Nunes claimed Twitter "shadow banned" his account, purposefully blocking the content he posted and limiting his reach on the site.
The Twitter accounts inundated Nunes with insults and false accusations of crimes and ethical violations, including treason and bribery, as well as insinuations he frequented prostitutes and abused cocaine, the suit lays out (pdf).
"During his last re-election for the 22nd Congressional District, Nunes endured an orchestrated defamation campaign of stunning breadth and scope, one that no human being should ever have to bear and suffer in their whole life", the suit claims.
Twitter hasn't commented on the lawsuit.
Nunes while chairman of the House Intelligence Committee gained a national reputation as a prominent defender of President Donald Trump, including releasing documents that Democrats said appeared meant to undercut Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Nunes alleges that Twitter "shadow bans" conservatives - purportedly making their messages less visible - and failed to crack down on parody accounts such as "Devin Nunes' Mom" and "Devin Nunes' cow" which accused him of obstructing investigations into the president.More news: Kirsten Gillibrand the Brave Enters the Democratic Presidential Ring - Hit & Run
More news: Apex Legends Won't Get Fortnite-Style Challenges For Now, And Here's Why
More news: Youth Climate Strike Planned for Friday in Morristown
"Devin's boots are full of manure".
US Representative Devin Nunes has filed a lawsuit, claiming Twitter, two parody accounts and a Republican political consultant violated the First Amendment and defamed him.
Nunes claims that Twitter refused to enforce its own terms of service during his election campaign previous year, when he says he endured a "defamation campaign of stunning breadth and scope".
A spokesperson from Twitter declined to comment. After all, Nunes has a history with "frivolous lawsuits".
'Twitter let it happen because Twitter had (and has) a political agenda and motive, ' the lawsuit said. The landmark Supreme Court case New York Times v Sullivan made clear that when the plaintiff is a public official (which Nunes is, as a congressman), he or she has to prove that the alleged defamatory statement was false and that the publisher either knew it was untrue or had serious doubts about its veracity, to succeed in a libel case.
Twitter allows for parody accounts as long as it's plainly stated in their profile that they are a parody.
But in filing the lawsuit, Nunes ultimately fell victim to the Streisand effect: when an attempt to censor something ends up bringing more attention to it.
"What we're doing here, is we're actually going after Twitter first", he said.