A look at Twitter v. Taamneh and the US Supreme Court's struggle to determine whether social media companies can be held responsible for aiding terrorism
depending on how you count the Justices? Would be a 5-4 decision, Thomas, Jackson, Kagan, Sotomayer & Alito. Josh Gerstein / @joshgerstein : For 2nd day in a row, tech seems likely to get a reprieve from #SCOTUS. But in social-media case, justices struggle with exactly what kind of help to terrorists should render a firm liable for terror attacks. w/@rebeccamkern https://www.politico.com/... @jess_miers : Not to mention, ambiguous legal considerations, such as whether the defendant aided and abetted terrorism, invite inconsistency with how the law is applied by lower courts throughout the nation; the very issue that #Section230 was enacted to remedy. Quinta Jurecic / @qjurecic : why on earth did they grant cert? I am bewildered https://twitter.com/... @jess_miers : Today's oral arguments foreshadow how Internet litigation will look post-Gonzalez should the Court fail to uphold the current Section 230 precedence. Just look at how much time was spent on navigating the ATA's scienter. #TaamnehEmily Gorcenski / @emilygorcenski : The world wide web is 30 years old but to the nine dinosaurs deciding American law, that's still too newfangled for them https://cnn.com/... Daphne Keller / @daphnehk : Twice today in Taamneh oral arguments, Twitter's counsel said platforms should be exposed to liability in the U.S. if Turkish police told them a post was terrorist content, and they did not take it down. That is so obviously wrong, we shouldn't need this chilling illustration. https://twitter.com/... Emily Birnbaum / @birnbaum_e : The Supreme Court today struggled to figure out the best analogy for social media platforms. They cycled through hypotheticals comparing online platforms to guns, pagers, landline phones, rental cars, and food at a restaurant. w/ @GregStohr https://www.bloomberg.com/... @klonick : I am 100% with Steve here. This is absolutely correct. I am no SCOTUS expert, but I am a legal realist. My initial reaction to these cases was “30% chance these were granted for an off-the-wall activism reason; 70% they were a mistake” So relieved it's looking like the latter https://twitter.com/... Steve Vladeck / @steve_vladeck : The easiest, most obvious thing #SCOTUS can do in both yesterday's case and today's case is “DIG” them (dismiss as improvidently granted). These *aren't* the referenda on big tech that some Justices were seeking, and wading in to these disputes seems far worse than staying out.
Google and Meta may be able to incur those costs for each and every suit that results in the same exact outcome but good luck to anyone else. (FWIW this is why it always boggles my mind to see the pro-antitrust crowd oppose 230. 230 is a pro-competition law).
So, big #SCOTUS Twitter case is done. Again, who knows what the Supreme Court will do, but justices really balked at the idea that simply providing a service used by ISIS qualifies as aiding & abetting, worrying that it would implicate every platform for every terrorist act.
@qjurecic Today's case was a cross-petition that they probably felt compelled to grant once they granted Gonzalez. As for why they granted Gonzalez, I really *do* think they thought it was a general referendum on big tech rather than a messy, technical question about algorithms.
Anyone else have the instinct after oral argument that there's a chance Twitter. v. Taamneh is headed to the jury? Or that it is way closer than widely reported— depending on how you count the Justices? Would be a 5-4 decision, Thomas, Jackson, Kagan, Sotomayer & Alito.
For 2nd day in a row, tech seems likely to get a reprieve from #SCOTUS. But in social-media case, justices struggle with exactly what kind of help to terrorists should render a firm liable for terror attacks. w/@rebeccamkern https://www.politico.com/...
Not to mention, ambiguous legal considerations, such as whether the defendant aided and abetted terrorism, invite inconsistency with how the law is applied by lower courts throughout the nation; the very issue that #Section230 was enacted to remedy.
Today's oral arguments foreshadow how Internet litigation will look post-Gonzalez should the Court fail to uphold the current Section 230 precedence. Just look at how much time was spent on navigating the ATA's scienter. #Taamneh
Twice today in Taamneh oral arguments, Twitter's counsel said platforms should be exposed to liability in the U.S. if Turkish police told them a post was terrorist content, and they did not take it down. That is so obviously wrong, we shouldn't need this chilling illustration. ht…
The Supreme Court today struggled to figure out the best analogy for social media platforms. They cycled through hypotheticals comparing online platforms to guns, pagers, landline phones, rental cars, and food at a restaurant. w/ @GregStohr https://www.bloomberg.com/...
I am 100% with Steve here. This is absolutely correct. I am no SCOTUS expert, but I am a legal realist. My initial reaction to these cases was “30% chance these were granted for an off-the-wall activism reason; 70% they were a mistake” So relieved it's looking like the latter htt…
The easiest, most obvious thing #SCOTUS can do in both yesterday's case and today's case is “DIG” them (dismiss as improvidently granted). These *aren't* the referenda on big tech that some Justices were seeking, and wading in to these disputes seems far worse than staying out.