Judge Dismisses Suit Accusing Twitter Of Supporting Terrorists

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Twitter accusing the company of supporting terrorists. The judge ruled that Twitter is simply the platform for the speech, not the one creating the speech and cannot be held liable.

The judge agreed with Twitter that the company cannot be held liable because it wasn’t the speaker of Isis’s hateful rhetoric. Federal law protects service providers that merely offer platforms for speech, without creating the speech itself. “As horrific as these deaths were ... Twitter cannot be treated as a publisher or speaker of Isis’s hateful rhetoric and is not liable under the facts alleged,” US district Judge William H Orrick wrote Wednesday.
 
Nothing criminal is occurring, but Twitter could do more to prevent terrorist messages from being posted. But they're already spread thin trying to control trends and banning people who disagree with Clinton, BLM, and feminists. Cyberviolence is apparently more of an imminent and deadly threat than real violence.
 
Buulshit, they make themselves the arbiter by apparently randomly banning Some folks and not others for their speech. Once they put themselves in that role, they have some responsibility and once you have responsibility, you should have liability.
 
But ISPs can be held accountable for piracy? Pure hypocrisy even if I do agree with him, but ISPs should not be held accountable for piracy if you apply the same logic.
 
BB Gun said:
again, if you make yourselves an arbiter of what is and isnt' acceptable...

Sources: Twitter CEO Dick Costolo Secretly Censored Abusive Responses To President Obama

and then you fail to police other actions that are clearly more objectionable, you should be held liable. If they didn't ban ANYone, then I would agree with the judge.

Hmmm... Ban Milo Yiannopoulous or Isis? The choice, apparently, was obvious only to twitter.

BB
Click to expand...

Twitter is a privately owned service. They are free to run the service however they see fit. They are not obligated to do anything.

They are not legally binded to filter anything in the first place. Just because they decided to filter certain thing, doesn't automatically make them legally binded to filter everything everyone demands for. I've not come across any law that allow such interpretation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top