Lawsuit Filed Against Twitter, Users Over Critical Posts
The ethics of social media
By Sameer Jain
The Progressive Teen Staff Writer
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS have gained significant political influence over the last few years, making headlines and making unprecedented changes in information access. The rise of the internet and online social networks has birthed an era in which sites like Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter serve as primary news sources for over 30% of Americans. With this has inevitably arisen a variety of concerns ranging from user privacy risk to the potential facilitated spread of unreliable news, and important questions have been raised as to the influence that such platforms should be allowed to have, especially in the political realm.
This issue has been particularly relevant for public figures, specifically politicians, as social media provides yet another way for political opinions to be voiced and reputations to be forged. In an age when sharing one’s political views for the world to see is as simple as pressing a button, the scrutiny that public figures face has the potential to be amplified on a national or even global scale, leading many to question whether social media platforms do more harm than good for society. The latest case bringing the ethics of social media under the spotlight is forcing Americans to reevaluate the boundaries of free speech and the role that social media ought to play in a constantly evolving political landscape
Devin Nunes began his political career as a Republican U.S. Representative from the 22nd Congressional District of California starting in 2003. He was named the chair of the House Intelligence Committee in 2015, the committee later tasked with investigating potential Russian interference with the 2016 U.S. presidential elections. When Nunes used his office to take a firm stance denying any such involvement, many feared his voice could damage the credibility of the Mueller investigation. As incriminating evidence was slowly and steadily uncovered over the course of 2016 and Nunes remained staunchly opposed to the investigation which he considered a conspiracy against the Trump administration, his political reputation came under serious fire.
Among other forms of backlash, as is not uncommon in this day and age, Twitter and other social platforms saw a springing up of user accounts created anonymously to parody and politically criticize Nunes. Two Twitter users, in particular, gained immediate popularity and have been at the center of the current case: one assuming the character of Devin Nunes’ mother and the other, that of his cow. The accounts, though active since as early as 2017, have been increasingly active starting in early 2019, following Nunes’ removal from the position of chair of the House Intelligence Committee. The ridicule has no doubt entertained many, with tweets attacking Nunes’ physical appearance, his political stances on a multitude of recent issues, and even details pertaining to his personal life.
In response to this online criticism that he claims has caused him “extreme pain and suffering,” Devin Nunes filed a lawsuit against the two Twitter users involved, the Twitter corporation itself, and Republican strategist Liz Mair, whom he accuses of coordinating with the aforementioned parody account users. He complains in his lawsuit that the users stated above are engaging in a coordinated, intentional defamation scheme to deter him from the investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 elections, as well as to damage his political reputation with the goal of preventing his reelection to the House in 2020. In addition, his lawsuit extends this accusation of a political conspiracy to Twitter itself, arguing that the social media platform “intended to generate and proliferate false and defamatory statements”. He also claims that Twitter has been intentionally “shadow banning” content from right-wing politicians’ accounts — making other users unaware of content posted by these politicians. Twitter has publically denied such allegations, claiming that they “certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.”
Reactions to the lawsuit have been mixed, with most opinions rooted in political affiliation. President Trump, who has a long history of accusing media and news platforms of political bias against the Republican party, offered his public support for Nunes’ case, tweeting his support in the fight against “Facebook, Google, and Twitter, not to mention the Corrupt Media” and accusing these companies of repeatedly taking the side of “Radical Left Democrats”.
The reactions of others have been far more pessimistic, however. Many consider the lawsuit little more than a symbolic gesture, predicting that it will not go far. For one, the lawsuit openly challenges the First Amendment right of the public to free speech, even if it is used to criticize public figures. As First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams puts it, “Rep. Nunes seems to think the First Amendment exists to protect him from his critics when it’s actually meant to protect his critics from him.”
Furthermore, Nunes’ suit against the Twitter corporation itself suggests that Twitter is responsible for and in accordance with the content posted by its users. Under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Acts, social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook are to act and be considered as mediums of distribution rather than publishers and are not to be held liable for the opinions they are used to express. Twitter has publically reemphasized its role as a distributor of content in a statement issued in response to the lawsuit.
The case of Tiffany Dehen, a college student and avid Trump supporter, has been cited repeatedly in an effort to back up such predictions. In 2017, Dehen sued Twitter for $100 million in response to a parody account that had been created to impersonate and poke fun at the opinions she had voiced. The case was dismissed in November of last year on the grounds that the lawsuit was unconstitutional and treated Twitter as a publisher of the content Dehen cited, rather than a neutral distributor.
Nonetheless, Nunes and his attorney remain optimistic that this lawsuit, or one pursued in follow-up, will result in the Supreme Court reevaluating the relevance of the First Amendment in cases involving the defamation of public officials. While Nunes’ lawsuit has undoubtedly spurred a debate on the extent to which public shaming, especially on a digital platform, should be tolerated and the alleged political bias on the behalf of online social platforms, its challenge of basic First Amendment rights and its suggestion that social media corporations are liable for the content which they distribute are likely to keep the case grounded for the time being.
