(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Yesterday, a Virginia court dismissed Devin Nunes’s defamation suit against Twitter, ruling that federal law immunizes the media company for content posted to its site. Looks like California’s most litigious congressman won’t be getting that $250,000,000 payout after all. Womp womp!
In the first of his many gonzo suits, last March Nunes filed a claim against Republican strategist Liz Mair, Twitter, and two anonymous Twitter accounts, known as @DevinNunesMom and @DevinNunesCow. Nunes claimed that he was grievously injured because Mair and the Twitter handles poked fun at him for his investment in a winery which allegedly hosted a fundraiser on a yacht featuring cocaine and prostitutes. In fact, he was so grievously injured when the hashtag #YachtCocaineProstitutes started trending that he only won his reelection race by five percent in 2018.
And even though Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act specifically states that, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider,” Nunes was sure that Twitter’s occasional moderation of content magically transformed it into a co-author of every tweet on the site.
Twitter creates and develops content, in whole or in part, through a combination of means: (a) by explicit censorship of view points with which it disagrees, (b) by shadow banning conservatives such as Plaintiff, (c) by knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly abusive, hateful and defamatory — providing both a voice and financial incentive to the defamers — thereby facilitating defamation on its platform, (d) by completely ignoring lawful complaints about offensive content and by allowing that content to remain accessible to the public, and (e) by intentionally abandoning and refusing to enforce its so-called Terms of Service and Twitter rules – essentially refusing to self regulate — and thereby selectively amplifying the message of defamers such as Mair, Devin Nunes’ Mom and Devin Nunes’ Cow, and materially contributing to the libelousness of the hundreds of posts at issue in this action.
Hooboy!
Sadly for Congressman Cowpoke, Judge John Marshall of the Henrico County Circuit Court did not agree with his interpretation of the federal statute.
“Plaintiff seeks to have the court treat Twitter as the publisher or speaker of the content provided by others based on its allowing or not allowing certain content to be on its Internet platform,” he wrote in a letter opinion dismissing Twitter from the case. “The court refuses to do so.”
Even if it were true that Twitter is censoring conservatives and monetizing hate speech, it would still not subject the company to liability under Section 230. And Trump’s executive order directing Bill Barr to draft a proposal to change the statute to allow him to sue Twitter for slapping a warning label on his tweets — a proposal which Nancy Pelosi will use to blot her lipstick before tossing in the wastebasket — doesn’t change that.
Which leaves Nunes suing the two Twitter avatars that he has still failed to unmask, plus Liz Mair, who pretty clearly does not have $250,000,000 dollars lying around. Which very much sucks for Liz Mair, who has to pay her lawyers to fend off the congressman, but counts as a victory for free speech. But never fear, because Nunes still has pending cases against CNN, The Washington Post, Hearst, McClatchy, and Fusion GPS. It’s a wonder he finds time to legislate with all that mooin’ and suin’!
Devin Nunes can’t sue Twitter over statements by fake cow, judge rules [Fresno Bee]
Elizabeth Dye (@5DollarFeminist) lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.