Case 2:21-cv-00031-BJR Document 34 Filed 01/21/21 Page 13 of 14 1 2 taking steps” to develop a more effective content moderation system. Rep. Br. at 12. There is no debate, however, that forcing AWS to reinstate its services now, before such system can be 3 implemented, would result in the continued posting of the kind of abusive, violent content that 4 caused AWS to shut Parler down in the first place. 5 6 The Court explicitly rejects any suggestion that the balance of equities or the public interest favors obligating AWS to host the kind of abusive, violent content at issue in this case, 7 particularly in light of the recent riots at the U.S. Capitol. That event was a tragic reminder that 8 9 inflammatory rhetoric can—more swiftly and easily than many of us would have hoped—turn a 10 lawful protest into a violent insurrection. The Court rejects any suggestion that the public interest 11 favors requiring AWS to host the incendiary speech that the record shows some of Parler’s users 12 have engaged in. At this stage, on the showing made thus far, neither the public interest nor the 13 balance of equities favors granting an injunction in this case. 14 IV. CONCLUSION 15 Parler has failed to meet the standard set by Ninth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court 16 17 precedent for issuance of a preliminary injunction. To be clear, the Court is not dismissing 18 Parler’s substantive underlying claims at this time. Parler has fallen far short, however, of 19 demonstrating, as it must, that it has raised serious questions going to the merits of its claims, or 20 that the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor. It has also failed to demonstrate that it is 21 22 likely to prevail on the merits of any of its three claims; that the balance of equities tips in its favor, let alone strongly so; or that the public interests lie in granting the injunction. 23 24 /// 25 13