Cars, Guns, Cider, And Snapchat Don't Cause Crime

from the how-fast-am-i-typing? dept

A carefully posed photo of dangerous driving attracted some attention online in early May. The photo shows a picture from the driver’s seat of a Nissan. The photographer is driving, doing 90 mph as he brandishes a handgun with his finger resting on the trigger. To make matters worse, there’s an alcoholic cider propped against the dash. This extensive set of unsafe behaviors was intended to outrage, offend, and attract attention — all goals it undoubtedly met. And such foolishness is an invitation to a lengthy imprisonment. But it would be a mistake to treat Nissan, Heckler & Koch, Angry Orchard Hard Cider, the driver’s cell phone manufacturer, and whatever platform he used to share the photo as responsible for his misbehavior.

Unfortunately, two ongoing lawsuits against Snapchat apply this logic to the app’s speed filter feature. Alongside other sensor-based filters, like altimeters and location-based geofilters, Snapchat provides a speedometer filter that superimposes the user’s current speed over a photograph. Passengers can use the filter safely in all manner of vehicles, from boats to airplanes. However, it can also be used dangerously by reckless drivers speeding on public roads in pursuit of a high speedometer reading.

In September of 2015, teen driver Crystal McGee was allegedly traveling at over 100 miles-per-hour while using Snapchat when she struck Wentworth Maynard’s vehicle. McGee was later charged with causing serious injury by vehicle, but Maynard sued both McGee and Snapchat, attempting to hold the company responsible for McGee’s reckless driving.

In most cases, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act indemnifies the creators of an “interactive computer service” against liability for consumer misuse of their publishing tools. The law prevents social media platforms from being treated as the “publisher or speaker” of user-generated content.

Indeed, the case was initially dismissed on Section 230 grounds, but this decision was reversed by the Georgia Court of Appeals. The court reasoned that because McGee did not actually post the photo, Snapchat was not being treated as the publisher of her speech, but the creator of a dangerous product that had somehow, per Maynard’s complaint, “facilitated McGee’s excessive speeding.” The court allowed the case to go forward because the suit “seek[s] to hold Snapchat liable for its own conduct, principally for the creation of the Speed Filter and its failure to warn users that the Speed Filter could encourage speeding and unsafe driving practices.”

It’s hard to see how the existence of Snapchat’s speedometer encouraged Crystal McGee to drive at 113 miles-per-hour on a busy road. Snapchat doesn’t reward users for achieving high speedometer ratings, and opening the filter triggers a popup warning reading: “Please, DO NOT Snap and drive.” Snapchat may have made it easier for her to record and share her behavior, but reckless drivers have long taken photos of their speed as displayed on the dash. One might just as easily claim that the existence of dashboard speedometers similarly encourages speeding. Arguably, driving fast might be less alluring without a way to determine how fast you’re actually going. The collection of items in the photo above all contribute to its outrageousness, yet none of the companies represented are responsible for the reckless tableau.

In Lemmon v. Snap, a similar case dismissed with leave to amend in February, the District Court for the Central District of California found that Section 230 protected Snapchat from liability because the filter “is a neutral tool, which can be utilized for both proper and improper purposes. The Speed Filter is essentially a speedometer tool, which allows Defendant’s users to capture and share their speeds with others.” While a user might behave recklessly in pursuit of a high recorded speed, the decision is theirs and theirs alone. The court describes the recorded speed as content submitted by the user. “While a user might use the Speed Filter to Snap a high number, the selection of this content (or number) appears to be entirely left to the user,” the Court reasoned. Snapchat doesn’t play a role in selecting the user’s speed, making it a “neutral tool” protected by Section 230.

While Maynard and Lemmon may seem like instances of overly litigious ambulance-chasing, and Snapchat will likely win its case even in the absence of Section 230, the suit’s sweeping theory of intermediary liability has supporters in Congress.

In a recent Federalist Society teleforum, Josh Divine, Deputy Counsel to Sen. Josh Hawley, argued that Snapchat should be held responsible for users’ misuse of the filter. Divine asserts that “most people recognize that this kind of tool is primarily attractive to reckless drivers and indeed encourages reckless driving,” ignoring both the varied, user-defined applications of the filter, and its inbuilt warning. He contends that plaintiffs in the speed filter lawsuits are “complaining about a reckless platform design decision” rather than anything “specific to speech.” However, Maynard and similar suits hinge on platform design’s facilitation of user speech. Snapchat is being sued upon the belief that it contributed to the plaintiffs’ injuries by providing a tool that allows speakers to easily tell others how fast they’re moving. Any remedy would involve limiting the sorts of speech that Snapchat can host.

Section 230 was intended to protect the creation and operation of communicative tools like Snapchat. In Maynard, litigants attempt to circumvent Section 230 by, in essence, suing over Snapchat’s non-use, alleging that Section 230 should not apply because McGee did not actually publish any photos taken before the crash. If merely creating a tool that can be used illegally or dangerously opens platforms to liability, Section 230 offers little real protection, and such a determination would imperil more than camera-speedometer amalgamations. Responsibility for one’s behavior — be it the dangerous acts pictured above, or the reckless driving at issue in Lemmon and Maynard — should rest with the individual.

Will Duffield is a Policy Analyst at the Cato Institute

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: snapchat

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Cars, Guns, Cider, And Snapchat Don't Cause Crime”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Not hard to see at all

It’s easy to see how snapchat’s filter would encourage morons to behave moronically. They are easily enticed by such a thing, like moths to a flame. It’s not the flame’s fault, nor is it snapchat’s that their user is a moron.

I feel sorry for the victim, but that’s on the idiot taking the photo, no where else.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
JMT (profile) says:

Re: Not hard to see at all

"It’s easy to see how snapchat’s filter would encourage morons to behave moronically."

It’s easy to see how practically anything could be construed to encourage morons to behave moronically. We can’t design our world, both physically and legally, to prevent all morons from being morons.

K`Tetch (profile) says:

Re: Not hard to see at all

I’ve actually bee curious to see what happens in Waze, if you go double the speed limit.

For those that don’t know, waze has a speedo thing in the bottom corner, it completes a full circle when you hit the speed limit, and then starts a new one in red when you go over. so in theory when you hit 2x the speed limit, whats it going to do?

I’ve been tempted to try it, but there’s only one area I would, and that’s actually right by a state patrol office, it’s a closed dead-end road that just accesses some government buildings/facilities with a 15mph limit, but most people (even school buses) do 25+ (it’s safe). So if I were to do it, I’d add it and do it there when safe.

it may encourage it, but that don’t mean anything

Coyne Tibbets (profile) says:

Re: Re: This will solve every problem we have

The proposal is to ban a tool used by one person who was dangerous and stupid — it doesn’t implicate that person’s rights at all. That person can still act dangerous and stupid and take their picture, they just can’t use the tool anymore to publish it.

So why wouldn’t we go from there to banning Twitter entirely because stupid people use it to publish stupid posts? That wouldn’t affect stupid people’s First Amendment rights either — certainly not Mr. Trump’s, since he has a whole government to publish his stupidity.

Idiot’s quote of the day: We’re not banning Free Speech, just the tools that publish free speech, and that’s perfectly fine.

Like hell it is.

Koby (profile) says:


It’s hard to see how the existence of Snapchat’s speedometer encouraged Crystal McGee to drive at 113 miles-per-hour on a busy road. Snapchat doesn’t reward users for achieving high speedometer ratings

For narcissists on the internet, the appeal is to get attention from other people. Numerous fools have posted pictures and videos of themselves doing dangerous things (see: planking, parkour fails, close ups with wildlife, and many more).

People just don’t have a sense of personal responsibility anymore. It’s sad.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

More aptly to the gun point. Let’s say someone has a laser pointer attached to their gun, doesn’t bother to have the safety engaged, and has a round in the chamber. Now, it would be fun to run the little red dot across the body of people nearby. Like in the movies. Now if the unsafe moron doing said act ended up shooting someone, would the manufacturer be liable? Especially if it didn’t warn to keep the safety on when just playing with the laser pointer?

Anonymous Coward says:

Let's get ALL the imtermediaries

If snap bears responsibility for somehow encouraging this dangerous, moronic behavior, why isn’t the vehicle manufacturer liable? After all, virtually every car and truck sold for the last (at least) 10 years is totally computer controlled.

Any manufacturer can ship an automobile which can’t travel more than say, 80 mph and with limited acceleration. Why aren’t they held to that standard? It would save lives! Of course the mandated measures can be defeated by the user by reprogramming the MCU or other modules as many who have bought used police vehicles can attest. But it’s that user behavior which should be the sole determiner of culpability.

Philosopherott (profile) says:

Suing the car company

If this is the case and they are suing for allowing a device or product that encourages speeding/unsafe activities why aren’t all cars in the US governed to the maximum speed limit of 80 or 85?

Why isn’t the car manufacture being sued? Or flat out banned as there are a tremendous amount of deaths due to motor vehicles every day/year?

Why aren’t the politicians being sued for not saving us from ourselves and each other? Sen. Josh Hawley should be held liable for encouraging reckless behavior by not passing laws that ban cars and guns and fatty foods and tobacco and alcohol and kitchen knives and… I think this slope is slippery enough.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...