Supreme Court Sides with Big Tech Against Victims of Islamic Terrorism

Leftists hate the Supreme Court and want to destroy it, because it is the last bulwark preventing the full implementation of their anti-American and authoritarian agenda. Patriots likewise are relieved that the Court currently has enough Justices who respect the Constitution to prevent the total destruction of the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. But a recent Supreme Court ruling demonstrates that patriots’ hope that the Court will stop the Left from trampling upon all our freedoms may be ill-advised. The Court has just sided with Big Tech when it had a chance to force the social media giants to some accountability.

Jewish News Syndicate reported Sunday that the Supreme Court ruled against “the families of terrorism victims in two separate cases in which the plaintiffs accused Google, Twitter and Facebook of ‘aiding and abetting’ attacks by failing to block content promoting terrorism.” In the case of Twitter v. Taamneh, which was “brought by family members of Nawras Alassaf, who was killed in a 2017 ISIS attack in Istanbul,” the vote was unanimous. In the other case, Gonzalez v. Google, “the plaintiffs asserted that the companies were liable for the death of American college student Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed in a café during coordinated ISIS attacks in Paris in 2015.” That one was “sent back to a lower court.”

The Court’s unanimous decision in Twitter v. Taamneh and its refusal even to consider Gonzalez v. Google were ominous, as both cases featured plaintiffs who were contending that the social media giants hadn’t done enough to block jihad terrorist material on their platforms. JNS noted that these decisions “handed a victory to the tech industry by declining to weigh in on the foundational U.S. internet law known as Section 230.”

This is the notorious law that “protects online companies from liability for content posted by their users. It also gives internet companies the ability to remove content without liability.” The Court stated that Gonzalez v. Google “should be dismissed because the plaintiffs didn’t have a case under the Anti-Terrorism Act. It advised the lower court that there was no need to address Section 230.”

That was bad enough in itself, but it was even worse in light of the fact that Google, Twitter (both in its pre-Elon Musk days and to a lesser extent even now) and Facebook have systematically and relentlessly censored, blocked, banned and shadowbanned opponents of jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women, on the pretext that they’re purveying “hate speech.” The social media giants let jihadist material proliferate while moving ruthlessly to suppress material that opposed jihad violence, at the behest of the massively discredited Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

The real “hate speech” was the jihadist rhetoric and recruitment for which Twitter v. Taamneh and Gonzalez v. Google were trying to hold the social media giants accountable. Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, an attorney for the Gonzalez family: “We are disappointed that the Supreme Court refused to acknowledge the dangers of Section 230’s blanket immunity for the social media platforms and their facilitation of these vital internet services to designated terrorist organizations….It is clearly understood that platforms like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook will never voluntarily act to self-regulate in any meaningful way that safeguards the lives of innocent people or protects the national security of the U.S. or other democratic states. The terror victims accuse the social media giants of knowingly providing their services to extremist groups like ISIS and Hezbollah.”

The social media giants didn’t just provide jihadis a platform while silencing foes of jihad. Back in February, the Jerusalem Post reported that a group called the Tech Transparency Project (TTP) had discovered that “Facebook created 108 pages for Islamic State in addition to dozens of other pages for terrorist groups including Al-Qaeda. These terrorist group pages were generated automatically as users listed the groups in their profiles or ‘checked in’ to terrorist organizations.” The Post added that “some of these automatically generated pages have been living on Facebook for years, racking up likes and posts with terrorist propaganda and imagery.”

All that was apparently just fine with Facebook. Meanwhile, Facebook has acted swiftly and consistently to suppress the pages of groups such as my own Jihad Watch, the American Freedom Defense Initiative and innumerable others that dared to discuss the motivating ideology behind jihad terrorism, and to speak up against the oppression of women and others under Islamic law.

Yet now the Supreme Court has given Facebook and its sinister colleagues a free hand to continue to distribute jihad terror material, and silence those who oppose it, without any accountability at all. Patriots should duly reevaluate their enthusiasm for the Judicial branch. It removed the cancer on the body politic that was Roe v. Wade, but it has a long way to go before it can be said that it stands consistently in defense of freedom.

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.

• $25.00 here
• $50.00 here
• $75.00 here
• $100.00 here
• $250.00 here

5 1 vote

Article Rating

4 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

D

BigJymn

10 months ago

Even though we have been convinced otherwise; the makeup of the SC (R vs D) has no bearing on cases. They will ALWAYS vote as commanded by Obama. You’d think that the American people would have figured that out by now.

3

From a Remote Location

10 months ago

In much the same way critics of groomers, pedophiles, trans supremacists and such are marginalized and silenced by these Big Tech Goliaths.

Just as opposition to the jihad terror agenda and Sharia oppression of women is painted as Islamophobia, so is the opposition to the further moral deterioration of society and speak up against the erasure of women’s identity in craven, cowardly appeasement of trans supremacism is painted as “homophobia” and now “transphobia.” LGBTQ groups and especially the “trans” movement have clearly picked up the kind of tacticology used by supporters of jihad violence and the oppression of women and others as defined by Islamic law.

2

Snowedin

10 months ago

The Supreme Court is Deep State and compromised as well.

1

JoeyJ

10 months ago

This is just the latest proof that the Deep State controls all aspects of society. The chances that anyone not a member of the syndicate can obtain justice at any level are zero. And if you challenge them, well, that will just cost you a bunch of money and time.

No matter what the facts or the law are, YOU LOSE. And if they think that you might cause them any more problems they won’t hesitate to escalate the battle which will result in your imprisonment or death.

0