The Rise of ISIS: Is Social Media to Blame?
Acts of violence have long been publicized in the media, and some speculate that exposure to violence in the media is to blame for rise in violence. For those who see that correlation, social media platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, are to blame. On January 13, 2016, a complaint was filed in the Federal District Court in Oakland, California, alleging that Twitter Inc. is giving a voice to the Islamic State and lending material support to ISIS in violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act.[1] The plaintiffs included Tamara Fields, widow of Lloyd Fields, an American who was killed in Jordan. The plaintiffs claim Twitter knowingly let the militant Islamic group ISIS use the Twitter network to spread its propaganda, raise money, and even attract recruits. The plaintiffs believe that Twitter should not have provided ISIS with Twitter accounts, through which ISIS purportedly “spreads its poison.”[2] According to the complaint, “[w]ithout Twitter, the explosive growth of ISIS over the last few years into the most-feared terrorist group in the world would not have been possible.”[3] Thus, the complaint alleges that Twitter’s “provision of material support to ISIS was a proximate cause of [their] injur[ies]."
In response, Twitter’s principal argument for why the case should be dismissed was that the plaintiffs’ claims are barred by Section 230(c), the “protection for ‘Good Samaritan’ blocking and screening of offensive material” provision of the Communications Decency Act.[4]”[5]
On August 10, U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick dismissed Twitter and ruled that it cannot be held liable for ISIS rhetoric.[6] While noting the deaths of plaintiffs’ loved ones were “horrific”, Judge Orrick agreed with Twitter that the Communications Decency Act bars plaintiffs’ claims and protects providers of interactive computer services, including Twitter, from liability for content created by third parties.[7] [8]
Judge Orrick, in dismissing Twitter, points out that plaintiffs had not expressly alleged that the gunman and Twitter had a direct connection, such as the gunman and ISIS having communicated over Twitter or that either used Twitter to “plan, carry out, or raise funds for the attack, or that [the gunman] ever viewed ISIS-related content on Twitter or even had a Twitter account.”[9] This sheds light on the unnerving reality that interactive social platforms are not insulated and could be found liable if the facts are slightly different than here.[10]
Ultimately, Judge Orrick dismissed the complaint, but it’s certainly not over—plaintiffs are permitted to amend their complaint and try again.[11] [12]
—By Keobopha Keopong, Esq., Barnes Law
Keo Keopong is an associate attorney with Barnes Law, licensed to practice law in California.
The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
[1] Complaint, Fields v. Twitter Inc., Case 3:16-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 01/13/16 <http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2135&context=historical>; http://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-isis-lawsuit-idUSKCN0US1TA ;http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge_rules_twitter_is_protected_from_liability_in_suit_linking_isis_propag
[2] Ibid.
[3] Complaint, Fields v. Twitter Inc., Case 3:16-cv-00213 Document 1 Filed 01/13/16; http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/u-s-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-against-twitter-over-islamic-state-n627661
[4] 47 U.S.C. § 230(c).
[5] Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, Case 3:16-cv-00213-WHO Document 47 Filed 08/10/16. p.4-5 <https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3010342/Twitter-Dismissal.pdf>
[6] Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, Case 3:16-cv-00213-WHO Document 47 Filed 08/10/16 <https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3010342/Twitter-Dismissal.pdf>; http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge_rules_twitter_is_protected_from_liability_in_suit_linking_isis_propag ; http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/u-s-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-against-twitter-over-islamic-state-n627661 ; http://www.law360.com/cases/5696c1a6c2a51503d1000005
[7] http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge_rules_twitter_is_protected_from_liability_in_suit_linking_isis_propag; Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, Case 3:16-cv-00213-WHO Document 47 Filed 08/10/16 <https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3010342/Twitter-Dismissal.pdf>; http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge_rules_twitter_is_protected_from_liability_in_suit_linking_isis_propag ; http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/u-s-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-against-twitter-over-islamic-state-n627661 ; http://www.law360.com/cases/5696c1a6c2a51503d1000005
[8] “As horrific as these deaths were,” he wrote, “under the CDA Twitter cannot be treated as a publisher or speaker of ISIS’s hateful rhetoric and is not liable under the facts alleged.” Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, Case 3:16-cv-00213-WHO Document 47 Filed 08/10/16; http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge_rules_twitter_is_protected_from_liability_in_suit_linking_isis_propag
[9] Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, Case 3:16-cv-00213-WHO Document 47 Filed 08/10/16, p. 8 <https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3010342/Twitter-Dismissal.pdf>.
[10] “While the Ninth Circuit has described the reach of section 230(c)(1) in broad terms, stating that it “immunizes providers of interactive computer services against liability arising from content created by third parties,” the statute does not “create a lawless no-man’s-land on the internet.” Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, 1162, 1164 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc., No. 12-56638, 2016 WL 3067995, at *6 (9th Cir. May 31, 2016) (noting that “the CDA does not declare a general immunity from liability deriving from third-party content”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, separated into its elements, section 230(c)(1) protects from liability only (a) a provider or user of an interactive computer service (b) that the plaintiff seeks to treat as a publisher or speaker (c) of information provided by another information content provider. Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, 1100- 01 (9th Cir. 2009)”. Id. at p.5.
[11] Plaintiffs have until August 30, 2016 to amend the complaint. (Id. at p. 15.)
[12] http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge_rules_twitter_is_protected_from_liability_in_suit_linking_isis_propag ; http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/u-s-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-against-twitter-over-islamic-state-n627661 ; http://www.law360.com/cases/5696c1a6c2a51503d1000005