The case arose after an ISIS-linked attacker killed Nawras Alassaf and 38 other people at an Istanbul nightclub. Alassaf’s family sued Twitter and other tech platforms, accusing them of not taking enough enforcement action against the terrorist group.
During Wednesday arguments, the justices appeared skeptical that Twitter could be held liable for aiding and abetting the 2017 terrorist attack, our colleague Zach Schonfeld reported.
If the justices ultimately rule in favor of Twitter in the case, they wouldn’t need to reach the question about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that’s at the center of the case the justices heard Tuesday. The controversial provision provides protection for internet companies over content posted by third parties.
Oral arguments Wednesday probed whether a violation of anti-terrorism law requires knowingly providing substantial assistance to a specific act of terrorism, which Twitter argued, or if the court should follow the family’s content that assistance to ISIS’s broader criminal enterprise suffices.
Although the attacker wasn’t alleged to be on Twitter, the suit accuses Twitter and other platforms of aiding and abetting the attack by contributing to ISIS’s growth and not taking more aggressive enforcement action against pro-ISIS content.
Read the full report at TheHill.com.
