election lawsuits, since mainstream media has refused to report on his cases at all, which Ayyadurai says is rather odd when you think about it.
He says Twitter only brought down the banhammer after he mentioned that one official's name - an unusual name at that - despite other tweets in which he discussed election fraud in general, which is blindingly obvious to a computer scientist such as himself, but he tries to break it down for the judge, starting with explaining how if/then statements work and then:
Transferring this to the Cat’s Paw Liability analogy, consider that the Monkey has either hypnotized the Cat or inserted a microchip in its brain that informs its behavior such that IF at anytime it comes across a chestnut labelled with the keyword "TASSINARI" THEN it must immediately pull that chestnut from the fire on behalf of the Monkey. Twitter is the Cat, and Defendants the Monkey. ...
It is undeniable that the government, in this case the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, via its Secretary of State and its State Election Director, strongly encouraged Twitter to employ a keyword algorithm aimed solely and squarely at the content of my speech, even when I was merely talking about public facts in my Federal lawsuit. ...
This action is as Anti-American as a government action can get. This action violates the foundational principles of the United States and goes against who we are as a country. This fact objectively makes Massachusetts no different from Putin’s Russia or Xi’s China.
One of the filings (3.4M PDF).