b. Davis’s and Somerville’s public communications

Davis and Somerville also made a variety of social media posts about their challenges and concerns over voter fraud in Georgia.79 See generally, e.g., PX 33; PX 34; PX 41. In one post highlighted by Plaintiffs, Somerville references the Section 230 challenges being made public. PX 34, 4. However, the Court found that Somerville was referencing public information requests made to government entities, not releasing voter information himself.80 See note 56 supra.

To the contrary, there is prolific evidence that Davis and Somerville did not intend for challenged voters’ information to be made public. See PX 103, 73:1–14 (Somerville rejecting that he would have ever “list[ed] the 39,000 individual names” of challenged voters on Facebook because it “would have been too inflammatory, and it would have been counter to the intent of the effort”), 87:2–7 (“Certainly I didn’t think that the Boards of Elections were going to nail these lists on the front door, and I don’t know that they did that. But I think all exchange with the government ultimately needs to be public.”); PX 97, 164:22–165:8 (Davis acknowledging that challenges may be part of an open records request but that he was “not aware of challengers who put [lists] on the internet or published them in a newspaper[.]”); PX 98, 139:18–19 (Davis attesting “I don’t have any control over Open Records Requests to county governments.”). If a citizen or news outlet made a public information request and received a challenged voter’s information by this means, such request is not an action attributable to Davis and Somerville that constitutes intimidation under Section 11(b). Thus, the Court concludes that the evidence of Davis and Somerville’s public postings during the relevant time period does not support finding Section 11(b) liability here.81