Looks to me like a cry for attention mixed with money-grabbing compensation-culture induced simple greed.
If he was 'unfairly banned', is that not an issue between himself and whichever company appoints the moderators/controls the servers or whatever? That would be my interpretation, rather than going straight to the courts squealing breach of rights. Anyone at all familiar with the law knows that freedom of speech is normally limited anyway (thus the actions for defamation in tort), and I note very carefully that nothing was mentioned about why precisely he was banned, just that it was 'unfair' (a subjective term if ever there was one), and a 'violation of free speech' - which to me points to some horrid or profane behaviour on his part. Perhaps he should have read the provisions of his licence agreement more carefully? I'm pretty sure they usually contain plenty of carefully drafted clauses on limitations of service in cases of abuse or nastiness.
Having Winona Ryder called in to testify on the content of 'The Catcher in the Rye' was simply hilarious. One would have thought that if this was genuine, and not some frivolous attempt to catch the public eye, a Professor of American Literature may have been more useful than an actress...