Internet Companies Tell Supreme Court Terrorists Should Not Make Them Liable

   The U.S. Supreme Court showed minimal interest Tuesday in reducing the legal protections for internet companies over inflammatory information their users post online.

   Their greater concern was unleashing a flood of lawsuits that could drive Big Tech companies out of business if they eliminate their liability exemptions under Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

   “Lawsuits will be nonstop,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said during oral arguments.

   He was responding to arguments from an attorney representing the family of 23-year-old American student Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed during ISIS attacks in Paris in November 2015. The series of terrorist attacks killed 130 people.

   Her family sued YouTube and its parent company Google, saying the algorithms they use for their recommender system contributed to the attacks. The recommender systems tailor content based on profiles of users and their history of internet searches.

   The Gonzalez family argued YouTube led users to ISIS recruitment videos that radicalized Muslim sympathizers and helped to compel the Paris attack.

   Google defended by invoking Section 230’s immunity from liability for content published on an internet service provider's platform by third-party users.

   The Gonzalez case is one of two cases the Supreme Court heard last week that accuse internet giants of failing to prevent user postings that contribute to crime and terrorism. Together, the cases could transform the control of Big Tech companies over information posted on their websites, according to legal analysts.

   With worldwide users, Google says it is impractical to police all of the content posted on YouTube and other social media platforms.

   Google won in federal court at both the trial level and on appeal.

   Liberal and conservative Supreme Court justices said Tuesday that the consequences of reducing legal protections for internet companies could be more damaging than holding them liable for irresponsible postings.

   Chief Justice John Roberts said that if the same algorithms direct users to a wide variety of interests, such as consumer products, it would be difficult to prove the companies were inciting terrorism.

   “Then it might be harder for you to say that there’s selection involved for which you can be held responsible,” Roberts said.

   Justice Elena Kagan told the plaintiffs' attorney, “You are creating a world of lawsuits. Really, anytime you have content, you also have these presentational and prioritization choices that can be subject to suit.”

   The Gonzalez family argued in its brief to the Supreme Court that regardless of whether the internet recommendations are done automatically by algorithms, Section 230 was never intended to protect the kind of content that encourages terrorism.

   “Interactive computer services constantly direct such recommendations, in one form or another, at virtually every adult and child in the United States who uses social media,” the Gonzalez petition says.

   The related case the Supreme Court heard this week is Twitter v. Taamneh.  

   The case considers whether social media platforms could be liable under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 for postings that encourage terrorism.

   The lawsuit was filed by the family of Jordanian citizen Nawras Alassaf, who died in a 2017 ISIS attack in Istanbul. The Alassaf family sued Twitter, Google and Facebook.

   Twitter argued that holding them liable would expand the scope of the Anti-Terrorism Act far beyond what Congress intended.

   Twitter, Google and Facebook lost at the trial level. On appeal to the Supreme Court Twitter argued that holding the company liable would mean the Anti-Terrorism Act was a "statute of impossible breadth."

   It would be the equivalent of making banks and rental car companies liable if terrorists used their services to assist in an attack, Twitter’s attorneys argued.

   The case is Gonzalez et al. v. Google, case number 21-1333, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

   For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Lawmakers Subpoena Big Tech Companies

Over Their Policies on Internet Free Speech

   The House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the heads of Big Tech companies last week to force them to turn over documents that could indicate they cooperated with the Biden administration to determine the content they publish.

   The companies say they already were trying to comply with lawmakers’ requests for information and don’t understand the need for a subpoena.

   The House Judiciary Committee sent letters to the chief executives of Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta and Microsoft in December asking about their connections with the Biden administration.

   Republicans on the committee say the Big Tech companies have censored or downplayed posts from conservatives while giving liberals broader access to their websites. Donald Trump was one of the conservatives they mentioned.

   "To develop effective legislation, such as the possible enactment of new statutory limits on the Executive Branch's ability to work with Big Tech to restrict the circulation of content and deplatform users, the Committee on the Judiciary must first understand how and to what extent the Executive Branch coerced and colluded with companies and other intermediaries to censor speech," the letters in December said.

   Last week, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said the companies did not "adequately comply" with the requests for information. The subpoenas he issued set a March 23 deadline for the companies to give the committee the information it seeks.

   The Judiciary Committee was spurred to action in part by the “Twitter files.”

   The Twitter files refer to documents Elon Musk, the social media company’s new owner, released in December to a few journalists he selected. The documents describe how former owner Jack Dorsey and other top Twitter officials decided which content was displayed.

   In a few cases, Twitter officials limited the visibility of accounts, particularly of right-wing public figures, according to the documents. In other cases, Musk demonstrated they broke Twitter’s own website rules on free speech.

   The Twitter files also explain how Dorsey and his associates decided to ban Trump from the networking site.

   For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Fox TV News Hosts Accused of Deceit

In Lawsuit by Voting Machine Company

   Fox Television hosts ridiculed 2020 election fraud claims behind the scenes even as they promoted them as credible during their broadcasts, according to a new court filing.

   Fox Television is being sued by Dominion Voting Systems, the company Donald Trump accused of falsifying vote counts against him. Dominion is one of the nation’s biggest producers of electronic voting machines.

   Dominion said in its motion for summary judgment filed last week that television hosts like Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham were secretly calling the voter fraud allegations names like "insane" but declined to question them on air.

   Dominion claims $1.6 billion in damages in its defamation lawsuit. Its motion for summary judgment was filed in state court in Delaware, where Fox Television is incorporated.

   Evidence the television hosts said one thing on the air but something different among each other could be critical to Fox Television’s case.

   Defamation refers to communicating false statements about a person or organization.

   Media organizations are protected by free speech provisions of the First Amendment from defamation lawsuits filed by public figures or groups, which could include a high-profile company like Dominion. 

   However, the Supreme Court established an exception to the free speech protections for media organizations in the 1964 case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

   The Supreme Court said media organizations can be sued successfully by public figures if they demonstrate “actual malice” with their false statements. Actual malice can mean an intent to defame someone or knowingly publishing falsehoods.

   Dominion says Fox Television hosts’ private communications that contradicted their public statements provide a "mountain of direct evidence" to show they knowingly published falsehoods about Dominion and the 2020 election.

   Its court filing says the television hosts continued the falsehoods to avoid losing viewers and advertising dollars to conservative competitors like NewsMax and One America News Network.

   "Here, however, overwhelming direct evidence establishes Fox's knowledge of falsity, not just 'doubts,'" Dominion said in its motion for summary judgment.

   The court filing quotes internal memos and testimony of Fox Television employees, such as a communication between Carlson and Ingraham in which Carlson reportedly said in November 2020, "Sidney Powell is lying by the way. I caught her. It’s insane."

   Sidney Powell refers to a Trump attorney who helped pursue election fraud claims through various courts. All of the claims were denied.

   Ingraham allegedly answered, "Sidney is a complete nut. No one will work with her. Ditto with Rudy [Giuliani]."

   Fox reporter Lucas Tomlinson is alleged to have told the networks’ chief political correspondent in December 2020, "It's dangerously insane, these conspiracy theories."

   A text message from Ron Mitchell, Fox's senior vice president of primetime programing, to his colleagues called Powell and Giuliani "clowns."

   Fox Television denied Dominion’s allegations in a statement.

   “There will be a lot of noise and confusion generated by Dominion and their opportunistic private equity owners, but the core of this case remains about freedom of the press and freedom of speech, which are fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution and protected by New York Times v. Sullivan,” the network said.

   Fox Television also accused Dominion of trying to gouge disputes over the 2020 election for money.

   “Dominion’s private equity owner Staple Street Capital bought the company in 2018 at an enterprise value of approximately $80 million and now seeks a $1.6 billion recovery for alleged damages to that $80 million asset,” the statement said.

   The case is US Dominion Inc. et al. v. Fox News Network LLC, case number N21C-03-257, in Delaware Superior Court.

   For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Political Consultant Sentenced to Prison

For Russian Contribution to Trump Campaign

   A Republican political consultant accused of illegally arranging a Russian contribution to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign was sentenced to 18 months in prison last week in Washington, D.C.

   “Jessie R. Benton, 45, of The Woodlands, (Texas) schemed with another political advisor to funnel political contributions to a 2016 presidential campaign from a Russian national seeking to meet and take a picture with the presidential candidate,” according to a Justice Department press release.

   Federal law prohibits foreigners from contributing to U.S. political campaigns.

   It was the second time Benton was convicted of campaign violations. Trump pardoned him the first time.

   Benton charged Russian citizen Roman Vasilenko $100,000 for a ticket to a Republican National Committee event in 2016 that also gave him an opportunity to meet and have his picture taken with Trump, according to evidence at the trial.

   Benton wrote up a fake invoice listing the money as payment for consulting services, prosecutors said. He donated $25,000 of the payment under his own name to the Republican National Committee and kept the other $75,000 for himself.

   Neither Trump or his campaign were aware of Benton’s actions, according to the Justice Department.

   They both thought the contribution came only from Benton, which is what they reported to the Federal Election Commission.

   A federal jury convicted Benton and a consulting firm colleague of conspiracy, of making electoral contributions by foreign nationals, electoral contributions in the name of another person, and causing false records.

   “Defendant’s conduct here was brazen, intentional and unrepentant,” prosecutors said in a legal memo before Benton was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden.

   Benton has consulted for several high-profile Republican campaigns, including Kentucky senators Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul.

   For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Virginia Bills Seek Interventions

To Prevent University Shootings

   Michigan State University students returned to classes this week after another campus mass shooting while lawmakers locally and nationally search for solutions to the violence.

   The shooting that killed three people last week renewed calls for gun reform laws but also is leading to new anti-violence strategies.

   Some of them are pending in the state legislature of Virginia, which fell victim to a school shooting in November and a much bigger one in 2007.

   The proposals call for an aggressive threat investigation program that also is raising privacy concerns.

   Virginia’s governor said he supports legislative bills that would compel universities to report the kind of potentially violent persons who shot and killed three of the state’s college football players.

   The pending legislation would require universities to seek criminal history and health records for anyone they identify as a potential threat, then notify law enforcement agencies in writing within 24 hours.

   The legislation is an outgrowth of a special counsel investigation initiated by Virginia’s attorney general after the shootings by a University of Virginia student in November.

   In addition to the three deceased football players, two other students were injured. Christopher Darnell Jones Jr., 23, faces second-degree murder and other charges in the shooting.

   Jones, who is a former football player, was reportedly angered by hazing from other students. The group was returning to campus after a field trip in Washington, D.C.

   The University of Virginia’s threat assessment team began investigating Jones two months earlier. A fellow student aroused their suspicions when he reported to them that Jones said he had a gun.

   Although Jones never threatened anyone, University of Virginia officials questioned him about a misdemeanor concealed weapon conviction a year earlier. He had not disclosed it to them and did not cooperate when they questioned him, school officials told special counsel investigators.

   The parents of football player D’Sean Perry said his death could have been prevented if school officials acted more promptly to expel Jones from the campus. Since the November shooting, they have become advocates for gun law changes and mental health awareness.

   Virginia began requiring college threat assessment teams after the April 1, 2007 mass killing at Virginia Tech, one of the nation’s deadliest school shootings. Undergraduate student Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people and wounded 17 others with two semi-automatic pistols. Six others were injured jumping out of windows to escape.

   The pending bills would refine the duties and obligations of the threat assessment teams. In addition to investigating and reporting threats, the teams would be required to undergo specialized training. Their reporting requirements would extend to campus police, city or county agencies and student dormitories. 

   University officials declined to comment on the pending legislation but University of Virginia President James E. Ryan said in a recent video message to students and staff that he supports legislation and research to reduce gun violence.

   For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.