Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471 (2023), was a case of the Supreme Court of the United States. The case considered whether Internet service providers are liable for "aiding and abetting" a designated foreign terrorist organization in an "act of international terrorism", on account of recommending such content posted by users, under Section 2333 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.[1] Along with Gonzalez v. Google LLC, Taamneh is one of two cases where social media companies are accused of aiding and abetting terrorism in violation of the law. The cases were decided together in a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that Taamneh's case could proceed.[2] The cases challenge the broad liability immunity for hosting and recommending terrorist content that websites have enjoyed.[3]
Respondents' allegations that Twitter aided and abetted ISIS in its terrorist attack on the Reina nightclub fail to state a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2333(d)(2).
The unanimous court ruled in May 2023 that the charges brought against Twitter and other companies were not permissible under the Antiterrorism Act, and did not address the Section 230 question. This decision also supported the Court's per curiam decision in Gonzalez returning that case to the lower court for review in light of the Twitter decision.[4]
Jordanian citizen Nawras Alassaf died in 2017 during an Islamic State-affiliated attack in Istanbul.[5] Alassaf's family sued Twitter, Google and Facebook arguing that the companies failed to control terrorist content on their sites. They won at the district court level.
Twitter appealed the district court ruling to the Ninth Circuit arguing that the lower court decision improperly expanded the scope of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2333.[6]
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit did not consider protections under Section 230 in the case and affirmed the lower court ruling that stated that Twitter, Google, and Facebook could be liable. Twitter subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.[7]
The Court heard oral arguments in Twitter on February 22, 2023. The questions and debate among the Justices and counsels for the parties focused more on the language of the Anti-Terrorism Act, particularly the language of "knowingly providing substantial assistance" to terrorism organisms, and what role Twitter and other services had in regards. Observers to the Court believed that the Justices were not looking for broad changes to the Anti-Terrorism Act or Section 230 that would upend the Internet.[9]
The Court gave its decision on May 18, 2023. The unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, found that "the allegations are insufficient to establish that these defendants aided and abetted ISIS in carrying out the relevant attack" under the Anti-Terrorism Act, as there was a "lack of concrete nexus" between the tech companies and terrorist groups like ISIS. The opinion purposely did not consider the impact of Section 230.[4][10] Separately, in a per curiam decision, the Court ordered the Gonzalez case back to the Ninth Circuit, requesting that court to consider the case in light of the Twitter decision and making no additional rulings in that case.[10]
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a concurrence stating that the decision was "narrow in important respects", and suggested there may be other routes for family to seek relief.[10][4]
^Robertson, Adi (October 3, 2022). "The Supreme Court will determine whether you can sue platforms for hosting terrorists". The Verge. Retrieved October 4, 2022.
^Cushing, Tim (June 30, 2021). "Ninth Circuit Appeals Court Says Some Disturbing Stuff About Section 230 While Dumping Another Two 'Sue Twitter For Terrorism' Lawsuits". Techdirt. Retrieved October 4, 2022.
^Stohr, Greg (October 3, 2022). "Social Media Company Liability Draws Supreme Court Scrutiny". Bloomberg News. Retrieved October 4, 2022.
^ abcHurley, Lawrence (May 18, 2023). "Supreme Court sidesteps ruling on scope of internet companies' immunity from lawsuits over user content". NBC News. Retrieved May 18, 2023.
^"Supreme Court will hear two cases seeking to hold social media companies financially responsible for terrorist attacks". CBS News. October 3, 2022. Retrieved January 25, 2023.
^ abMueller, Julia (October 3, 2022). "Supreme Court to hear challenge to Big Tech's Section 230 liability protections". The Hill. Retrieved October 4, 2022.
^Kern, Rebecca (October 3, 2022). "SCOTUS to hear challenge to Section 230 protections". Politico. Retrieved October 4, 2022.
^ ab"Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved February 22, 2023.
^Fung, Brian; Sneed, Tierney; Sangal, Aditi (February 22, 2023). "Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Twitter case that could upend the internet". CNN. Retrieved February 22, 2023.
^ abcHowe, Amy (May 18, 2023). "Supreme Court rules Twitter not liable for ISIS content". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved May 18, 2023.
External linksedit
Text of Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598U.S. ___ (2023) is available from:JustiaOyez (oral argument audio)Supreme Court (slip opinion)
December 15, 2023
twitter, taamneh, 2023, case, supreme, court, united, states, case, considered, whether, internet, service, providers, liable, aiding, abetting, designated, foreign, terrorist, organization, international, terrorism, account, recommending, such, content, poste. Twitter Inc v Taamneh 598 U S 471 2023 was a case of the Supreme Court of the United States The case considered whether Internet service providers are liable for aiding and abetting a designated foreign terrorist organization in an act of international terrorism on account of recommending such content posted by users under Section 2333 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 1 Along with Gonzalez v Google LLC Taamneh is one of two cases where social media companies are accused of aiding and abetting terrorism in violation of the law The cases were decided together in a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which ruled that Taamneh s case could proceed 2 The cases challenge the broad liability immunity for hosting and recommending terrorist content that websites have enjoyed 3 Twitter Inc v TaamnehSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued February 22 2023Decided May 18 2023Full case nameTwitter Inc et al v Mehier Taamneh et al Docket no 21 1496Citations598 U S 471 more ArgumentOral argumentHoldingRespondents allegations that Twitter aided and abetted ISIS in its terrorist attack on the Reina nightclub fail to state a claim under 18 U S C 2333 d 2 Court membershipChief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Clarence Thomas Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan Neil Gorsuch Brett Kavanaugh Amy Coney Barrett Ketanji Brown JacksonCase opinionsMajorityThomas joined by unanimousConcurrenceJacksonLaws appliedJustice Against Sponsors of Terrorism ActThe unanimous court ruled in May 2023 that the charges brought against Twitter and other companies were not permissible under the Antiterrorism Act and did not address the Section 230 question This decision also supported the Court s per curiam decision in Gonzalez returning that case to the lower court for review in light of the Twitter decision 4 Contents 1 History 2 Supreme Court 3 See also 4 References 5 External linksHistory editJordanian citizen Nawras Alassaf died in 2017 during an Islamic State affiliated attack in Istanbul 5 Alassaf s family sued Twitter Google and Facebook arguing that the companies failed to control terrorist content on their sites They won at the district court level Twitter appealed the district court ruling to the Ninth Circuit arguing that the lower court decision improperly expanded the scope of the Anti Terrorism Act 18 U S C 2333 6 On appeal the Ninth Circuit did not consider protections under Section 230 in the case and affirmed the lower court ruling that stated that Twitter Google and Facebook could be liable Twitter subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court 7 Supreme Court editThe Supreme Court granted certiorari for the case in October 2022 alongside the related case Gonzalez v Google LLC 6 Free speech organizations like the Center for Democracy and Technology the American Civil Liberties Union the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University as well as technology industry trade groups like the Computer amp Communications Industry Association and the US Chamber of Commerce filed amicus briefs in support of the petitioner 8 The Anti Defamation League Senator Chuck Grassley former US national security officials and retired American military generals filed amicus briefs in support of the respondent 8 The Court heard oral arguments in Twitter on February 22 2023 The questions and debate among the Justices and counsels for the parties focused more on the language of the Anti Terrorism Act particularly the language of knowingly providing substantial assistance to terrorism organisms and what role Twitter and other services had in regards Observers to the Court believed that the Justices were not looking for broad changes to the Anti Terrorism Act or Section 230 that would upend the Internet 9 The Court gave its decision on May 18 2023 The unanimous opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas found that the allegations are insufficient to establish that these defendants aided and abetted ISIS in carrying out the relevant attack under the Anti Terrorism Act as there was a lack of concrete nexus between the tech companies and terrorist groups like ISIS The opinion purposely did not consider the impact of Section 230 4 10 Separately in a per curiam decision the Court ordered the Gonzalez case back to the Ninth Circuit requesting that court to consider the case in light of the Twitter decision and making no additional rulings in that case 10 Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a concurrence stating that the decision was narrow in important respects and suggested there may be other routes for family to seek relief 10 4 See also editForce v Facebook Inc 2019 References edit Robertson Adi October 3 2022 The Supreme Court will determine whether you can sue platforms for hosting terrorists The Verge Retrieved October 4 2022 Cushing Tim June 30 2021 Ninth Circuit Appeals Court Says Some Disturbing Stuff About Section 230 While Dumping Another Two Sue Twitter For Terrorism Lawsuits Techdirt Retrieved October 4 2022 Stohr Greg October 3 2022 Social Media Company Liability Draws Supreme Court Scrutiny Bloomberg News Retrieved October 4 2022 a b c Hurley Lawrence May 18 2023 Supreme Court sidesteps ruling on scope of internet companies immunity from lawsuits over user content NBC News Retrieved May 18 2023 Supreme Court will hear two cases seeking to hold social media companies financially responsible for terrorist attacks CBS News October 3 2022 Retrieved January 25 2023 a b Mueller Julia October 3 2022 Supreme Court to hear challenge to Big Tech s Section 230 liability protections The Hill Retrieved October 4 2022 Kern Rebecca October 3 2022 SCOTUS to hear challenge to Section 230 protections Politico Retrieved October 4 2022 a b Twitter Inc v Taamneh SCOTUSblog Retrieved February 22 2023 Fung Brian Sneed Tierney Sangal Aditi February 22 2023 Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Twitter case that could upend the internet CNN Retrieved February 22 2023 a b c Howe Amy May 18 2023 Supreme Court rules Twitter not liable for ISIS content SCOTUSblog Retrieved May 18 2023 External links editText of Twitter Inc v Taamneh 598 U S 2023 is available from Justia Oyez oral argument audio Supreme Court slip opinion Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Twitter Inc v Taamneh amp oldid 1175150972, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
