On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism about a lawsuit against social media giant Twitter. The suit was brought by the family of Nawras Alassaf, who was killed in a 2017 attack in Jordan claimed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). The lawsuit alleges that Twitter failed to police the platform for ISIL accounts or posts. During the hearing, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned the link between the defendants and the perpetrators of the attack. Department of Justice lawyer Edwin Kneedler argued that a company might be liable if it engaged in “personal interaction” with the perpetrator. Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised doubts over the scope of the statute, asking if CNN could have been sued for aiding and abetting the September 11 attacks.
The justices also asked Seth Waxman, the lawyer representing Twitter, questions about the scope of the Anti-Terrorism Act, testing the company’s argument that it should not be held liable for providing a service used by millions of people while also enforcing a policy against terrorism-related content. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan said that Twitter was helping those people with “explicit knowledge” that they were using it to advance terrorism. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether the claims in the lawsuit were specific enough. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that, in a “neutral business setting”, providing a “platform to communicate with people” without trying to help a person commit a crime might not satisfy the law’s requirements for a lawsuit.
A key issue is whether the family’s claims sufficiently showed that Twitter knowingly provided “substantial assistance” to an “act of international terrorism”, which would allow them to maintain their suit and seek damages under the anti-terrorism law. The Biden administration has argued that the Anti-Terrorism Act imposes liability for assisting a terrorist act and not for “providing generalized aid to a foreign terrorist organization” with no causal link to the act at issue.
The justices appeared torn over whether to narrow a form of legal immunity provided under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that shields internet companies from a wide array of lawsuits. The lower court dismissed that case largely based on Section 230 immunity. In the Twitter case, the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals did not consider whether Section 230 barred the family’s lawsuit. Google and Meta’s Facebook also are defendants but did not formally join Twitter’s appeal. Rulings in both cases are expected by the end of June.
On Wednesday, US Supreme Court justices expressed doubts about a lawsuit against social media giant Twitter brought by relatives of Nawras Alassaf, who was killed in an attack claimed by ISIL in 2017. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned the link between the defendants and the perpetrators of the attack while Department of Justice lawyer Edwin Kneedler argued that a company might be liable if it engaged in “personal interaction” with them. Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised doubts over the scope of the statute, asking if CNN could have been sued for aiding and abetting the September 11 attacks.
The justices asked Seth Waxman, representing Twitter, questions about the scope of the Anti-Terrorism Act, testing the company’s argument that it should not be held liable for providing a service used by millions of people while also enforcing a policy against terrorism-related content. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan said that Twitter was helping those people with “explicit knowledge” that they were using it to advance terrorism while conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether the claims in the lawsuit were specific enough. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that, in a “neutral business setting”, providing a “platform to communicate with people” without trying to help a person commit a crime might not satisfy the law’s requirements for a lawsuit.
A key issue is whether the family’s claims sufficiently showed that Twitter knowingly provided “substantial assistance” to an “act of international terrorism”, which would allow them to maintain their suit and seek damages under the anti-terrorism law. The Biden administration has argued that the Anti-Terrorism Act imposes liability for assisting a terrorist act and not for “providing generalized aid to a foreign terrorist organization” with no causal link to the act at issue.
The justices appeared torn over whether to narrow a form of legal immunity provided under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that shields internet companies from a wide array of lawsuits. The lower court dismissed that case largely based on Section 230 immunity while in the Twitter case, the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals did not consider whether Section 230 barred the family’s lawsuit. Google and Meta’s Facebook also are defendants but did not formally join Twitter’s appeal. Rulings in both cases are expected by the end of June.