Remember this? The legislators in ND have updated it.

Now, they are authorizing Nazis to sue you if you report their content to Twitter.

No, I'm not joking. I wish I was, but I'm not.
Here's the new bill legis.nd.gov/assembly/67-20…
Aside from trying and again failing to legislate around 230 - which protects social media companies from any liability at all for "viewpoint discrimination," they've now added an "aiding and abetting" claim against users for reporting content to moderators
Again, it's completely ineffective because it applies only to moderator conduct for which the social media company could be sued under federal law - which right now is effectively a null set - but
The question still remains: Why does the ND legislature think "reporting a *literal* neo-nazi to twitter for recruiting on the platform" is conduct that should subject the reporting user to civil liability? Would love to see a ND-based journalist ask

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Akiva Cohen

Akiva Cohen Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AkivaMCohen

12 Feb
Access to justice issues are among the biggest of our societal issues and we just don't do enough to deal with it.

Government should subsidize litigation expenses for meritorious civil rights claims. Not attorneys fees. Expenses.
People don't realize how expensive litigation is even if you don't pay your attorney a cent. Filing fees. Court reporters. Discovery vendors. And good luck trying to get them to waive their fees
I've actually had some luck with an e-discovery vendor I use regularly. But I can't do that too often.
Read 5 tweets
5 Feb
Seriously, as a parent, I'm just sitting here feeling the agony of these parents whose baby was diagnosed with alzheimers after being vaccinated
Btw, you know what they call a baby that doesn't have much long term memory?

A baby
Read 5 tweets
2 Feb
OK, let's start talking about the House's 80 page brief on impeachment. It really is an incredibly well-done piece of work. There are some things I'd do differently and some pieces I didn't love, but overall, it's very very good.
Again - this thread will happen in fits and starts. I'm swamped at work and this will come in 10-15 minute chunks as I take a break
Let's start by taking a look at the table of contents. After a 4-page intro (that's relatively long, don't love it), the brief spends a solid 30 pages walking through the facts underlying the impeachment - and, the subheadings tell us, tying in Trump's general refusal to accept
Read 49 tweets
31 Jan
This is the rare occasion where I disagree with Ken on defamation policy. True defamation involving a public figure is vanishingly rare, and everyone should err on the side of not chilling core political speech.

That means you put on your grown-up pants and suck it up a lot. BUT
A political culture that embraces anyone saying anything at all at any time, completely without regard for truth and despite knowing it was false, is toxic and damaging to the country. And without consequences, it will continue to proliferate
Everything in that first tweet is still true, and that means that if there's any rational defense at all, you should err on the side of not suing folks like Rudy for being political hacks.

But insane conspiracy theories even they don't believe, deployed to rally the gullible?
Read 4 tweets
29 Jan
This piece is terribly reasoned, with most of the logical errors flowing from a factual sleight-of-hand.

Trump was not a "former president" when he was impeached. He was in office.
The Constitution unequivocally allowed to the house to impeach president Trump. Nobody disputes that.

The Constitution also unequivocally provides that the Senate SHALL try all impeachments

It's not discretionary.
Also, impeachment is a POLITICAL solution to a POLITICAL problem. There are some subtle signs of that in the Constitution, like, I don't know, the power to impeach being handed to one political body (the house, not a prosecutor), the trial to another (the Senate not the courts),
Read 10 tweets
27 Jan
This is NOT something you ever want to see as a litigator. It means that the judge chose to read your pleadings and thought that they were so jacked up, somehow that she wants you in her courtroom, right goddamn now, to explain what the hell you were thinking
That's one way to describe the Plaintiffs' blind, repeated, flailing attempts at submitting a motion for a TRO, I guess. Seriously, if you haven't followed these filings, they're SPECTACULAR
Read 20 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!