Last November, Twitter updated its rules and policies, adding that users “may not affiliate with organization that – whether by their own statements or activity both on and off the platform – use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes.”
Many legal experts were shocked at the lower court’s ruling that allowed Taylor’s suit against Twitter to continue. It flew in the face of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, specifically CDA Section 230, which states that no provider may be liable for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”
Writ of Mandate – a Unicorn in the Legal Field
Twitter asked the California Court of Appeals for a writ of mandate, which is very rare. This is when you ask a court to order a government group, in this instance the lower court, to follow the law by correcting its prior actions. It’s basically telling the judge that he or she has misunderstood the law governing the issue. That leaves the lower court with proverbial egg on their face, and even lawyers have some professional courtesy. Increasingly more rare, the appeals court approved the request.
Taylor’s lawyers say they plan to appeal, but these “must carry” lawsuits have been struck down time and time again.
Related Resources:
- Find a Communications and Media Lawyer Near You (FindLaw Lawyer’s Directory)
- California Cannabis Website Invokes CDA (FindLaw Technologist Blog)
- Is Twitter a Public Forum? (FindLaw Technologist Blog)
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
