Twitter – Lorenzo Albertini

Twitter, se sospende un account, può invocare il safe harbour ex § 230 CDA

Il NOrthern district della California con sentenza 19 luglio 2022, Case 3:21-cv-08062-CRB , Rangel v. Dorsey e altri, conferma la lunga fila di precedenti sulla invocabilità del safe harbour da parte della content moderation operata da Twitter (T.).

Il tweet censurato pare dicesse <HANG THEM ALL>
Sussistono tutti i tre requisiti

<< The three elements of Section 230(c)(1) are easily met.

First, despite Rangel’s insistence to the contrary, e.g., Opp at 8, Twitter clearly is a “provider . . . of an interactive computer service” under the CDA. See 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(2); Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Grp., Inc., 934 F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th Cir. 2019) (the “prototypical” example is an “online messaging board”); Brittain v. Twitter, Inc., 2019 WL 2423375, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2019) (Twitter is an interactive computer service).

Second, Rangel seeks to hold Twitter liable for decisions regarding “information provided by another information content provider”—that is, information that he, rather than Twitter, provided. Rangel mistakenly believes that he himself cannot be a third-party information provider under this provision, but this view has been repeatedly rejected. See, e.g., Ebeid v. Facebook, Inc., 2019 WL 2059662, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2019).

Third, Rangel seeks to “treat [Twitter] as the publisher” because his claims derive entirely from Twitter’s decision to exclude his content and suspend his account—that is, traditional publishing functions. See Fair Hous.
Council v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, 1170-71 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)
(“[A]ny activity that can be boiled down to deciding whether to exclude material that third parties seek to post online is perforce immune under section 230.”); Barnes, 570 F.3d at 1103 (“[R]emoving content is something publishers do.”). And Rangel’s contract claim fares no differently because it is based on the Terms of Service, which is discretionary and merely “incorporate[s] . . . [Twitter’s] right to act as a publisher.” King v. Facebook, Inc., 2021 WL 5279823, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2021); see Terms of Service § 4.

Accordingly, Twitter is immune from all of Rangel’s claims. >>

Il punto più interessante è il terzo: anche il titolare dell’account è terzo rispetto al publisher, per cui il requisito di legge è rispettato. Passaggio esatto , anche se scontat.

Anche non concedendo il safe harbour, la domanda sarebbe comunque da rigettare nel merito, prosegue la corte.

<< Even if Twitter were not immune, Rangel’s claims would still fail. Three claims
lack a private right of action or legal theory, and the other two fail as a matter of law.
First, the contract claim fails because Rangel does not plausibly allege two
necessary elements: (1) that Twitter breached a promise, or (2) that the breach caused him
damage. See Richman v. Hartley, 224 Cal. App. 4th 1182, 1186 (2014). Under the Terms
of Service, Twitter “may suspend or terminate your account . . . at any time for any or no
reason, including, but not limited to, if we reasonably believe[] you have violated these
Terms or the Twitter Rules and Policies.” Terms of Service § 4. Twitter violated no
promise in suspending Rangel’s account because it is more than “reasonabl[e]” for Twitter
to “believe[]” that a tweet that said “HANG THEM ALL” is “content that wishes, hopes,
or expresses a desire for death . . . against . . . [a] group of people.” See Spector Decl. Ex
B (dkt. 44-3) (Abusive behavior policy). Rangel’s contract claim also fails for the
independent reason that he does not allege damages: though Rangel demands $100 million
in compensatory damages, he nowhere alleges actual harm because of Twitter’s actions.
See Richman, 224 Cal. App. 4th at 1186.2
Second, the claim that Twitter unlawfully interfered with interstate commerce “by denying [Rangel] online Twitter access to shareholder paid-for national advertising” lacks
any identifiable or cognizable legal theory. SAC at 3; see Godecke, 937 F.3d at 1208.
Third, the wire fraud claim fails both because Rangel lacks a private right of action
and he does not allege fraud with particularity. See 18 U.S.C. § 1343; Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).
Rangel seems to think that any breach of contract that occurs online is actionable wire
fraud, see SAC at 3, but he has not adequately alleged breach, and that is not the law.
Fourth, the “shareholder fraud/public fraud” claim fails. To the extent that he
alleges shareholder fraud, Rangel has not alleged that he purchased any Twitter stock, so
he lacks standing. Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 731–32 (1975).
As for other fraud, Rangel alleges vaguely that Twitter “misrepresent[ed] . . . to their
shareholders, advertisers, the public and users as to Twitter’s fiduciary responsibility
regarding shareholders’ return on investment and share tradeability.” SAC at 4. This
vague allegation falls far short of the basic requirements of Rule 8, much less the
particularity required by Rule 9(b).
Finally, Rangel’s claim under California’s UETA fails because this law, which
requires that electronic signatures be given legal effect, see Cal. Civ. Code § 1633.7(a), has
no discernible relevance to his allegations. In any event, it confers no private right of
action. See Burgess v. Forbes, 2009 WL 1068877, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2009)>>

Il punto interessante è la ragionevoe credenza di T. che vi sia una qualche violazione delle proprie TOS.

Qui il giudice pare aver errato nell’iter motivatorio: infatti la clausola rinvia ad altra clausola (la previsione non è autosuifficiente) , che però il giudice non menziona. Quindi ravvisare la ragionevolezza della sospensione non persuade. Anche se alla fine probabilmente qualche regola violata si troverebbe , dato il grado di notevole offensività dell’espressione censurata.

(notizia e link alla sentenza dal blog del prof. Eric Goldman)

Altra conferma (d’appello) che Twitter non è “State actor”, per cui nei suoi confronti non opera la protezione costituzionale del diritto di parola

Altra conferma che le piattaforme digitali non sono State actors ai fini della protezione da Primo Emendamento: così Appello del 9 circuito, Rutenberg. c. Twitter e Dorsey , 18 05.2022, D.C. No. 4:21-cv-00548-YGR.

Motivazione breve , che conferma il primo grado:

<< The district court properly dismissed Rutenberg’s First Amendment claim: She did not allege sufficient facts to infer that the defendants (collectively, “Twitter” or “the company”) engaged in state action when the company moderated or suspended the former President’s Twitter account. The First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause “prohibits the government—not a private party—from abridging speech.” Prager Univ. v. Google LLC, 951 F.3d 991, 996 (9th Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). Dismissal was proper because the complaint lacked “a cognizable legal theory” or “sufficient well-pleaded, nonconclusory factual allegation[s]” to state a plausible claim for relief. Beckington v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 926 F.3d 595, 604 (9th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Rutenberg offers insufficient facts to infer the “close nexus” between Twitter’s conduct on the one hand and the government on the other, which is required to find that Twitter’s conduct constituted state action. Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288, 295 (2001). To the contrary, Rutenberg acknowledges that Twitter exercised its own “discretion and authority” in moderating President Trump’s account, and that Twitter acted as President Trump’s “opponent” in doing so. Twitter was not a “willful participant” in any “joint activity” with the President, and its conduct was not state action. Lugar v.
Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 941 (1982) (quoting United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787, 794 (1966)). Rutenberg’s contention that Twitter “abused” a delegation of authority when it moderated President Trump’s account is of no moment. This “abuse of authority” doctrine “does not apply” where, as here, “the
challenged action is undertaken by a private party rather than a state official.” Collins v. Womancare, 878 F.2d 1145, 1152 (9th Cir. 1989) (emphasis omitted) (citing Lugar, 457 U.S. at 940). Indeed, it would be “ironic” to conclude that Twitter’s imposition of sanctions against a public official—sanctions the official “steadfastly opposed”—is state action. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179, 199 (1988). >>

E del resto non ci fu alcuna delega dal presidente Trump a Tw. (chissà cosa aveva allegato l’attrice!!): << Similarly, President Trump did not delegate a “public function” to Twitter within the meaning of Supreme Court and circuit precedent. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. at 1929. The relevant function here—moderating speech on the Twitter platform—is not “an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed.” Id. at 1930; see also id. (“[M]erely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function . . . .”); Prager Univ., 951 F.3d at 998 (moderation of content on video-streaming platform was not a “public function”) >>

Si noti che l’attrice si doleva della rimozione ingiustificata dell’account Tw. non proprio ma del presidente Trump.

(notizia e link alla sentenza dal blog del prof. Eric Goldman)

Primo Emendamento, Twitter e account Twitter del Presidente Trump

Nell’impugnazione della rimozione fatta da Trump su suoi follower Twitter, la Suprema Corte USA ha dismesso il caso, essendo nel frattempo cambiato il Presidente (perchè mai? per cessata materia del contendere?).

Ma ha ritenuto di esprimere una concurring opinion il giudice Thomas, 05 aprile 2021, caso n° 20-197 (seconda parte del documento linkato).

Egli dubita della applicabilità del Primo Emendamento all’impedimento del diritto di parola, trattandosi di parte privata (nel caso di azione verso Twitter, naturalmente), ad es. p. 3 e 11.

Propone una doppia possibilità regolatoria per le grandi piattaforme: common carrier, p. 4 o public accomodation, p. 6

Infine ipotizza l’incostituzionalità del safe harbour ex § 230 CDA perchè reprimerebbe le leggi statali che proteggono il free spech dalla censura privata: nota 5 p. 11.

Qui intendo solo riportare le sue parole circa gli argomenti, che talora si sentono, per cui non è obbligatorio usare i servizi della piattarforme (potendo usare quelli tradizionali, sottinteso), per cui sarebbe errata l’analogia con un common carrier:

<<It changes nothing that these platforms are not the sole means for distributing speech or information. A person always could choose to avoid the toll bridge or train and instead swim the Charles River or hike the Oregon Trail. But in assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today’s digital platforms, nothing is>>, p. 8.

Ben detto, giudice Thomas!

Ancora sul diritto di parola nei confronti di Twitter

la corte distrettuale northern district della Californa, 9 aprile 2021, Case No. 4:21-cv-00548-YGR, Rutenberg c. Twitter, rigetta l’istanza di Rutenberg (R.), che aveva impugnato la cbiusura del suo account @realdonaldtrump, tramite il quale interagiva con i tweet dell’ex Presidente.

La domanda è avanzata tramite la § 1983, ma è rigettata in poche righe.

Bisogna che ricorra l’esercizio di funzione statale e che si tratti di state actor, ricorda la corte, p. 3 righe 8 ss.

Nessuno dei due requisiti ricorre nel caso specifico.

A nulla vale la tesi per cui T. sarebbe public forum: l’esercizio dei poteri di piattaforma da parte di T. non costituisce esercizio di potere sovrano statale. Nemmeno è esatto che T. , amministratndo gli account dell’ex presidente, diventi state actor.

R., conclude la corte, confonde la posizione della piattafoma T. con quella di uno dei suoi più famosi utenti, l’ex presidente-.

Ed in effetti (questo è un punto importante, anche se ovvio), una cosa è contestare la decisione della piattaforma, un’altra è contestare la decisione di un suo utente (di cui sei ad es. follower).

(notizie e link alla sentenza dal blog di Eric Goldman)

Può un politico bannare un follower dal proprio account Twitter? Si , se non si tratta di account ufficiale

La canditata Reisch (R.) alle elezioni del parlamento del Missouri 44° distretto banna un follower (Campbell; poi: C.) per il semplice di aver ritweettato un post critico (caricato da terzi) nei suoi confronti.

C. agisce, facendo valere la violazione del diritto di parola in connessione con il 42 US Code § 1983, che suona così : “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia“.

La questione allora è se R. agì “under color of state law”: l’attore dice di si, il convenuto di no. Così la corte: <<so the question this case presents is whether Reisch acted under color of statelaw when she blocked Campbell on Twitter. Campbell maintains that she did becauseshe blocked him for criticizing her fitness for political office even though she hadcreated a virtual forum for the public to discuss “the conduct of her office.” Reischsays she didn’t act under color of state law because she runs this Twitter account ina private capacity, namely, as a campaigner for political office>>, p. 4.

La corte di primo grado aveva ravvisato azione under color of state law.

La corte di appello del Missouri (8° circuito), con sentenza 27.01.2021, Campbell c. C. T. Reisch, n° 19-2994, invece, dice che non si tratta di account pubblico e dunque ben può il titolare bloccare chi vuole.

L’account era stato aperto prima dell’elezione e dunque non era ufficiale. Nè cambia tale qualificazione il fatto che successivamente la canditata sia stata eletta: <<We don’t intimate that the essential character of a Twitter account is fixedforever. But the mere fact of Reisch’s election did not magically alter the account’scharacter, nor did it evolve into something different. A private account can turn intoa governmental one if it becomes an organ of official business, but that is not whathappened here. The overall theme of Reisch’s tweets—that’s she’s the right person forthe job—largely remained the same after her electoral victory. Her messagesfrequently harkened back to promises she made on the campaign trail, and she toutedher success in fulfilling those promises and in her performance as a legislator, oftenwith the same or similar hashtags as the ones she used while a candidate. So it seemsto us that Reisch used the account in the main to promote herself and position herselffor more electoral success down the road—a conclusion supported by the campaign-related tweet that led to this litigation>>, p. 7.

In breve, la corte pensa che l’account Twitter di R. <<is more akin to a campaign newsletter than to anything else, and so it’s Reisch’s prerogative to select her audienceand present her page as she sees fit. She did not intend her Twitter page “to be like a public park, where anyone is welcome to enter and say whatever they want”>>.

La pensa all’opposto il giudice Kelly, autore della dissenting opinion: <<In short, Reisch’s persistent invocation of her position as an electedofficial overwhelmed any implicit references one might perceive to her campaign orfuture political ambitions>>.

(notizia e link alla sentenza presi dal blog di Eric Goldman)

Il blocco della piattaforma PARLER da parte di Amazon dopo i fatti di Washington

E’ balzata agli onori delle cronache mondiali la piattaforma Parler (poi: “P.”)

Si tratta di piattaforma di orientamento conservatore verso la quale si ipotizzava sarebbe andato Trump , dopo la sua sospensione dell’account Twitter

Dopo i fatti di Capitol Hill a Washington di inizio anno, nei quali seguaci estremisti di Trump hanno cercato di impedire il perfezionamento del processo di investitura del nuovo Presidente (così almeno parrebbe) , la piattaforma social P. è stata sospesa da Amazon, sul cui servizio cloud appoggiava i propri dati. Di fatto quindi le ha impedito di funzionare.

P. è una piattaforma sostanzialmente svolgente un servizio analogo a Twitter.

Il giorno dopo questa sospensione , P. agisce presso la corte distrettuale di Washington nei confronti del servizio cloud di Amazon (poi: A.), Amazon Web Services (AWS) , facendo valere tre titoli giuridici: 1° intesa restrittiva della concorrenza tra Amazon e Twitter, 2° violazione contrattuale, 3° interferenza illecita nei rapporti di business altrui.

La Corte adita però rigetta la domanda con provvedimento D.C. for the Western District of Washington at Seattle, 21.01.2021, Parler c. Amazon Web Services, case n° 2:21-cv-0031-BJR .

P. non nega che certi post siano abusivi o che violino le clausole di Amazon, pagina 3. Dice però che Amazon sapeva e che anzi apparentemente collaborava, p. 34

Emerge che dopo i fatti di inizio gennaio e il bannaggio di Trump da Twitter e Facebook, P. ha avuto un’enorme richiesta di adesioni, pagina 4.

Tra il 10 e l’ 11 gennaio , A. ha sospeso tutti i servizi di P. oscurandola. Per cui il giorno dopo (l’11 gennaio ) P. deposita domanda giudiziale, pagina 5

I requisiti per ottenere la preliminary injunction sono quelli indicati a pagina 5: << (1) that it is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in its favor; and (4) that an injunction serves the public interest>>

Circa la prima domanda azionata (antitrust), P. non ha dato prova dell’azione concertata tra Amazon e Twitter, limitandosi a sollevare meri sospetti di un trattamento preferenziale a favore di Twitter da parte di Amazon, pagina 6/7.

In breve << Parler has proffered only faint and factually inaccurate speculation in support of a Sherman Act violation. AWS, in contrast, has submitted sworn testimony disputing Parler’s allegations. Parler therefore has failed to demonstrate at this stage a likelihood of success on its Sherman Act claim>>, p. 8

Viene rigettata anche la seconda domanda, relativa alla violazione contrattuale, precisamente basata sulla mancata concessione del preavviso di trenta giorni.

La corte valorizza però la condotta di P. , a sua volta in violazione, la quale per tanto -secondo i termini contrattuali- ha permesso ad A. di negare il preavviso, pagina 8/9.

Circa la terza domanda (le interferenze illecite nei rapporti contrattuali) come detto sopra non ci sono prove sufficienti, pagina 9/10

Circa il periculum in mora (irreparable injury) , non sarebbe necessario discuterne, mancando il fumus boni iuris. Ciononostante , data la gravità dei temi denunciati, La Corte va anche a discutere sul danno irreparabile.

Anche sotto questo profilo , però , la corte rigetta le allegazioni di P., in quanto il danno può essere irreparabile, ma non è probabile: cioè è solo potenziale, non probabile (likely), pagina 10-11

Circa il bilanciamento dei danni reciproci, manca la prova che il bilanciamento sia nettamente favorevole a P. , come richiesto. Dice infatti la corte: <<while the “balance of hardships” may fall heaviest on Parler in the form of potential monetary loss, AWS has convincingly argued that forcing it to host Parler’s users’ violent content would interfere with AWS’s ability to prevent its services from being used to promote—and, as the events of January 6, 2021 have demonstrated, even cause—violence…. It cannot be said, therefore, that the balance of hardships “tips sharply” in Parler’s favor>>, p. 12.

Cerca l’ultimo punto (l’interesse pubblico) , la corte respinge l’idea che questo induca a privilegiare l’obbligo di Amazon di ospitare contenuti anche abusivi e violenti. Anche sotto tale profilo dunque rigetta la domanda di P., pp. 12/13

Precisamente così dice: <<The Court explicitly rejects any suggestion that the balance of equities or the public interest favors obligating AWS to host the kind of abusive, violent content at issue in this case, particularly in light of the recent riots at the U.S. Capitol. That event was a tragic reminder that inflammatory rhetoric can—more swiftly and easily than many of us would have hoped—turn a lawful protest into a violent insurrection. The Court rejects any suggestion that the public interest favors requiring AWS to host the incendiary speech that the record shows some of Parler’s users have engaged in. At this stage, on the showing made thus far, neither the public interest nor the balance of equities favors granting an injunction in this case>> p. 13

Viene segnalato che P. non è più scaricabile nemmeno da altri due giganti del web (Google Play Store Apple App Stor) e che -a fine antitrust- Amazon raccoglie circa un terzo dei fatturati nei servizicCloud (così Hal Singer , There Are Lots of Competition Problems on the Internet. Parler’s Takedown Is Not One of Them, 21.01.2021, promarket.org , centrato sui profili antitrust)

(notizia delle sentenza e link alla stessa dal blog di Eric Goldman)

Altro rigetto di domanda risarcitoria contro Twitter basata su asseritamente illegittima sospensione dell’account

La Corte del Maryland rigetta domanda risarcitoria contro Twitter (poi: T.) basata sull’asseritamente illegittima sospensione dell’account.

Si tratta di US District Court for the District of Maryland, Jones v. Twitter, Civil No. RDB-20-1963, 23.10.2020.

T. aveva sospeso l’account per hateful conduct e precisamente per un tweet relativo al comico – presentatore Trevor Noah.

Il Tweet <<allegedly “contains a nine or ten word sentence in addition to the two account names.”>> ma l’attore non lo riportava per esteso , <<recognizing “the decorum of the Court and the deep sensitivity that these public persons and public entities now represent”>> (si difendeva in proprio … ).

J. presentava molte causae petendi ma qui ricorderò solo quella concernente il safe harbour di cui al § 230 CDA.

Il giudice la liquida in fretta, dicendo che ricorrono tutti gli estremi per la sua applicazione (v. sub I. Counts 1-7, 9-11, and 15 are barred by the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)). E pertanto rigetta la relativa domanda.

Non ci sono affermazioni degne di nota, trattandosi di una piana applicazione della normativa.

Ricordo solo che cita l’importante precedente Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc. del 1997 e che l’attore all’evidenza con la domanda giudiziale cercacava “to hold Twitter liable as a publisher of third-party content, as Plaintiff’s entire Complaint relates to Twitter’s decision not to publish Plaintiff’s content“..

Twitter è esente da responsabilità diffamatoria, fruendo del safe harbour ex § 230 CDA statunitense

Altra decisione che esenta Twitter da responsabilità diffamatoria sulla base del § 230 Communication Decency Act CDA.

Si tratta di US DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK del 17 settempbre 2020, MAYER CHAIM BRIKMAN (RABBI) ed altri c. Twitter e altro, caso 1:19-cv-05143-RPK-CLP. Ne dà notizia l’aggiornato blog di Eric Goldman.

Un rabbino aveva citato Twitter (e un utente che aveva retwittato) per danni e injunction, affermando che Twitter aveva ospitato e non rimosso un finto account della sinagoga, contenente post offensivi. Dunque era responsabile del danno diffamatorio.

Precisamente: <<they claim that through “actions and/or inactions,” Twitter has “knowingly and with malice . . . allowed and helped non-defendant owners of Twitter handle @KnesesG, to abuse, harras [sic], bully, intimidate, [and] defame” plaintiffs. Id. ¶¶ 10-12. Plaintiffs aver that by allowing @KnesesG to use its platform in this way, Twitter has committed “Libel Per Se” under the laws of the State of New York. Ibid. As relevant here, they seek an award of damages and injunctive relief that would prohibit Twitter from “publishing any statements constituting defamation/libel . . . in relation to plaintiffs.”>>.

L’istanza è respinta in base al safe harbour presente nel § 230 CDA.

Vediamo il passaggio specifico.

Il giudice premette (ricorda) che i requisiti della fattispecie propria dell’esimente sono i soliti tre: i) che sia un internet provider; ii) che si tratti di informazioni provenienti da terzo; iii) che la domanda lo consideri “as the publisher or speaker of that information” e cioè come editore-

Pacificamente presenti i primi due, andiamo a vedere il terzo punto, qui il più importante e cioè quello della prospettazione attorea come editore.

<<Finally, plaintiffs’ claims would hold Twitter liable as the publisher or speaker of the information provided by @KnesesG. [NB: il finto account della sinagoga contenente post offensivi]. Plaintiffs allege that Twitter has “allowed and helped” @KnesesG to defame plaintiffs by hosting its tweets on its platform … or by refusing to remove those tweets when plaintiffs reported them … Either theory would amount to holding Twitter liable as the “publisher or speaker” of “information provided by another information content provider.” See 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). Making information public and distributing it to interested parties are quintessential acts of publishing. See Facebook, 934 F.3d at 65-68.

Plaintiffs’ theory of liability would “eviscerate Section 230(c)(1)” because it would hold Twitter liable “simply [for] organizing and displaying content exclusively provided by third parties.” … Similarly, holding Twitter liable for failing to remove the tweets plaintiffs find objectionable would also hold Twitter liable based on its role as a publisher of those tweets because “[d]eciding whether or not to remove content . . . falls squarely within [the] exercise of a publisher’s traditional role and is therefore subject to the CDA’s broad immunity.” Murawski v. Pataki, 514 F. Supp. 2d 577, 591 (S.D.N.Y. 2007); see Ricci, 781 F.3d at 28 (finding allegations that defendant “refused to remove” allegedly defamatory content could not withstand immunity under the CDA).

Plaintiff’s suggestion that Twitter aided and abetted defamation “[m]erely [by] arranging and displaying others’ content” on its platform fails to overcome Twitter’s immunity under the CDA because such activity “is not enough to hold [Twitter] responsible as the ‘developer’ or ‘creator’ of that content.” … Instead, to impose liability on Twitter as a developer or creator of third-party content—rather than as a publisher of it—Twitter must have “directly and materially contributed to what made the content itself unlawful.” Id. at 68 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., id. at 69-71 (finding that Facebook could not be held liable for posts published by Hamas because it neither edited nor suggested edits to those posts); Kimzey v. Yelp! Inc., 836 F.3d 1263, 1269-70 (9th Cir. 2016) (finding that Yelp was not liable for defamation because it did “absolutely nothing to enhance the defamatory sting of the message beyond the words offered by the user”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 257 (4th Cir. 2009) (rejecting plaintiffs’ claims because they “[did] not show, or even intimate” that the defendant “contributed to the allegedly fraudulent nature of the comments at issue”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Klayman v. Zuckerberg, 753 F.3d 1354, 1358 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (“[A] website does not create or develop content when it merely provides a neutral means by which third parties can post information of their own independent choosing online.”).

Plaintiffs have not alleged that Twitter contributed to the defamatory content of the tweets at issue and thus have pleaded no basis upon which it can be held liable as the creator or developer of those tweets. See Goddard v. Google, Inc., No. 08-cv-2738 (JF), 2008 WL 5245490, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2008) (rejecting plaintiff’s aiding and abetting claims as “simply inconsistent with § 230” because plaintiff had made “no allegations . . . that Google ‘developed’ the offending ads in any respect”); cf. LeadClick, 838 F.3d at 176 (finding defendant was not entitled to immunity under the CDA because it “participated in the development of the deceptive content posted on fake news pages”).

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ defamation claims against Twitter also satisfy the final requirement for CDA preemption: the claims seek to hold Twitter, an interactive computer service, liable as the publisher of information provided by another information content provider, @KnesesG>>.

Interessante è che l’allegazione censurava non solo l’omessa rimozione ma pure il semplice hosting del post: forse mescolando fatti relativi alla perdita delll’esimente (responsabilità in negativo) con quelli relativi alla responsabilità in positivo.