Twitter Asks Judge To Dismiss Devin Nunes' Frivolous Lawsuit Via Section 230
from the expect-nunes-to-join-the-anti-230-crowd dept
It's kind of incredible that Devin Nunes' first frivolous, censorial lawsuit is still going on -- but it is. This is the one against two satirical Twitter accounts that made fun of Nunes, as well as political strategist Liz Mair and Twitter the company itself. Twitter had tried to get the case dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, saying the case belonged in California, but that failed. Now Twitter has played the next obvious card: saying that Section 230 of the CDA prevents Nunes from suing it over the satirical accounts. Tragically, the Fresno Bee has not posted the actual legal filings, and they're in a state court that does not make them easily accessible to the public, so I don't have the full filing yet. Update: The filing is here and embedded below. However, from the Fresno Bee's account, it appears that Twitter is making a pretty typical CDA 230 argument:
“Congress granted providers of online platforms like Twitter broad immunity from claims that seek to hold them liable for harms caused by defamatory or otherwise harmful content that appeared on the provider’s platform but were created by third parties,” the motion to dismiss reads. “(The law) protects such providers not only from liability but also from being subjected to the burdens of discovery or other aspects of litigation.”
The federal law referenced specifically states that no providers of an “interactive computer service” should be treated as “the publisher or speaker” of things said by a third party on their platform.
The filing highlights that the negligence claim against Twitter is really just an attempt to route around 230:
“The sole claim (Nunes) asserts against Twitter — for negligence — rests entirely on the theory that Twitter did not prevent third parties from posting the statements on the Twitter platform and/or did not do enough to remove the statements after they were posted,” Twitter’s new motion reads.
If the judge in the case actually understands Section 230, this should be an easy dismissal for Twitter. However, to date, the judge has made a series of perplexing decisions that seem to go against most understanding on other laws. That doesn't mean he won't eventually dismiss the case, but it might make folks worry that this judge is more inclined than he should be to let the case move forward for the time being.
Of course, assuming the judge actually does dismiss the claims against Twitter on 230 grounds, I fully expect, Rep. Devin Nunes to join the chorus of clueless elected officials seeking to end Section 230.
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: devin cow, devin nunes, free speech, intermediary liability, section 230
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Quick reminders vis-á-vis 47 U.S.C. § 230:
Without 230, a vast portion of the Internet wouldn’t even exist.
230 puts liability where it belongs: on the people responsible for the speech.
230 doesn't protect a platform from liability in re: any speech for which the platform is directly responsible.
230 has no “neutrality” provision.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There is no drawback to a company requiring a non-disparagement clause even if it is illegal.
Most people don't know that it is illegal and will acquiesce simply to get their refund. If they do disregard the non-disparagement clause these companies have scary lawyers to try to beat people into submission with legalese.
I recently left a company I had worked for many years, and as a condition of receiving severance I was required to sign a non-disparagement agreement. I did, simply because I needed/wanted the severance pay and it was far easier than fighting. This company has been written about many times on this web site, and even though I know the non-disparagement clause is illegal I refrain from commenting, simply because I don't want the hassle involved if they should get wind of it and try to claw back any part of my severance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
sorry, i thought i was commenting on the previous article about SmileDirect. not sure how I got here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
'The light's better over here you see.'
Number two in that list is probably the biggest flaw in the argument of those trying to argue against 230, as what they are really arguing is that people/platforms should be responsible for speech that they didn't make.
When you point out that all 230 really does is make it so you have to go after the actual guilty party rather than just the easiest/richest target the arguments kinda fall to pieces, especially if the one making it is a fan of that 'personal responsibility' thing that gets brought up every so often.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And just in case anyone is confused about what the law actually says, you can see it here and I have copied it below:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MTD added
By the way, when I published, I didn't yet have the filing, but have since obtained it and added it to the story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That’s what you get for not taking that left at Albuquerque.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nunes illegally using government funding for his legal cases and the Judge doesn't want to let him off?
Essentially his career as a politician is OVER once this type of crap comes out. That and you can't vote in the Senate from prison.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
To paraphrase a line from Clue: You don't know what kind of people they have in Republican politics, he might go up in their estimation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Not is there any rational reason why it should.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It’s sad to see how far a man can fall.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
🐄:moooooo...
🐑:baaa....
Nunes: I KNOW YOUR A PART OF IT TOO!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Nunes isn’t a Senator. He can’t vote in the Senate at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-warn-that-american-people-may-tamper-with-next-election
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Social media giant Twitter on Friday asked a Virginia judge to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed by California Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, arguing the company has no operations in the state and Nunes’ complaint cannot be considered there https://www.myprepaidcenter.pro
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Devin Devin devin..
What guidance do the lost know?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Like paying for a billboard of 'Please investigate/arrest me.'
I get spamming for garbage products or services, but spamming for illegal services? Talk about stacking idiocy atop annoyance...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's unethical (in my opinion) to knowingly include illegal/misleading/unenforceable terms in a contract. I guess, however, if the company is already at that point, they aren't particularly concerned with ethics anyway.
A non-disparagement clause in a severance agreement is not the same thing as a non-disparagement clause in a consumer's product usage/refund contract. That said, I haven't read the Consumer Review Fairness Act so I don't know if the language of the law would also cover severance agreements.
I get what you're saying though - I signed a similar severance agreement with a former employer, but I'm less worried about repercussions if I say something bad because that company is so reviled in its industry that I don't think I could possibly say anything that would make people think less of them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]