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.



Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: twitter

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Twitter Asks Judge To Dismiss Devin Nunes' Frivolous Lawsuit Via Section 230”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
18 Comments
Stephen T. Stonesays:

Quick reminders vis-?-vis 47 U.S.C. ? 230:

  1. Without 230, a vast portion of the Internet wouldn?t even exist.
  2. 230 puts liability where it belongs: on the people responsible for the speech.
  3. 230 doesn’t protect a platform from liability in re: any speech for which the platform is directly responsible.
  4. 230 has no ?neutrality? provision.
  5. 230 helps facilitate the sharing of speech on third party platforms; the First Amendment gives you the right to share that speech in the first place.
That One Guysays:

'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.

Anonymoussays:

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:

(c)Protection for ?Good Samaritan? blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
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.

(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of?
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

(e)Effect on other laws
(1)No effect on criminal law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.

(2)No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.

(3)State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.

(4)No effect on communications privacy law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.

neostsays:

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.

Anonymoussays:

Re:

There is no drawback to a company requiring a non-disparagement clause even if it is illegal.

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.

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

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.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
13:40 It's Great That Winnie The Pooh Is In The Public Domain; But He Should Have Been Free In 1982 (Or Earlier) (35)
12:06 Norton 360 Now Comes With Crypto Mining Capabilities And Sketchy Removal Process (28)
10:45 Chinese Government Dragnet Now Folding In American Social Media Platforms To Silence Dissent (14)
10:40 Daily Deal: The 2022 Ultimate Cybersecurity Analyst Preparation Bundle (0)
09:29 A Fight Between Facebook And The British Medical Journal Highlights The Difficulty Of Moderating 'Medical Misinformation' (9)
06:29 Court Ruling Paves The Way For Better, More Reliable Wi-Fi (4)
20:12 Eighth Circuit (Again) Says There's Nothing Wrong With Detaining Innocent Minors At Gunpoint (15)
15:48 China's Regulatory War On Its Gaming Industry Racks Up 14k Casualties (10)
13:31 Chinese Government Fines Local Car Dealerships For Surveilling While Not Being The Government (5)
12:08 Eric Clapton Pretends To Regret The Decision To Sue Random German Woman Who Listed A Bootleg Of One Of His CDs On Ebay (29)
10:44 ICE Is So Toxic That The DHS's Investigative Wing Is Asking To Be Completely Separated From It (29)
10:39 Daily Deal: The 2022 Complete Raspberry Pi And Arduino Developer Bundle (0)
09:31 Google Blocked An Article About Police From The Intercept... Because The Title Included A Phrase That Was Also A Movie Title (24)
06:22 Wireless Carriers Balk At FAA Demand For 5G Deployment Delays Amid Shaky Safety Concerns (16)
19:53 Tenth Circuit Denies Qualified Immunity To Social Worker Who Fabricated A Mother's Confession Of Child Abuse (35)
15:39 Sci-Hub's Creator Thinks Academic Publishers, Not Her Site, Are The Real Threat To Science, And Says: 'Any Law Against Knowledge Is Fundamentally Unjust' (34)
13:32 Federal Court Tells Proud Boys Defendants That Raiding The Capitol Building Isn't Covered By The First Amendment (25)
12:14 US Courts Realizing They Have A Judge Alan Albright Sized Problem In Waco (17)
10:44 Boston Police Department Used Forfeiture Funds To Hide Purchase Of Surveillance Tech From City Reps (16)
10:39 Daily Deal: The Ultimate Microsoft Excel Training Bundle (0)
09:20 NY Senator Proposes Ridiculously Unconstitutional Social Media Law That Is The Mirror Opposite Of Equally Unconstitutional Laws In Florida & Texas (25)
06:12 Telecom Monopolies Are Exploiting Crappy U.S. Broadband Maps To Block Community Broadband Grant Requests (7)
12:00 Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of 2021 At Techdirt (17)
10:00 Gaming Like It's 1926: Join The Fourth Annual Public Domain Game Jam (6)
09:00 New Year's Message: The Arc Of The Moral Universe Is A Twisty Path (33)
19:39 DHS, ICE Begin Body Camera Pilot Program With Surprisingly Good Policies In Place (7)
15:29 Remembering Techdirt Contributors Sherwin And Elliot (1)
13:32 DC Metro PD's Powerful Review Panel Keeps Giving Bad Cops Their Jobs Back (6)
12:11 Missouri Governor Still Expects Journalists To Be Prosecuted For Showing How His Admin Leaked Teacher Social Security Numbers (39)
10:48 Oversight Board Overturning Instagram Takedown Of Ayahuasca Post Demonstrates The Impossibility Of Content Moderation (10)
More arrow
This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it