Supreme Court wrestles with lawsuit claiming Twitter aided terrorists

The case, which arose from an attack in Istanbul, accompanied a case debated the day before which tested a shield for technological platforms.

< p class="css-at9mc1 evys1bk0">WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments on whether internet platforms can be sued for aiding and abetting international terrorism by failing to remove state-supporting videos Islam.

The case, which involves a federal law allowing prosecution for "knowingly providing substantial assistance" to terrorists, was related to a case argued Tuesday that has looked at the separate question of whether the platforms are immune from prosecution under a 1996 law that protects them from liability for what their users post.

In practice, the court's decision in the merc case redi, Twitter v. Taamneh, #21-1496, could effectively resolve both cases and allow judges to dodge difficult questions about the scope of the 1996 Act, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

>

Wednesday's argument was technical. The judges unveiled elements of the law before them, the Justice Against the Sponsors of Terrorism Act, analyzing its provisions and asking hypothetical questions about the type of conduct it covered. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said "the discussion this morning really took on a very academic tone."

The case involved Nawras Alassaf, who was killed in a 2017 Istanbul nightclub terror attack claimed by Islamic State. His family sued Twitter and other tech companies, claiming they allowed ISIS to use their platforms to recruit and train terrorists.

Seth P Waxman, an attorney for Twitter, pointed out that plaintiffs did not accuse his client of providing "substantial assistance, let alone substantial knowing assistance, to this attack or, for that matter, any other attack." attack," adding that it was undisputed that Twitter "had no intention of assisting ISIS terrorist activities."

He continued: " What we have here is an alleged failure to do more to unearth violations of a clear and enforced policy against aiding or authorizing any publication supporting terrorist organizations or activities." That was not enough, according to Ms. Waxman, to amount to "aiding and abetting an act of international terrorism". that "you knew ISIS was using your platform".

Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh summed up Twitter's position: "When there is a legitimate business who provides services on a widely available basis independently, he will not be liable under this law even if he knows that bad people are using his services for bad things.. Kneedler, a federal government litigation attorney favor of Twitter, how the case in court differed from those involving providing banking services to known terrorists.

"They provide a hundred other customers who are not terrorists with the same banking services, but they provide this notorious terrorist with banking services that are very important for his terrorist activities,” she said. "Can you prosecute this person under this law?"

Mr. Kneedler said yes, as long as the client was "someone who is a leader or someone you know who has committed or is about to commit a terrorist act."

Judge Kagan said banking and social media may not be so different.

"We used to think that banks provide very important services to terrorists,” she said. "Maybe we're not so used to it, but it seems true that various types of social media platforms also provide very important services to terrorists."

Eric Schnapper, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, acknowledged that their lawsuit did not accuse Twitter of complicity in the Istanbul bombing. Their lawsuit, he said, focused on Twitter's role in "recruitment and fundraising".

...