In a case of current events meets the UCL, Twitter held not liable for suspending user accounts in Murphy v. Twitter, Inc.

I though I would call this one out just because UCL cases don’t usually arrive so contemporaneously with current events. In Murphy v. Twitter, Inc. (Jan. 22, 2021), the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division One) examined claims, including a UCL claim, that Twitter violated users’ rights by permanently suspending accounts.

Without getting deep into the discussion provided by the Court, it should not be surprising that the Court found that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 provided broad immunity for Twitter’s editorial functions. Of course, this just highlights the incongruity of how Section 230 works, since its passage was predicated on the promise by large tech companies that they would not behave like traditional publishers in exchange for the grant of immunity for what users post on their platforms. Right now, Twitter (and Facebook, and others) get immunity that other publishers do not AND they are restricting content on a viewpoint basis.

Interestingly, and with an astounding bit of hubris, Twitter argued that the Plaintiff’s claims violated the First Amendment. The Court declined to address the constitutional question when Section 230 was sufficient to resolve the case in the Court’s view. I just think that’s pretty ballsy of Twitter to throw the First Amendment argument out there when it denies that users have any such rights (and there is a good argument that it is wrong about that, now that it has decided to act as a partisan favoring one political party over another).

Dear Twitter, pull your head out

I customarily cross-post to Twitter when I write a new post here.  That may change soon.  The evidence I have examined is strongly suggestive that Twitter engages in viewpoint-based censorship by asserting its "standards" in a very non-uniform manner.  Twitter is a private company.  They can do this.  But I can vote with my feet if Twitter doesn't want to remain neutral in viewpoint suppression.  As a blogger, and irrespective of personal views of the speaker, I am sensitive to the long-term, dire consequences that will result if large businesses and/or governments succeed in limiting expression of entire swaths of opinions.  I was particularly disturbed when I read that Twitter had blocked the account of Glenn Reynolds, a pioneering law/politics/current events blogger known as Instapundit.  He made an ill-considered point in a rather rough way, but, at the same time, individuals advocating the murder of police officers go unpunished.  This is unjustifiable if one assumes that Twitter is viewpoint neutral in its censoring.

I don't approve of or condone all of the messages that have resulted in some high-profile account banning of late on Twitter, but the simple fact is that Twitter has permitted far worse commentary to remain on Twitter without consequence.  Maybe this behavior explains, in part, why Twitter is likely up for sale.

Consumer Attorneys of California makes it to the bleeding edge: Twitter and Facebook

Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC) is breaking into new media territory with presence on Facebook and Twitter.  You can find CAOC on Twitter by following @ConsumerAttysCA.  You can become a fan of CAOC on Facebook here.  Personally, I've almost given up on Facebook, purely because of its deplorable disregard for user privacy.  Facebook needs to keep its act clean for a while just to get back to zero with me.  The problem is, half the planet is using Facebook, so my protestations are unlikely to start a grass roots movement.