Twitter, Facebook Argue Against Terror Liability in SCOTUS Case

A social media platform’s awareness of terrorist activity on the service doesn’t amount to aiding and abetting terror attacks (see 2301120061), Twitter argued Friday before the Supreme Court (docket 21-1496).

The complaint stems from a 2017 Istanbul terrorist attack. Relatives of one of the 39 victims murdered in the attack sued Twitter, Google and Facebook under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). Plaintiffs argued the platforms allowed the Islamic State group to share information and recruit members, therefore aiding and abetting the crime. Twitter and Facebook filed briefs Friday arguing the plaintiffs haven’t satisfied the requirements for proving liability under the ATA.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recognized, and the plaintiff’s brief doesn’t dispute, the platforms had no intention of aiding terror activity and routinely enforced policies against such activity by removing content, Twitter said. The plaintiffs also don’t dispute that no company employee was aware of or disregarded any content directly tied to plans for carrying out the attack in question, the platform said. Even if the platform were aware of terrorists often using the platform, the actions the company took in this case don’t amount to aiding and abetting, based on the statute, said Twitter.

ATA Section 2333 requires a defendant to have substantially assisted a “discrete act of international terrorism” to be found liable, noted Twitter. The plaintiff fails to provide any persuasive response regarding the lack of direct involvement from the platform, said Twitter.

Section 2333 also requires the defendant to have knowingly provided substantial assistance in such plots, which the plaintiff fails to allege, said Twitter. Even if the platform were generally aware of terror activity on the service, that amounts, at most, to recklessness, not knowingly providing substantial assistance, said Twitter.

Facebook agreed the plaintiff hasn’t successfully argued the platforms knowingly provided substantial assistance in the planning or carrying out of the attack. If the court decides the plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the ATA, it would eliminate the need for the high court to decide the applicability of liability protection under Communications Decency Act Section 230, said Facebook: The plaintiffs "allege only unintentional and attenuated aid that comes nowhere close to meeting the demanding 'knowingly' standard." The court should reverse the 9th Circuit’s decision and “dispose of” a similar ATA case in Gonzalez (see 2301180059), said Facebook. A reversal here would allow the Section 230 debate to shift to a more applicable case, said Facebook.