While Banning Conservatives, Twitter Argues Before Supreme Court That Letting ISIS Use Platform Not Same As Aiding and Abetting Terror

9

They silenced patriots, conservatives, and freedom lovers while promoting enemies of America and genocidal murderers.

I was the target of multiple ISIS assassination attempts but I was banned for years from the platform.

Twitter argues before Supreme Court that letting ISIS use platform not the same as aiding and abetting terror

Attorneys from Twitter and the Justice Department argued that specific knowledge of terror activity from certain accounts should be needed for liability

Story continues below advertisement

By Ronn Blitzer | Fox News Februry 22, 2023:

Fox News Flash top headlines for February 22

Fox News Flash top headlines are here. Check out what’s clicking on Foxnews.com.

Does allowing a terrorist organization like ISIS use Twitter make the social media giant liable for terrorist acts that were aided by the use of the platform? That was the question before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, as Twitter and the Department of Justice insisted that it does not.

The case was brought by the family of Nawras Alassaf, one of the 39 people killed in a shooting at the Reina nightclub in Istanbul, Turkey on Jan. 1, 2017. ISIS took responsibility for the attack, and Alassaf’s family claim that Twitter and other social media companies should be held responsible for not taking proactive measures to take down ISIS accounts and posts that contributed to terrorism.

The oral arguments focused on the language of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which says that “liability may be asserted as to any person who aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance” to a person who commits an act of international terrorism. The key words that the justices and attorneys took a magnifying glass to were “knowingly” and “substantial.”

On the element of substantiality, Justice Sonia Sotomayor boiled it down: “You knew that ISIS was using your platform. But on substantiality there’s a question of how much it helped ISIS, which is different from how much you helped them.”

Supreme Court hearing arguments in tech free speech cases Video

As for as knowledge, Twitter attorney Seth Waxman appeared to agree with Justice Clarence Thomas that a social media company does not necessarily have to know what or where a specific terror attack would be, just that they would “have to have a general awareness” that they were “assisting in overall illegal or tortious activities.”

Waxman also argued that it is not enough to know that a terrorist organization is using Twitter, because even a terrorist organization can engage in non-criminal activities. They would have to know, he argued, about specific accounts and posts that were contributing to terrorism.

He also argued that when it comes to substantiality, it is not enough to simply provide the same services that it provides to everyone else.

“As a matter of law, a court should conclude …that the failure to do more to remove content in the context of a service that is generally and widely provided to anybody who complies with the policies … does not amount to the knowing provision of substantial assistance,” Waxman said.

In contrast, he gave a hypothetical where Twitter could be found liable for having more specific knowledge and failing to act.

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.

or

Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding. Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America's survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.

Follow Pamela Geller on
Trump's social media platform, Truth Social. It's open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spammy or unhelpful, click the - symbol under the comment to let us know. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

If you would like to join the conversation, but don't have an account, you can sign up for one right here.

If you are having problems leaving a comment, it's likely because you are using an ad blocker, something that break ads, of course, but also breaks the comments section of our site. If you are using an ad blocker, and would like to share your thoughts, please disable your ad blocker. We look forward to seeing your comments below.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
9 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Maximus Peperkamp
Maximus Peperkamp
1 year ago

So if twithler allowed isis but banned conservative patriots, we are talking twitterible treason

PlatinumGhostD
PlatinumGhost
1 year ago

There is absolutely no reason that the Fox can’t guard the Henhouse. /s

Snowedin
Snowedin
1 year ago

If twitter, is not aiding and abiding terror, then they should not allow posts from these terrorist groups. If twitter does not want the accusations than they should remove and never allow these terrorist groups or anybody associated with them to post comments. I never have and never will use twitter, fecesbook or any other social media like either of them, regardless of who owns them.

Pam
Pam
1 year ago
Reply to  Snowedin

Twitter, Facebook or any other social media would never let you use their sites.

Snowedin
Snowedin
1 year ago
Reply to  Pam

I really do not care. I boycott them all.

Zach
Zach
1 year ago

Does it mean that new (Musk’s Twitter) will be liable for what happen during Jack Dorsey’s time in 2017?

jbavieraD
jbaviera
1 year ago
Reply to  Zach

I’m sure the commiecrats will try.

edward kennedy
edward kennedy
1 year ago

twaddle…another waste of bandwidth.

GME
GME
1 year ago

What’s interesting here is that the suit was brought against Twitter before Musk took over. The case was brought while the unethical Leftists were all seated in their positions of power, and no one was able to do a thing about it.

What’s interesting is that things have changed since this case was brought, and now those individuals who were silencing conservatives by shadow banning, banning any speech they didn’t like, allowing leftists to spew hatred without any hindrance at all, and allowing the dictators and leaders of terrorist regimes such as Iran to spew hatred toward America, openly threaten President Trump, and openly allowing terrorist groups free reign on the platform are no long there.

Since they are no longer there, there is no one to argue for their anti-1st Amendment policies against conservatives, nor should anyone be arguing for allowing terrorists to have free reign on the platform anymore…

We should all be curious as to Elon’s take on this; whether he is doing anything, has issued any directives, has taken any action to shut down accounts of terrorists or leaders of terrorist countries like Iran… and if not, why not.

But the fact that Dorsey is no longer there; Gadde is no longer there; free speech hating Agrawal is no longer there; FBI stooge Baker is no longer there; Roth is no longer there; so, none of the people who were in place when this suit was brought are even there now, and the policies that they were arbitrarily putting in place and editing in order to silence those speaking about anything they disliked are no longer being upheld and are now subject to revision and rescision…

This is therefore not the case that it was when it was first brought, as the top players have all been removed from their positions, their policies recognized as being unfair, biased, and harmful, and the court and the attorneys involved should all be taking that fact into consideration…

This is not about holding Elon responsible for what occurred while Dorsey or Agarwal were in place; this is about the legal responsibilities and accountability for a social platform that becomes aware that those involved in terrorism are using their platform, how much can they be held accountable, at what point are they obligated to terminate those accounts, etc. irrespective of who is at the helm.

They are taking this as an exercise in legal theory at this point… and arguing about theory and concepts which can be applied to any social media platform… regardless of who is at the helm at any given point in time…

Sponsored
Geller Report
Thanks for sharing!