Revived Lawsuit Says Twitter DMs Are Like Handing ISIS a Satellite Phone

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: A long-standing lawsuit holding Twitter responsible for the rise of ISIS got new life today, as plaintiffs filed a revised version of the complaint (PDF) that was struck down earlier this month. In the new complaint, the plaintiffs argue Twitter’s Direct Message service is akin to providing ISIS with physical communications equipment like a radio or a satellite phone. The latest complaint is largely the same as the one filed in January, but a few crucial differences will be at the center of the court’s response. The plaintiffs also offer new arguments for why Twitter might be held responsible for the attack. In the dismissal earlier this month (PDF), District Judge William Orrick faulted the plaintiffs for not articulating a case for why providing access to Twitter’s services constituted material aid to ISIS. “Apart from the private nature of Direct Messaging, plaintiffs identify no other way in which their Direct Messaging theory seeks to treat Twitter as anything other than a publisher of information provided by another information content provider,” the ruling reads. At the same time, the judge found that the privacy of those direct messages “does not remove the transmission of such messages from the scope of publishing activity.” The new complaint includes some language that might address that concern, explicitly comparing Twitter to other material communication tools. “Giving ISIS the capability to send and receive Direct Messages in this manner is no different than handing it a satellite phone, walkie-talkies or the use of a mail drop,” the new complaint reads, “all of which terrorists use for private communications in order to further their extremist agendas.” The Safe Harbor clause has been used in the past to protect service providers from liability for hosting data on their network. However, “Brookings Institute scholar Benjamin Witters argued against protecting Twitter under the Safe Harbor clause, claiming that the current reasoning would also protect companies that actively offer services in support of terrorists.”


Share on Google+

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Clip to Evernote

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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