Judge Sides With Twitter Over Devin Nunes In Case Over Satirical Internet Cow: Section 230 Removes Twitter From Frivolous Case

from the one-for-the-cow dept

Well, some small bit of good news in the Section 230 front: after a judge was clearly skeptical over Devin Nunes' arguments for why Twitter should be involved in Nunes' frivolous SLAPP suit over a satirical internet cow that mocks him, the judge has now announced that Section 230 of the CDA rightly protects Twitter.

In a letter that quickly dismisses each of Nunes's lawyer Steven Biss's silly arguments why 230 doesn't apply, the judge basically says "nope" to all of those arguments and tells Twitter's lawyer to draft an order dismissing Twitter from the case. Here's just one part of the letter:

The court must look to 47 USC Section 230 and the caselaw interpreting the act and analyze plaintiff's allegations to determin if Twitter has immunity under the act. Plaintiff would have Twitter be held liable for defamation for the content placed on its internet platform by others and would have Twitter found to be negligent for not removing the content place on its internet platform by others. Section 230 reads in subsection (c)(1) "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider". Plaintiff seeks to have the court treat Twitter as the publisher or speaker of the content provided by others based on its allowing or not allowing certain content to be on its platform. The court refuses to do so and relies on the rulings in Zeran v. Am. Online... The court in Zeran stated "Section 230 creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service. Specifically section 230 precludes courts from entertaining claims that would place a computer service provider in a publisher's role. Thus, lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher's traditional editorial functions -- such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content -- are barred".

The judge is also not at all impressed by Biss's argument of "but Twitter is so biased!" That doesn't matter:

The plaintiff also alleges that Twitter has a bias towards a point of view and that bias is so extreme that it governs its decisions regarding content that is allowed on its internet platform and that course of conduct makes it a content provider. The allegations in the Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc.... were similar to those by the plaintiff in this case concerning content decisions being one sided and the court in the Nemet case ruled that the service provider was immune from suit pursuant to 47 USC Section 230.

The court finds the issues in this case substantially similar to the issues presented in the Zeran and Nemet cases and applying the rulings in the Zeran and Nemet cases the court finds that Twitter is not a content provider based on the allegations by Plaintiff in this lawsuit. The Court finds that Twitter is immune from the defamation claims of plaintiff based on 47 USC Section 230.

As an interesting side note, the court also cites Section (c)(2) of Section 230, the rarely used part of the law that says you also can't be liable for moderation decisions. A lot of cases around 230 don't even consider the (c)(2) issues, because (c)(1) is usually enough to dismiss. But here, the court basically says both of them are good enough to get Twitter out of the lawsuit.

The court further finds that 47 USC Section 230 (c)(2) provides immunity for all civil liability and therefore Twitter is immune from Plaintiff's negligence claim based on the allegations in the complaint and the courts application of the rulings in the Zeran and Nemet cases to the allegations in this case.

Next up: hopefully the court will dismiss the underlying defamation claims against the two satirical Twitter accounts (Devin Nunes' Cow and Devin Nunes' Mom) along with political consultant Liz Mair.

Filed Under: cda 230, devin nunes, devin nunes' cow, intermediary liability, nunescow, pat carome, section 230, steven biss
Companies: twitter

Devin Nunes' Lawyer Tells Judge To Ignore Section 230, Because Twitter Is Anti-Devin Nunes

from the this-is-not-a-winning-strategy dept

Twitter and Steven Biss (Devin Nunes' rather busy, but still terrible, lawyer) were in court on Friday to continue Nunes' frivolous SLAPP suit against a satirical internet cow who makes fun of Nunes. The current issue remains Twitter's unwillingness to reveal who is behind the @DevinCow account. Twitter, correctly, continues to point out that it doesn't need to give up the account info, that it's protected from doing so under Section 230, that the Cow has engaged in 1st Amendment protected speech, and more. And Biss's response appears to be... "but Twitter's mean to us, so it's not fair, it's not, it's not, it's not."

Needless to say, this is not a very good argument.

Nunes’ attorney Steven Biss said that Twitter should not qualify for immunity under the law, known as Section 230, contending it treats Nunes unfairly.

“They’re doing more than allowing Liz Mair, the cow and the mom to post a tweet,” Biss said. “They’re censoring, they’re promoting an anti-Nunes agenda, they’re banning conservative accounts and they’re knowingly encouraging it.”

Again, there's no evidence that Twitter is "banning conservative accounts" or "knowingly encouraging" anything involving an "anti-Nunes agenda," but even if they were, that's explicitly allowed (even encouraged) under Section 230, which flat out says that sites cannot be held liable for the moderation of constitutionally protected speech. At least the judge seems to recognize how faulty Biss' argument is:

“I don’t know of any requirement in the law that says these sites have to be neutral,” Marshall said. “Just because you don’t like it and asked to have them take it down, doesn’t mean they’re liable if they don’t take it down.”

Patrick Carome, an attorney for Twitter, argued that Biss wanted Marshall to carve out an exception for Twitter in the law, which is up to Congress, not the courts.

“Mr. Biss is asking the court to enact a new law,” Carome said. “And if he wants a new law, well, Mr. Nunes is a congressman.”

As an aside, Twitter's lawyer, Patrick Carome is not just "an attorney for Twitter," he was the lawyer who won the first big case about Section 230 that made it clear that it protected websites from liability for their moderation decisions. He understands the law inside and out. Biss... not so much.

According to Courthouse News, the judge even pointed out that Trump's silly executive order shows pretty clearly that Twitter's interpretation of 230 is correct:

“Doesn’t the existence of the executive order, which isn’t law, suggest the law can do what Twitter says it can?” the judge opined.

Biss also claimed that he was at a "dead end" in trying to determine the identity of who is behind the Cow account, which is kind of funny given the revelations that Biss tried to use subpoenas in wholly unrelated cases to try to unmask the account on the sly. Also, as Twitter pointed out, Nunes/Biss had not actually explored all legal avenues:

Carome listed the steps the congressman could take to get the identities revealed. They include filing subpoenas in Virginia and California and going through numerous steps to overcome each state’s unmasking laws.

“I don’t know why Nunes has been sitting on his hands,” Twitter’s lawyer said, pointing to the congressman’s original requests for the identities when the complaint was first filed over a year ago. “He’s wasted a lot of time.”

Of course, the reason that Biss hasn't done that is because he probably recognizes that he'll never overcome the bar to unmasking who is behind the Cow, because everything the Cow has said is protected speech, and the right to speak anonymously remains protected by the 1st Amendment as well.

That said, the judge (who had refused to dismiss the case earlier when he had the chance) pushed back on Twitter somewhat as well. Again, from the Courthouse News report:

But much like the first hearing in the case, Judge Marshall expressed some doubts about Twitter’s arguments as well. He pointed to a procedural issue involving the company’s failure to respond to numerous offenses Nunes alleges the company committed, ranging from shadow banning conservatives to acts of illegal defamation.

But Carome argued that procedurally, Twitter didn’t have to answer questions at this point in the case, while Marshall said state law might suggest otherwise.

The judge also expressed discontent at Twitter’s efforts to dismiss the case so early.

“The Supreme Court of Virginia doesn’t want us to short-circuit cases. I’m reminded by lawyers of it frequently,” he said to some chuckles in the court.

But that's all procedural nonsense. The key point is this: Devin Nunes is filing a vexatious, frivolous suit (one of many) against some online critics who were making fun of him (some of them anonymously). He has no legitimate claim, and as such no legitimate reason to unmask the people behind the satirical accounts.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, anonymity, cda 230, devin nunes, devin nunes' cow, devincow, pat carome, section 230, steven biss, unmasking
Companies: twitter