1. #GonzalezvGoogle: I've dealt internet provider immunity for acts of users under 230 and am familiar with ISIS funders' liability under 2333. I believe that 230 was only intended to protect the ISPs that remain passive. Once they do what is alleged in this case and that sadly
2. has become a market norm the firm loses 230 immunity based on a fair reading of the statute and its Congressional purpose when enacted. In regard to amplification of terrorists on line, IMO 18 USC 2333 applies to any US internet service provider that knowingly or with willful
3. blindness provides support for a terrorist engaged in active kinetic crimes against US nationals who, along with their survivors, are the persons with 2333 standing. When a provider finds an ISIS account its only permitted action is to terminate the account.
4. The challenge in not being careful is due in part to the fundamental flaw in our terrorist listing statute. I believe that the crimes are what we focus on and the listing is simply an element. The crimes are murder, kidnaping and destruction of property. Any US firm
5. that aids the commission of these crimes by amplifying overt acts related to the crimes is not immune under 230 that was meant to protect passive ISPs passthrough contents and not to immunize active participation in the terrorism associated crimes. @uscourts
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
