Revived Lawsuit Says Twitter DMs Are Like Handing ISIS a Satellite Phone (theverge.com)

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."

Comments

Consistency

[Kunedog]

Twitter itself buys into (through their vague ToS and uneven/biased enforcement) arguments equating disagreement with harassment, and criticism with threats. And it throws even those stances out the window when the "harassing" party aligns with the right politics. Their Trust and Safety Council contains known harassers and doxxers.

If Twitter consistently took up a principled position to protect free speech (instead of cracking down on political thoughtcrime at the drop of a hat), they'd be in a much better position to resist this.

Re:Consistency

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because most harassment is disagreement without an off switch

Stopped reading there [before the bolded part, which is integral to the meaning of the sentence].

Figures. Thank you for a perfect illustration of selective blindness and intentional twisting of others' words as means of promoting your views.

So sue the makers of walkie-talkies then!

[Anonymous Coward]

If ISIS using Twitter is no different to ISIS using a satellite phone, walkie talkies etc, ""all of which terrorists use for private communications in order to further their extremist agendas." then why aren't the creators of those devices involved in this litigation?

Re:So sue the makers of walkie-talkies then!

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter has demonstrated the ability and the will to censor or ban users they do not like for speech they find unacceptable. They have failed to ban ISIS members and have failed to censor them, therefore they find ISIS acceptable.

Other IM services

[Eristone]

So they hold Twitter responsible, but not Skype (Microsoft), Yahoo, AOL, or any of the other companies that offer IM-type or bulletin board type services where information can be passed? Hell - with a little planning, a Wikipedia article edit could be used as a communication channel, not to mention the talk portion where editing an article is discussed. Or even Slashdot - read at -1 and find your messages for the Kettle Run on the next anniversary.

Stop with the hysteria

[PopeRatzo]

ISIS (and other terrorist groups) killed 19 Americans last year. Total. Cops killed 1,125 Americans last year (it's actually a higher number, since the US gov't doesn't keep track of Americans killed by cops).

Americans with guns killed over 35,000 Americans last year.

But ISIS is used as the excuse to take away people's rights.

Re: Stop with the hysteria

[PopeRatzo]

For instance, you and your ability to spew vile bullshit endlessly, about how horrible your country is, while you rape it of it's fruits bought by the sacrifices of those greater than you.

Are you kidding? I think the US is a great country with great people. It never stopped being great. I don't see it as horrible at all. I revere the sacrifice made by those greater than myself, including my father, a first-generation Italian-American who fought with Merrill's Marauders in the China-Burma theater in WWII (and was awarded a Bronze Star), right down to the janitors and sanitation workers who have more dangerous jobs than cops. There's no place I'd rather live and raise my family. From Chicago (where I'm from) to Connecticut, California, right down to Houston, Texas where I'm writing this now, the people of the United States are just terrific.

Were there justice, you would be hanging from a fucking lamp post by your scrawny, unwashed neck, rotting like the foul piece of shit that you are.

You're a Trump supporter, aren't you?

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[bluefoxlucid]

So our police force has a serious problem with being an enforcement division rather than a peace-keeping division, when it's supposed to be a peace-keeping division. Police have stopped using discretion and working to maintain peace and order, and have become authoritarian in nature; this has changed them from a pillar of stability in the community to a perceived threat, and leads to an increase in violent reaction to police presence, and a general increase in crime due to a perception that the police force and thus the law in general is an antagonizing agent and thus the enemy.

Yours and many others's response is, apparently, "Well we need police, so nothing is wrong."

This stance is similar to telling people water is necessary for life when they complain somebody took a shit in their drinking supply.

Re:Democrats

[DaHat]

There a very good reason for that:have a look at this link

So because Democrats aren't getting the sort of money Republicans are from the NRA... that justifies their rather anti-second amendment views?

If you look at the numbers, the NRA spend almost nothing with Democrats, but nearly $600,000 with Republicans.

In that case... if we look at this link... does that mean that Republicans are perfectly justified in seeking to de-fund Planned parenthood (who unlike the NRA, receives federal dollars) as they didn't get most of the 600k+ which was spent in the current cycle?

If they want support from Democrats, they need to pay for it like everyone else. Don't go pretending it has anything to do with ethics or beliefs.

Or... some people/groups have beliefs which are not so easily swayed by campaign contributions... so the $$$ spenders notice this and end up giving money both to those who can be swayed, but also in support of those who already share their view.

Re:Surely Not

[tburkhol]

So willful, active support for terrorism is a lesser crime than violating copyright? Is that what Witters suggests?

No, he's suggesting that a business which makes its product available to terrorists is 'providing material support to terrorists,' and it doesn't matter if that product is, itself, not physically material. He's suggesting that a company providing material support to terrorists should not be able to use copyright law to hide from the NSA.

The fundamental claim that we should all be worried about is that doing business with a terrorist, even if you don't know they're terrorists, is equivalent to actively promoting their cause. You know, so if you're an electric company, and one of your customers sets off a bomb, you may be liable for prosecution.

Re:Democrats

[rickb928]

"If they want support from Democrats, they need to pay for it like everyone else. Don't go pretending it has anything to do with ethics or beliefs."

Sure. Where do I send my check? The DNC isn't interested, they claim to oppose gun ownership for a variety of reasons, and pay-to-play isn't at the top of the list, by their own reckoning.

And despite all this discussion, they intend to subvert the Second Amendment, and are talking like they would also subvert the First Amendment. Which make sense if you're a dedicated statist and socialist (not entirely redundant).

You may be guessing I'm opposed to such dimishment of these constitutional rights. Yup. When these are gone, all the others are easily denied. More to the point, however, claims that Twitter is enabling terrorists with tools and functions that permit communication could be lodged against any pre-paid cell phone carrier, payphone carrier, newspaper (classifieds), the list goes on. This is unfortunate, but unavoidable unless you grant the State the permission to intercept all your communications.

I'm not yet ready to do that. The State has shown itself untrustworthy, and my private communications will only be saved for future use if gathered ever. They will not surrender them, never delete them, and share as they wish, with any state or agency. At best. More likely they will lose them to the inevitable hax0r who finally digs in and gets it. Or the whistleblower whose outrage gets the better of them and carries it out the door.

Twitter is not the problem.