I'd Bet Ted Cruz Will Start Supporting Section 230 Once He Realizes He's On The Hook For Parler's Legal Expenses
from the put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is,-ted dept
Senator Ted Cruz now loves Parler, the Twitter alternative that a bunch of Trump fans mistakenly believe won't moderate content. We've already shown that's false. However, there's another issue with Parler that some are calling out -- which is that you run a risk if you agree to that site's user agreement, because of the following that is buried as #14 on the user agreement:
You agree to defend and indemnify Parler, as well as any of its officers, directors, employees, and agents, from and against any and all claims, actions, damages, obligations, losses, liabilities, costs or debt, and expenses (including but not limited to all attorneys fees) arising from or relating to your access to and use of the Services. Parler will have the right to conduct its own defense, at your expense, in any action or proceeding covered by this indemnity.
Now, as we've discussed in the past, many social media sites have indemnity clauses, though they're often much more limited (also, in looking now, I'm pleasantly surprised that it looks like a few have removed indemnity clauses altogether -- I can't find one in Twitter or Tumbler's current terms for example). We've also discussed why people should be wary of many indemnity claims.
Parler's indemnity clause was first called out by @TheWolfLawayer on Twitter, and then later by The Verge's Editor in Chief, Nilay Patel, who called it a "reverse 230 clause."
Parler has basically a reverse 230 clause in its terms of service, allowing the company to bill users for legal fees relating to their posts. @jkosseff pic.twitter.com/sR5TKwQDWv
— nilay patel (@reckless) June 25, 2020
I wouldn't quite call it a "reverse 230 clause" and I think that some of the screaming about this clause is a bit overblown (again, many other platforms have similar indemnity clauses, though many are at least a bit more limited to situations where the users actually violated some law).
However, this clause should make Ted Cruz and every other Parler user huge supporters of Section 230. Now, we already know that Cruz hates Section 230, has misinterpreted it frequently, and has supported calls to get rid of it, falsely believing that this will somehow stop content moderation from being used against Nazis or something.
But here's the thing: since Ted Cruz is now on the hook if anyone sues Parler over Ted Cruz's speech on that platform... well, then Ted Cruz might want to become a big supporter of Section 230 right quick. Because it will be Section 230 that gets such a lawsuit tossed out quickly and relatively inexpensively. Without Section 230 -- even if the case is frivolous -- Parler's legal fees (by which, thanks to this legal agreement, we mean Ted Cruz's legal fees) would be much, much higher, because the lack of 230 would create a procedural mess, which would likely extend any court case greatly, and rack up Cruz's legal fees.
This is not to suggest that anyone should or would file such a lawsuit against Parler, but seeing how many misdirected cases we've seen filed against sites like Twitter over users' speech on that platform, it wouldn't be surprising if Parler eventually faces similar such lawsuits. And, if that's the case, any of its users (including Cruz) will then be in deep shit if they don't have 230 helping to reduce their legal liability.
So, Ted, maybe drop the nonsense and the lying about 230, and recognize: Section 230 protects you too, especially given your new favorite social media's excessive terms of service.
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: indemnification, legal fees, section 230, ted cruz
Companies: parler
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Thank Parler for the road map.
Let's see, five steps to an attitude reversal on § 230.
Ted Cruz and/or any other congresscritter posts something actionable.
Someone sues Parler (under the deep pocket theory) for that post.
Parler racks up big legal fees and sends Ted Cruz and/or other congresscritter a huge bill.
Ted Cruz and/or other congresscritter throws hissy fit.
Dear Ted,
Please start posting your diatribes. Given your history it won't be long until this road map is put to work.
Sincerely
More Reasonable People
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Thank Parler for the road map.
Unfortunately it's more likely to be:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Thank Parler for the road map.
The sad but true thing is that will be probably done once 230 is gone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Do you have an example of that? Every click-through agreement I've seen that mentions indemnity is as broad as this one. (The Free Software Foundation's written agreement for copyright transfer does say "Developer is not obliged to defend FSF against any spurious claim of adverse ownership…"—the only time I've seen any such thing.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Asking a republican to drop the nonsense and to quit lying would result in them never being heard from again, not that it would be a ad thing, just saying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Thank Parler for the road map.
The folks at Parler know what side their bread is buttered. The probability that they would go after a high profile member like Sen. Cruz is likely quite low. It is the smaller fish in those waters that need to be worried.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fuck him! Let him get the bill first, then let him realise what a boon 230 is and what a prick he keeps making of himself by trying to destroy it! As is so often the case, when actually affected by something, or the lack of, is when the lies and bullshit often go away and the truth is acknowledged!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200628/00245244804/id-bet-ted-cruz-will-start-supporting-section -230-once-he-realizes-hes-hook-parlers-legal-expenses.shtml#c28
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Thank Parler for the road map.
They might not intentionally do so, but I imagine that if a few other users had to foot the site's legal fees pointing out that not all animals are being treated equally could be quite awkward for the site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ah sweet schadenfreude...
Few things will be so sweet than if someone who ragged on how terrible 230 was and how tyrannical social media companies are ends up on the hook for the legal fees of a social media platform, legal fees that will only be kept 'low' thanks to the law they hated so much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Parler, the Great Honey Pot. Now we know the real reason they are asking for your social security number...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You know this raises another question
This being the golden age of haxxorz, I wonder if Parler's databases are secured under the level of encryption and access-control that is typical for large corporations entrusted with that kind of data (which is to say, not enough.)
What's better than a honeypot? A honeypot with plausible deniability.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
s/republican/politician/g
FTFY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Excuse my lack of understanding. Are you sure that Section 230 protects website users? I thought that it protected websites from users, not viceversa.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Indirectly, but yes, by not holding sites liable for user content the sites can be less strict in what they allow as otherwise they would be much more likely to remove/block anything that even might be questionable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Doesn't anybody fact check these things here?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]