Family of terrorist attack victim claims Twitter owes them damages.
The Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, a case similar to another filing the Supreme Court is currently reviewing, Gonzalez v. Google. The Taamneh family claims that Twitter did not adequately review content promoting jihadist ideals, claiming that this led to the death of their son in a 2017 New Year’s Eve terrorist attack. The family alleges that, because of this, Twitter owes them financial compensation through the Anti-Terrorism Act, which holds those who aided a person who engaged in a terrorist attack liable for damages.
The justices expressed sympathy for the family’s situation but were hesitant to call Twitter’s platform a violation of that particular law.
“We all appreciate how horrible the attack was, but there’s very little linking the defendants in this complaint to those persons,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said, referring to Twitter.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor echoed this sentiment, saying that Twitter is a “neutral business setting – something that is otherwise not criminal, a platform to communicate with people.”
As the Lord Leads, Pray with Us…
- For the justice of the Supreme Court to be discerning as they hear various oral arguments.
- For wisdom for the justices as they consider the implications of the ruling on the Anti-Terrorism Act.
- For the family of the young man who perished in the act of domestic terrorism.
Sources: AP, Reuters
