Footnotes, 70.

Moreover, even if the Court were to find that such evidence had been submitted, Plaintiffs have not proven that Defendants attempted to make the Muscogee County voters timid or fearful, nor is there sufficient evidence that the Muscogee County voters felt timid or fearful of voting. Two of the three voters merely testified to being confused or inconvenienced by the challenge, and feeling like they had been accused of doing something wrong Tr. 119:821, 130:3–8 (Berson); Tr. 453:13–24, 458:5–9 (Stinetorf). Such experiences, while certainly difficult, does not rise to a reasonable degree of fear or intimidation for Section 11(b) liability to incur.

Gamaliel Turner was the only voter who testified that the Court could even possibly conclude experienced reasonable fear in being challenged as a voter. He testified that the challenge to his vote caused him “[a]nguish” and “[c]onfusion” and even “PTSD from having to revisit the ‘60s[.]” Tr. 202:1–3. The Court finds Turner’s testimony to be compelling. In fact, absent the causation and directness problems discussed elsewhere, it is possible that Turner’s testimony would be sufficient to support a conclusion that the Section 230 challenge against him attempted to intimidate him as a voter. The Court, however, remains hesitant to make this conclusion given that Turner also attributed his discomfort with being challenged to realizing that “the process is not working . . . it’s a continued problem” and then defining this problem as the registrars’ failure to forward an absentee ballot to his address on the NCOA form (an act not attributable to Defendants). Tr. 302:10–24. In short, given the variety of legal impediments with Plaintiffs’ evidence in this case and the unclear factual basis for Turner’s expressed fear, the Court cannot find that it is more likely than not that Defendants intimidated or attempted to intimidate Turner.