Judge Doesn't Find Much To Like In 'Material Support For Terrorism' Lawsuit Against Twitter

from the doubling-down-on-wrong-does-no-one-any-favors dept

The lawsuit against Twitter for "providing material support" to ISIS (predicated on the fact that ISIS members use Twitter to communicate) -- filed in January by the widow of a man killed in an ISIS raid -- is in trouble.

Twitter filed its motion to dismiss in March, stating logically enough that the plaintiff had offered nothing more than conclusory claims about its "support" of terrorism, not to mention the fact that there was no link between Twitter and the terrorist act that killed the plaintiff's husband. On top of that, it pointed out the obvious: that Section 230 does not allow service providers to be held responsible for the actions of their users.

As reported by Nicholas Iovino of Courthouse News Service, the presiding judge doesn't seem too impressed by what he's seen so far from the plaintiff.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick said the complaint fails to show a link between the social media network's actions and the attack that took five lives in Jordan.

"I just don't see causation under the Antiterrorism Act," [Judge William] Orrick said. "There's no allegation that ISIS used Twitter to recruit Zaid."

That deals a blow to one of the lawsuit's allegations. Orrick also didn't find the plaintiff's claim that Twitter direct messages are somehow different than regular tweets when it comes to Section 230 protections.

Orrick was not persuaded that companies like Twitter could be sued for messages sent by users.

"Just because it's private messaging doesn't put this beyond the Communications Decency Act's reach," Orrick said.

This was in response to the plaintiff's lawyer's assertion that because direct messages are not accessible by the public, Twitter couldn't avail itself of Section 230 protections as a "publisher." Twitter's lawyer countered by pointing out email providers are still considered "publishers" and they can't be held responsible for users' communications, even though those messages are never made public.

It only took about 40 minutes for Judge Orrick to reach a decision, albeit one that doesn't shut down this ridiculous lawsuit completely. The lawsuit has been dismissed, but without prejudice and with an invitation for the plaintiff to file an amended complaint.

Given the hurdles the plaintiff needs to leap (some logical, some statutory) to find Twitter responsible for the actions of terrorists halfway around the world, it's unlikely that an amended complaint will fix the seriously misguided lawsuit. The only people truly responsible for the plaintiff's husband's death are those who took his life. While it's an understandable emotional response to want someone to pay for the murder of a loved one, sometimes there's no way to receive that sort of closure.

Twitter isn't a closed platform developed solely for terrorists' communications. It's available to anyone with an email address… even terrorists. Twitter is routinely criticized for its handling of illicit material and abusive behavior, but the undeniable fact still remains: these unpleasant communications are created by users, not by Twitter. Any attempt to connect the dots between a terrorist attack and terrorist chatter is tenuous, and any attempt to hold platforms responsible for the actions of their users carries with it the potential to make the internet worse for millions of law-abiding users.

Filed Under: cda 230, material support, section 230, terrorism, william orrick
Companies: twitter


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Annonimus, 20 Jun 2016 @ 5:42am

    Bulshit

    "any attempt to hold platforms responsible for the actions of their users carries with it the potential to make the internet worse for millions of law-abiding users"

    No. Just no. That statement isn't correct. Most attempts to hold platforms responsible for the actions of their user will carry the potential to make the internet worse for millions of law-abiding users. This is because most attempts to hold platforms responsible for the actions of their users don't actually care if the platforms are responsible for the actions of their users. They just want methods of control on the discussions of ordinary people to be put on the internet platform.

    It's one thing if a terrorist uses a private (or not so private) method of communication on a platform to plan and/or execute their attacks. It's another thing when the platform itself is one of the driving mechanisms for the radicalization of a person into a terrorist.

    In this case Twitter's private chat was used by terrorists for some of their communication, but Twitter did not at any point do anything to encourage the radicalization of any of those people into terrorists and therefore shouldn't be held responsible for their actions.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2016 @ 5:33pm

      Re: Bulshit

      While I don't believe Twitter is " 'providing material support' to ISIS", as that would have to be a conscious act on their part, what exactly ARE they doing to prevent their platform from being used as an ISIS recruitment tool or a covert means for ISIS communication?

      Twitter has no problem banning a gay conservative, Milo Yiannopoulos, for his speech on Twitter, repeatedly. Twitter openly censors speech that disagrees with its policies and has that right as the site owner. But how much effort does it put into banning speech from ISIS and other Islam affiliated groups that violates Twitter policy?

      Failure to police yourself with respect to ISIS and related groups, especially when you have shown a willingness to police certain individuals and other groups, repeatedly, opens Twitter up to the perception that they provide a "wink and a nod" approval of these activities, despite Twitter's own policies. Twitter should start moderating all accounts equally or just stop moderating. Moderating based on some internal bias will open them up to charges like this.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Wendy Cockcroft, 21 Jun 2016 @ 6:11am

        Re: Re: Bulshit

        How exactly could ANY platform "prevent" ISIS from using it? Okay, I'll bite.

        They'd have to hire staff to comb through every message that tripped the keyword wire, i.e. usage of words like "Bomb" or "martyr." Now imagine how hard that would be to implement. I mean, I bought a jacket recently that cost a bomb and I'm a martyr to my leg cramps. Okay, so everyday speech would have to be examined to see if it was terroristic or not. Assume a freakin' huge PILE of tweets to sift through; what other filters would you use? Arabic-sounding names? What would you do to stem the torrent of tweets to make it easier to search them — pause the or message until a moderator has checked to make sure you're not a terrorist?

        This is vastly impractical, I don't believe you've thought your question through, AC.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 20 Jun 2016 @ 5:44am

    Section 230 should protect PRIVATE messages too

    On Twitter.
    On a BBS from the 1990's.
    On a telephone conversation.

    Would the plaintiff argue that AT&T is responsible for what is said over a private telephone conversation?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Richard (profile), 20 Jun 2016 @ 6:25am

    Leakage

    The concept that platforms should be responsible for the actions of their users seems to habve originated with the copyright industry.

    What we see here is an example of "leakage" of that concept into other domains.

    Just goes to show what adangerous concept copyright actually is.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2016 @ 6:36am

      Re: Leakage

      Every concept is a dangerous one when used for terrible ends.

      At the end of the day, it is humans the serve as the corruptible element to everything we touch.

      We would live in a perfect world, no matter which ISM we where using if corrupt evil bastards did not exist.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2016 @ 7:21am

    We don't jail car manufacturers...

    Just immagine if we jailed some Ford, GMC, etc. employees whenever a car made by them was involved in a crime. Where would liability end? Should we also jail the individual parts providers?

    Ah hell! Why stop there? We could also go after the guys who paved the road the perps drove on through to get away! /facepalm

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2016 @ 10:40am

      Re: We don't jail car manufacturers...

      This is exactly what anti-gunners are trying to do to gun manufacturers. They are trying to find a way to sue them. If they are successful, look for the same logic to be applied to cars, alcohol and ultimately the internet. Whatever anyone things of guns and gun manufactures, it is an extremely slippery slope to open them up to lawsuits.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        John Fenderson (profile), 20 Jun 2016 @ 11:12am

        Re: Re: We don't jail car manufacturers...

        Yes. This is one of the few points that the gun lobby makes that I entirely agree with.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        John85851 (profile), 21 Jun 2016 @ 10:14am

        Re: Re: We don't jail car manufacturers...

        Actually, law makers should hold gun manufacturers to the same safety standards as car makers.
        By law, cars must have seat belts, anti-lock brakes, air bags, and other safety features.

        By comparison, guns come with a palm-reader so only the owner can fire it, an RFID chip so it can only be used within a certain range of the fob (again, to prevent stolen guns to be used in crimes), and guns are limited to only firing 60 bullets per minute. Oh, wait, NONE of that is happening.

        Guns are the only products on the market that are designed to kill, and which don't have any improvement in safety features.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 21 Jun 2016 @ 10:41am

          Re: Re: Re: We don't jail car manufacturers...

          I agree with this, but have two observations:

          1) Right now, if a gun manufacturer produces a weapon that is actually defective in some way that causes death or injury, they do have (and should have) liability for that.

          2) Additional safety standards (as with cars) seem like a good idea -- but it's wrong and dangerous to try to legally hold manufacturers to standards that don't yet actually exist. First things first.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2016 @ 7:30am

    That second claim in the lawsuit is ridiculous. Personal messages are NOT seen by the public. It's like suing a phone company because someone who just murdered a member of your family used his phone to make a call.

    LOLS

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.