New in PJ Media:
Among the many things that the social media giants have been accused of doing, they have been called out for aiding and abetting Islamic jihad terrorist activity. The Supreme Court just had a chance to put a stop to this, but instead of acting decisively, the current favorite branch of government for patriots nationwide punted.
Jewish News Syndicate reported Sunday that the Supreme Court ruled against “the families of terrorism victims in two separate cases in which the plaintiffs accused Google, Twitter, and Facebook of ‘aiding and abetting’ attacks by failing to block content promoting terrorism.” In the case of Twitter v. Taamneh, which was “brought by family members of Nawras Alassaf, who was killed in a 2017 ISIS attack in Istanbul,” the vote was unanimous. In the other case, Gonzalez v. Google, “the plaintiffs asserted that the companies were liable for the death of American college student Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed in a café during coordinated ISIS attacks in Paris in 2015.” That one was “sent back to a lower court.”
The Court’s unanimous decision in Twitter v. Taamneh and its refusal even to consider Gonzalez v. Google were ominous, as both cases featured plaintiffs who were contending that the social media giants hadn’t done enough to block jihad terrorist material on their platforms. JNS noted that these decisions “handed a victory to the tech industry by declining to weigh in on the foundational U.S. internet law known as Section 230.”
This is the notorious law that “protects online companies from liability for content posted by their users. It also gives internet companies the ability to remove content without liability.” The Court stated that Gonzalez v. Google “should be dismissed because the plaintiffs didn’t have a case under the Anti-Terrorism Act. It advised the lower court that there was no need to address Section 230.” If the Court had struck down Section 230, the social media giants would be accountable to the public for what they do. This would not only help people act against their support for terror; it would help stop their efforts to silence foes of terrorism.
Google, Twitter (both in its pre-Elon Musk days and to a lesser extent even now), and Facebook have systematically and relentlessly censored, blocked, banned, and shadowbanned opponents of jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women, on the pretext that they’re purveying “hate speech.” The social media giants let jihadist material proliferate while moving ruthlessly to suppress material that opposed jihad violence at the behest of the massively discredited Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
There is more. Read the rest here.
mike says
thus the problem. The House & Senate don’t or will not make laws for fear of offending or madding there donors. since Pelosi was speaker. she has not allowed laws that would ruffle the feathers of said donors. The gave that authority to the 3 letter agencies. Case in point. EPA telling power stations what they can and can’t do, Setting mileage standards. BLM telling ppl on there own land that that can’t build. Chevron rules is what the courts need to address
kenneth Nightingale says
How long is Pelosi there as House speaker? How can she be deposed returning the world to more saNE TIMES where they would be forced to find other investors as donors?
Transmaster says
Actually the Supreme Court has taken up the Chevron Rule.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/05/supreme-court-will-consider-major-case-on-power-of-federal-regulatory-agencies/#:~:text=Nearly%2040%20years%20ago%2C%20in,as%20that%20interpretation%20is%20reasonable.
Hoi Polloi says
“Supreme Court Passes Up a Chance to Strike Back at” any of countless enemies of the people.
New name suggestions accepted: Not-So-Supreme Court? Lobbyists’ Supreme Court?
Phil Copson says
““Supreme Court Passes Up a Chance to Strike Back at” any of countless enemies of the people.
New name suggestions accepted: Not-So-Supreme Court? Lobbyists’ Supreme Court?”
—————————————————————————————————————
“Supine Court” (Sorted it for you…. LOL)
Hoi Polloi says
LOL.
Transmaster says
I am afraid that the Supreme Court did the correct thing. If individual parties could sue a Internet provider for their content than sites like Jihad Watch would disappear. The Muslim Brotherhood would take whatever provider that is hosting Jihad Watch to court and sue their eyeballs out and continue to sue until they throw up their hands ban it. So it is not just Terrorist groups, but right to life, Christians, you name it. A person or group with the money could hire a lawyer and sue.
Transmaster says
Oh and as part of this a party that is banned can sue. So if Hamas is banned from the internet they will sue whomever they can to get put back. This is something that need governments to do.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
No, platforms do have the prerogative to not allow content that violates the law, in terms of actually threatening people w/ violence (not hate speech), plotting violent activities, breaking the law in other ways & so on. Even the alternate platforms that have emerged like Gab, Gettr… do not have an “anything goes” policy: they do ban what I describe above
So far, I’m not sure that SCOTUS has ever addressed whether the First Amendment also applies to the internet, or to ubiquitous social media platforms, even though they are “private companies” that are publicly funded. It will be interesting whenever such a case does make it there
࿗Infidel࿘ says
To those on Twitter posting about jihad violence & getting censored, I was forced to remove one of my tweets that included the phrase “muslim trafficking” to substitute “love jihad”, which is a ridiculous term. So I’ve worked my way around it. Use emojis like ☪️ as much as possible for both “islam” and “muslims”. As it is, Twitter has the ridiculous character limit, when other platforms allow far more characters
Also, we need to find people to provide inputs to the “Community Notes” when it comes to posts about islam & jihad. Just like they do for political references