2 ms·
The opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1333_6j7a.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1333_6j7a.pdf The referenced Twitter o
by deathanatos 3y ago
The opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1333_6j7a.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1333_6j7a.pdf
The referenced Twitter opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1496_d18f.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1496_d18f.pdf
- shadowgovt 3y agoThese are worth reading because the Court's decision here was very specific and narrow. The plaintiffs sued because ISIS killed their family members and they were specifically trying to prove collusion between Twiiter and ISIS (and YouTube and ISIS). The facts they declared they would present did not, SCOTUS ruled, meet the definition of collusion as per the law. In short, even if Twitter (and YouTube) did make money off of ads run next to ISIS recruitment information, that's not material support of terrorism. It'd be a bit like someone trying to sue CNN for supporting the invasion of Ukraine because they screwed up and ran that Applebee's ad against footage of Kyiv under siege. So the case doesn't particularly test 230 very thoroughly because the underlying civil claim ("Twitter is liable for my loved one's death because at some point they made money off an ad run next to ISIS recruitment material") has no legal merit.
- lesuorac 3y agoIt would be irrelevant if they proved collusion since collusion is not a crime. But yes, they failed to show that YouTube/Twitter "aided and abetted and conspired with ISIS".
- MithrilTuxedo 3y agoCollusion?
- shadowgovt 3y agoI used the wrong word. lesuorac was correct (and the words matter here because part of SCOTUS's ruling was on "Congress didn't define any of these terms in the statute so we have to go into the common law definitions of them.")