French Student Group Sues Twitter (Again) For $50 Million (Again) Over Tweets It Doesn't Like
from the how-do-you-say-publicity-stunt-in-french? dept
Three years ago, we wrote about a crazy story in which the Union of Jewish French Students (UEJF) was suing Twitter for $50 million, claiming that the fact that an anti-semitic hashtag started trendng violated some sort of anti-hate speech law in France. Twitter, somewhat ridiculously, actually agreed to remove the tweets in question, saying they were offensive. Even after that, UEJF demanded that Twitter also reveal the identities of everyone who tweeted the hashtag... and won (not the money, but Twitter was told to hand over the user info)! Yeah, France is not a big supporter of free speech, we get it, but this is still ridiculous.At the time, Twitter claimed that the whole thing was really a publicity stunt for UEJF:
"We've been in continual discussions with UEJF," a Twitter spokesperson told CNET. "As yesterday's new filing shows, they are sadly more interested in grandstanding than taking the proper international legal path for this data."Apparently, it's time to ramp up the grandstanding again, as reports are now spreading that the same group has now sued Twitter yet again, and once again for $50 million, and (somewhat incredibly) in all of the tech press coverage I'm reading of this, none seem to mention the lawsuit from three years ago. Of course, this time it's not just Twitter, but YouTube and Facebook that are also being sued for $50 million. And it's not over a trending hashtag, but rather just a bunch of obnoxious tweets:
In this "first mass test of social networks," the groups uncovered 586 instances of content that was "racist, anti-Semitic, denied the Holocaust, homophobic (or) defended terrorism or crimes against humanity," the joint statement said.Look, there are a lot of terrible people who say terrible stuff on the internet. That's kind of a thing that happens on the internet. And, no, it's not very nice. But it takes an incredible leap in logic to take that fact and say... "Hey, let's sue the internet companies for this." In the US, of course, such a lawsuit would be immediately laughed out of court for infringing on the First Amendment. You can say ignorant stuff in America and it won't lead to $50 million dollar lawsuits against the technology you used to say your ignorant stuff. Now, as we've discussed in the past, American companies should be protected from these kinds of ridiculous lawsuits by the SPEECH Act, which rejects foreign judgments that wouldn't survive First Amendment scrutiny in the US. But, of course, that won't do much good for internet giants like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube -- all of whom have a strong presence in France, including employees. The courts can still target all of that.
Only a fraction of these postings were deleted by the host organisations within a "reasonable time," as required under a 2004 French law: four percent on Twitter, seven percent on YouTube and 34 percent on Facebook.
But, really, UEJF is being completely idiotic here:
"It's a mystery whether moderating teams in social media are actually working," said Sacha Reingewirtz, president of the UEJF.First of all, the quote from Reingewirtz is ridiculous. It's something someone says when they have absolutely no sense of the sheer scale of what these companies deal with. They don't scan every new post or video because that's simply impossible. And while Sopo at least has a point about Facebook's prude sensibilities, that doesn't necessary apply to the other platforms... and also, is a very different thing. And, really, if you're trying to get platforms to broadly censor a class of content, it seems like a rather strange way to go about it by then mocking the very same companies for blocking a class of content that you don't happen to find offensive.
Dominique Sopo, head of SOS-Racisme, said the social media giants were hypocritical.
"These platforms seem more shocked about content with bare breasts, which is swiftly censored, than about incitement to hatred," Sopo said.
"Our legal step aims at getting the authorities to apply the law so that these organisation submit to it in full."
Who knows where this ends up, though given that France is the same country that once declared Yahoo's CEO to be a war criminal, because someone used Yahoo's auction service (yes, children, Yahoo once competed directly with eBay in auctions) to auction off some Nazi memorabilia, it may not end well for those companies. The whole thing is ridiculous though. Even if you think saying stupid, ignorant, racist, homophobic and anti-semitic things should be against the law, at the very least focus on the people who actually said that stuff, rather than the technologies people used to say them.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, france, free speech, intermediary liability, publicity stunt, tweets, uejf
Companies: facebook, twitter, uejf, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given how France seems to think it has global jurisdiction...
After all, if France can reach into other countries and ignore their sovereignty, then naturally other sovereign nations can do the same to France.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Given how France seems to think it has global jurisdiction...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Given how France seems to think it has global jurisdiction...
Oh, the irony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
France being disconnected ....
after all, they've already demonstrated that they're disconnected from reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
France iDelivery
Isn't this the very kind of litmus test that should be used by these internet giants to determine where a strong presence including employees (and taxes) are best located OR NOT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For instance, if a user is in the United States, then the student group shouldn't be allowed to reveal the identity of that user.
Even racist rhetoric that is praised by skinheads, the KKK and even the Black Lives movement, is considered protected conduct under the first amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has even ruled it is and even the United Nations recognizes that free speech is a protected basic right.
Even if you don't agree with the speech, it is still "protected".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Exactly - I am much more worried by the thought that Twitter, facebook etc might actually be censoring stuff (and, unfortunately I believe that they currently do even if only temporarily) than by the thought that they might let "nasty" stuff through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I say more power to them, the more restrictive they become, the sooner they becoming a self censoring nation like China. That means less competition for the US.
Yay!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do these cluster****s even know what they're talking about???
Bull. YouTube's rule against harassment/incitement to hatred is one of the only ones they've been shown to take seriously. The fake bullying video uploaded to promote Unfriended was removed before it hit 1,000 views for violating these terms. (source: http://trilbee.com/reviews/written-review-unfriended-2015)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If social media networks start censoring content being posted by users in the United States, it could be the push that users need to abandon those social media networks in favor of those who will protect their constitutional, civil and human rights.
What I find deplorable is that European groups are trying to censor content being posted by American users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What the US companies forcing US copyright enforcement practices on other countries, is that also deplorable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If France finds in favor of these student groups in France, it could potentially allow any user who posted those tweets (if they reside in the United States) to sue these social media networks for censoring the content they posted, since it would be a violation of their constitutional rights.
Social media networks like facebook and twitter could find themselves facing a lawsuit in the United States for violating a user's constitutional rights if European countries force social media networtks to censor content of users posting in the United States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misnomer
It was first used in the 1800s by those who were against the revival of the Hebrew languages since it had been dead for nearly a thousands years. In fact, some of the first anti-semites aka anti-hebrews were Jewish since they didn't believe we could ever learn to speak it correctly and thus a great insult to their ancestors.
The correct words would be Judeophobia and anti-Judiaism but I suppose anti-semantics is the norm these days - pun intended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just as people in many countries around the world are arrested and extradited to the US to stand trial for a wide variety of charges, such as copyright infringement, that are lesser crimes (if crimes at all) in their home country, the flow of prisoners is not just one way. Just ask Ernst Zündel, who spent many years in prison (in the US, Canada, and Germany) for the things he wrote while living in the US.
Apparently the US Constitution's 1st Amendment does not apply to anything posted on the internet, since it can be READ in a country where such speech is banned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not a huge fan of hate speech, but I'm glad they can say it. I shake my head and move on, I don't have my entire life fall apart because someone called me faggot online. As often is said and ignored by these filter the world to be acceptable to me types, the answer to speech you disagree with is more speech.
I've encountered people who've said things I think are hateful, and actually had productive conversations. They begin to see me as me who happens to be gay rather than as the big boogeyman stereotype of 'the gays' they are taught to fear. While in a dream we'd all love a perfect world where a hateful word is never said, I'd prefer to make sure people learn the skills to cope with hearing it, and find a voice to engage with those who might be swayed that hate of a group is pointless. Hate those who do things themselves, don't hate entire groups for the actions of a few. Trying to make the world censor those who say distasteful things just gives them more power and a sense of purpose to fight for... if you ignore them they get really upset because they can't get the responses they need to fuel their demonization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hate those who do things themselves, don't hate entire groups for the actions of a few.
Better not to hate at all, I would say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What does that have to do with free speech? If you commit a crime, it's not free speech, it's a crime. And if you try to do it anonymously, doesn't mean you have the right to stay anonymous because of "free speech".
The weird thing is, that he requested the names of everyone who did it, not french citizens who did it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...and the point of free speech is that what you say isn't a crime, no matter how offensive someone else finds it.
Not that it's implemented like that anywhere, but how is it not a free speech issue?
"The weird thing is, that he requested the names of everyone who did it, not french citizens who did it."
How would Twitter know which users are French citizens and which are not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pig-ignorant and downright rude individuals don't have $50m down the back of the sofa, Mike. That's why they're going after Twitter. That said, I can't help getting a mental image of Dr. Evil with his pinkie finger in the corner of his mouth saying "Fifty million dollars" in a cod French accent every time I read those words. He'd look good in a beret, non?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]