Devin Nunes Faces an Uphill Battle in His Lawsuit Against Twitter (nbcnews.com) 162
Devin Nunes, R-Calif., escalated the feud between conservatives and Twitter earlier this week with a lawsuit accusing the company of defamation and negligence -- two different allegations, one of which poses a more serious question for the social media platform and technology companies in general. Nunes is claiming that Twitter negligently violated its terms of service when it allowed people onto its online "premises" to say false or disparaging things about him. He is seeking $250 million in damages due to "pain, insult, embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress and mental suffering, and injury to [Nunes'] personal and professional reputations" brought on by what Twitter users said about him.
From a report: Defamation is an interesting legal matter to discuss, at least in theory, but suing for defamation is seldom profitable in reality. Negligence may not sound as exciting as defamation, but this theory of liability quietly drives most successful civil litigation. Relatively easy to prove, it generally requires that the defendant show conduct that came up short of what can be expected, and that this shortcoming caused the plaintiff's damages. [...] The primary reason that technology companies are not sued into oblivion is the existence of the Communications Decency Act, or CDA, and in particular Section 230, which states that providers of an interactive computer service shall not be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. Ordinarily, a lawsuit like this is properly filed against the Twitter user or account (like "Devin Nunes' Mom") and not Twitter itself.
Section 230 and the CDA have become the targets of growing backlash against the idea that technology companies should not be held responsible for what is published on their platforms. Technology companies have voluntarily taken steps to moderate some content, such as extremism, conspiracy theories and fake news, but most personal insults and parodies are still allowed to flourish. Section 230, however, isn't necessarily bulletproof. At least one federal court has stressed that the statute does not "create a lawless no-man's-land on the internet." That provides some basis for Nunes' claim that Twitter has been negligent in keeping its platform from being used to spread damaging statements about him. But a negligence claim against Twitter may still be precluded by the CDA. The test is whether the cause of action requires the court to treat Twitter as the publisher or speaker of content provided by another. In the meantime, one of the Twitter parody accounts that is mocking Nunes -- Devin Nunes' Cow (@DevinCow) -- has gained a lot of attention, with its followers count jumping from about 1200 followers last week to more than 615,000 followers -- and in doing so, surpassed the number of followers Devin Nunes has (about 399k).
Section 230 and the CDA have become the targets of growing backlash against the idea that technology companies should not be held responsible for what is published on their platforms. Technology companies have voluntarily taken steps to moderate some content, such as extremism, conspiracy theories and fake news, but most personal insults and parodies are still allowed to flourish. Section 230, however, isn't necessarily bulletproof. At least one federal court has stressed that the statute does not "create a lawless no-man's-land on the internet." That provides some basis for Nunes' claim that Twitter has been negligent in keeping its platform from being used to spread damaging statements about him. But a negligence claim against Twitter may still be precluded by the CDA. The test is whether the cause of action requires the court to treat Twitter as the publisher or speaker of content provided by another. In the meantime, one of the Twitter parody accounts that is mocking Nunes -- Devin Nunes' Cow (@DevinCow) -- has gained a lot of attention, with its followers count jumping from about 1200 followers last week to more than 615,000 followers -- and in doing so, surpassed the number of followers Devin Nunes has (about 399k).
$250m???? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why the hell is he still in office? (Score:1)
He's a Trump lap dog. Why did the people in his CA district vote for him in 2018? It doesn't make any fucking sense. When I see his kind of shit, I just feel like there's no hope.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
He's from an extremely Republican part of California. Anyone with a pulse and an R after their name wins.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Mooo (Score:4, Funny)
If he really thinks anyone could further inure his personal and professional reputation, he's delusional.
I don't think he intends to win (Score:1, Insightful)
The lawsuit isn't really about winning. He's trying to force Twitter's blatant hypocrisy into the spotlight. Try and create an account called "Obama's Cow" or "Hillary Clinton's Mom" and see how fast Twitter bans you.
Part of his lawsuit also contains discovery to try and force Twitter to admit that they shadowbanned him, causing his tweets not to show up in search results and causing his (and other conservative accounts) not to be capable of influencing what Twitter considers "trending." It's well known tha
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Our society cannot function when political views are actively suppressed by private entities with clear agenda. Social media has to be regulated as common carriers or we will not have any free speech left.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Social media has to be regulated as common carriers or we will not have any free speech left."
Seeing as breaking up monopolies is not something the modern GOP has ever had any interest in, best of luck with that.
Re: (Score:1)
You're absolutely right. It's high time we, the small government crowd, start petitioning the government to step in and tell companies what kind of speech is acceptable and what isn't.
Only the rightwingers silence political speech (Score:2, Insightful)
Yahoo, twitter and FB et al haven't silenced you nutjobs, Alex is still 100% free to speak, just not allowed to make someone else print his bollocks. The only ones trying to suppress political speech is nunes here (he doesn't want people talking smack about this politiician, which is political speech) and trump (he keeps bleating on about how CNN et al should be investigated and libel laws beefed up to silence "the fake news media").
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Joe Rogan interview with Dorsy and Vijaya pretty much confirmed all the conspiracy theories. Go watch it, or just watch clips/highlights if you are still skeptical.
Our society cannot function when political views are actively suppressed by private entities with clear agenda. Social media has to be regulated as common carriers or we will not have any free speech left.
So, we are go for a 24/7 hardcore pornography channel on basic cable.
That's different, is it? "Sex is evil" has been a foundational conservative position for decades, and one enshrined in the law and in corporate policy to avoid triggering conservatives. If you're going to go around crying that your Klan rallies aren't getting the coverage you want, you need to be ready to let sexual content be mainstream if you expect us to put up with it. Otherwise, you can be as happy with Klantube as us pervs are with
Re:I don't think he intends to win (Score:5, Insightful)
Tim Pool (Poole?) made the entire thing an absolute nightmare for them. Every single question he posed to them resulted in hemming, hawing, vague bullshit, and utter embarrassment.
I expected Jack to be woefully unprepared to handle anything. The top boss never has to get down to brass tacks. But the Vijaya clown's entire job is to handle that kind of situation and she was completely unprepared to do anything but expose Twitter and its leadership for what it is.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Joe Rogan interview with Dorsy and Vijaya pretty much confirmed all the conspiracy theories. Go watch it, or just watch clips/highlights if you are still skeptical.
Our society cannot function when political views are actively suppressed by private entities with clear agenda. Social media has to be regulated as common carriers or we will not have any free speech left.
Funny how that's modded flamebait. Only to those invested in censoring, maybe.
Furthermore, the Project Veritas videos of undercover interviews with Twitter employees [youtube.com] was also very revealing. I don't need to trust O'Keefe when the candid video says it all.
Re: (Score:1)
You see, the reason nobody takes people like you seriously is because you insist on getting all of your (debunked) info from exposed hucksters and convicted felons. Go study some more Q drops you lunatic.
Re: (Score:2)
Aw, you poor snowflake. You want a government-enforced safe space?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:I don't think he intends to win (Score:5, Funny)
It's well known that Twitter routinely shadowbans prominent conservatives, [...], but there's never been any real proof
I find this construction extremely amusing.
"We all know this must be true! All we gotta do is find a shred of evidence!"
Re: I don't think he intends to win (Score:1)
If you'd rather, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence. But there is no real proof. The entire point of shadowbanning is that you can't prove that it's happening, everything appears to be normal. It's really hard to definitively prove that Twitter bans certain phrases from trending and certain accounts from influencing the trends. There's definitely evidence that they do, but their explanation is that certain words become "less trend-worthy" if they're "used too much" and it's really hard to refute that
Re: (Score:2)
If you'd rather, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence
No, there really isn't. There's conservatives who believe they must be more popular that the statistics indicate, therefore it's a massive conspiracy to silence them.
The fact that there is no proof they are as popular as they believe is a problem with this theory, but the people making the claim are unable to accept they're just not that popular.
Re: (Score:2)
No proof currently means nothing
Only because you really, really want this to be true. Most people would look at the complete lack of proof as evidence that the claim is likely false.
It is difficult to have sanity on a political subject, and if anyone needs banning to me it is the left leaning comments such as in response to this fairly run of the mill event.
Most people would realize that if they need to resort to censoring those who disagree with their belief, that their belief is on a rather shaky foundation.
no need to jump to conclusions
Quoted for irony.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't you know the lack of proof is just proof of how huge the conspiracy is?!?!?!
Re:I don't think he intends to win (Score:4, Informative)
You dumb sonofabitch, there is an account called, @ObamasPetCow. It has existed since July of 2015. It has not been banned.
You could have at least checked before making an ass of yourself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
No, this particular kind of lawsuit wasn't predicted by Popper circa 1945, but it's a great example of how it works in action.
I actually think Trump's so-called free-speech executive order is a slightly more sophisticated attack on tolerance. The real idea is to make is easier for intolerant people to attack tolerance. NOT to suggest that #PresidentTweety possesses the sophistication. The executive order was probably dictated over Trump's iPhone by Steve Bannon, that poster child of intolerance.
Next amusing thought of the day: Steve King is actively campaigning for Pence's job in 2020.
By the way, there are a number of cow-related Twitter accounts you might want to follow. https://twitter.com/search?q=%... [twitter.com] is obvious, but if you search on Twitter for "DevinNunes" you'll see an entire herd of them.
Jesus H. Mother Fucking Christ, how brain-dead do you have to be to think that "progressives" are "tolerant".
Saying, "No, you don't deserve FWEEEEE STUFFFZZ!!!" isn't racist, bigoted, or intolerant.
The fact that "progressives" are so thin-skinned while being so damn easy to mock over their dreams of authoritarian, statist, forced wealth redistribution is obvious to anyone not drowning in the "progressive" Kool-aide.
You're projecting again, RWNJ. (Score:1)
Progressives are tolerant. They aren't tolerant of assholes who are intolerant of ordinary humans, though, and you aren't tolerant of being intolerated for being intolerant, yet you will only whinge about OUR intolerance to you, not yours to just about everyone else.
Make your wild accusations child, you only convince those who already want to believe that "everyone is intolerant, so mine for blacks/muzzies/lefties/ecology/science/blah is fine!". Nobody with a gram of brain will be convinced by your lame acc
Re: (Score:2)
Progressives are tolerant. They aren't tolerant of
A complete contradiction.
Re: (Score:1)
You're absolutely right. The guys who aren't shooting up mosques and black churches and mailing pipe bombs and driving into crowds of protesters are every bit as intolerant as the guys who are.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
A complete contradiction.
Well that's a might fine example of puritanical thinking there. You're either RIGHT or WRONG. There are no shades of grey. Steal food to feed your starving family? Stealing is wrong and you're going to hell to be tortured for all eternity. Murder a bunch of people? Murder is wrong and you're going to hell to be tortured for all eternity.
That's the kind of inane thinking it appears you've foud a way of applying to every day life. Go you!
Re: (Score:2)
Tolerance -
"the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behavior that one dislikes or disagrees with."
What you dislike is what is tolerated, idiot.
Progressives are Nazis in the skin of sheep but so deluded they think they are the leaders of sheep.
Re: (Score:1)
Because you're not *really* tolerant unless you let Nazis and the KKK march on your property. That is the kind of "real" tolerance the right is so hungry for, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm not "the right", I will say that *real* tolerance absolutely demands it:
https://www.aclu.org/other/acl... [aclu.org]
The problem here is that the leftists have decided that anybody right of Bernie Sanders is a hateful Nazi, so Ben Shapiro or Milo Yiannopoulos are disinvited from speaking. They're both Jews, in case you're wondering.
If we let them keep nazis and the KKK from marching, what we end up with is conservative Jews being discriminated against. I'll take the ACLU's side on this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Same reply as to the other troll. This "discussion" appears to be concluded.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this particular kind of lawsuit wasn't predicted by Popper circa 1945, but it's a great example of how it works in action.
I actually think Trump's so-called free-speech executive order is a slightly more sophisticated attack on tolerance. The real idea is to make is easier for intolerant people to attack tolerance.
Oh god not this crap again. Paradoxes are not real things. They don't exist in nature. The extent to which they appear to exist at all is underwritten by ignorance of the person considering the paradox.
Bigger issue here is "paradox" language is nothing more than an unnecessary source of confusion. This language has been used as cover for legitimizing indefensible behavior. (Antifa et el)
The concept Jefferson, KP and crew are contemplating centers on preservation of an environment where rational discours
Thank you for your additional evidence (Score:2)
Nothing you wrote actually disagrees with the Paradox of Tolerance. Possible cases:
(1) You haven't read it.
(2) You can't understand it.
(3) Both.
I have no reason to tolerate your intolerance or to recommend additional readings. This "discussion" appears to be concluded.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing you wrote actually disagrees with the Paradox of Tolerance. Possible cases:
(1) You haven't read it.
(2) You can't understand it.
(3) Both.
I have no reason to tolerate your intolerance or to recommend additional readings. This "discussion" appears to be concluded.
Again central issue WRT clumsy "paradox" language is protection of societies capacity for rational discourse. Nothing more.
Public masturbation of 969671 (Score:2)
Z^-1
Re: (Score:2)
"Fake moos" from the fake moderators, eh? Thanks for proving my point.
(I confess it took me a minute to get the joke. Think about it in the context of #PresidentTweety's great enemies of the state.)
Devin Nunes' Cow (Score:4, Funny)
This guy is a moron (Score:5, Insightful)
It never fails to see a Republican throw out all of their "supposed beliefs" to get back at someone because their little ego's are hurt.
Just like how the republicans are all for the 2nd until they see black folks with guns... but that is all good.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Ronald Reagan is a Democrat? First I've heard that.
Oh, by 150+ years ago you mean "Before the parties changed positions in the 1960s with regard to civil rights". Gotcha.
Re: (Score:3)
Ronald Reagan is a Democrat? First I've heard that.
Oh, by 150+ years ago you mean "Before the parties changed positions in the 1960s with regard to civil rights". Gotcha.
They switched in the 20's and 30's due to Prohibition and the Great Depression. Who told you it was in the 60's? Let me introduce you to Senator McCarthy of the 1950's Republican Party.
Re: (Score:1)
So you're saying that in the 50's the R's were already on the path of becoming flaming assholes? Sounds about right. Steady de-evolution of the platform and corruption of their ideals ever since? Check, makes sense.
The end of McCarthyism was at the same time as the start of the D's being for civil rights of people over corporations, but had nothing to do with it. Lean some history, dumbfuck.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that in the 50's the R's were already on the path of becoming flaming assholes? Sounds about right. Steady de-evolution of the platform and corruption of their ideals ever since? Check, makes sense.
The end of McCarthyism was at the same time as the start of the D's being for civil rights of people over corporations, but had nothing to do with it. Lean some history, dumbfuck.
So what about FDR? 0 for 2. You are just wrong and whoever told you this either is an idiot or such a ideologue that you should stop taking them seriously. SJWs are not that important historically speaking, just quit while you are ahead.
Re: This guy is a moron (Score:2)
I would ask Jesse Helms about the switch in the 60s, but hes been dead for a while.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, the democrats are trying to take guns from everyone and are not hypocritical about it... except the politicians running around being protected by guns. The republicans are totally hypocritical about guns depending on who has them!
But the NRA & Republicans are anti-gun when it suits their politics. Regan was the first big republican to do this, Trump even banned bump stocks, another republican. But notice how neither side really seems to care for a single person to be able to ban something without
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am a progressive now? Stop acting like the other butt hurt knobs that keep assuming I am something I am not just because I don't spout your BS rhetoric!
I agree Mueller is on a witch hunt, but only because he targets Trump. Truth be told a lot more folks need to be investigate like Hillary right there along with Trump.
Here is how you know you are no different.
Republicans would cheer Hillary being railroaded to jail without due process.
Democrats would cheer Trump being railroaded to jail without due proce
Re: (Score:3)
Hillary was investigated for more than 2 years. Indictements/plea deals/convictions = 0
Interestingly enough, all of the clamor about Hillary died off pretty much immediately when Trump was elected (other than when Trump needs to throw a bone to his most rabid and gullible base), reinforcing to anyone with at least one active brain cell alive, that the entire Hillary investigation was about nothing other than damaging her ability to be elected... which was admitted to
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, yes. We can't have a thorough investigation of the President or his associates for doing a lot of suspicious things. You know, trying to pursue justice. If Trump is eventually nailed over something trivial like jaywalking, I'll agree with you. So long as 99% of the hate is merely political, then it's just the usual bullshit of people (usually "the other side") attacking people in power. Of all people, they're not some sort of special snowflake that needs extra special protection of their ego.
Meanwh
Re: (Score:1)
And there's been a fuck all shit ton of witches found so far. When did "republican" become synonymous with "criminal?"
Dummy... (Score:1)
I don't use Twitter (Score:5, Insightful)
...and still my impression of him is that his head is planted firmly up his ass. I think that impression comes from hearing him speak. Could it be that he really is a fucking moron and that Twitter just exposed him for what he really is?
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, his head is stuck up Trump's ass. Don't you recall him chairing the House committee that couldn't see anything wrong with anything Trump did so there was no need for oversight? Hell, he even had a sneaky at-night meeting in the bushes on the White House lawn so they could give him his marching orders. Slime doesn't even begin to accurately characterize him.
Re: (Score:3)
No, Twitter wants to have its cake and eat it too. So does the leftists that wish to argue that the activity of foreign actors on the site lead to election interference, who then go on to claim it's a private company and Twitter can do whatever they want. It never occurs to them (or maybe it does and they are just utterly disingenuous) that this interference would logically work both ways.
This is the crux of the matter, not that Nunes may be a 'fucking moron'. That such uninformative drivel could be modded
Destroy democracy (Score:1)
Unfortunately most conservatives are pathetic delicate flowers that can’t take a joke. Look at Trump when we talk about his little fingers and
Re: Destroy democracy (Score:2)
Seems more like an attack on Twatter's hypocrisy.
Either they can be a common carrier, with free speech for all. Or they can be a publisher, censor whomever they feel like, and take full legal responsibility for the "approved" Twats they allow to be published on their definitely-not-free-speech platform.
Utter nonsense. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He's not trying to win (Score:5, Insightful)
For anyone who remembers what came out about MSNBC and Bernie [google.com] after 2016, or pays attention to the coverage of him now vs the establishment candidates like Beto, Biden & Harris, or remembers when the media closed ranks to promote the Iraq War or the 2008 Bank Bailout you know the media's bias is hard right when it counts: economics.
Hell, the media was center-right on Gay Marriage until around 2014 or so. Go watch them grill Bernie on Medicare for All while giving Biden a pass on his attacks on Social Security [youtube.com]. All this before Sinclair media [youtube.com] bought out every local TV station.
And we shouldn't be surprised about the media's biases when it comes to the economy or the stuff that really matters. Look at who owns them. Always, always, always follow the money.
Re: (Score:2)
What would make you type those words? (Score:3)
Beto's been overwhelmingly right win in his votes. He's a "New" Democrat, aka a Clinton Democrat. Just like Biden he "reaches across the isle", which is to say he votes with the GOP 80% of the time.
If that's what you want find. But please do go to the polls thinking your voting for a lefty or even a centrist. Beto is very much right wing, and it's only the crazy shifts in the Overton window that make him appear to be anythi
"Conservatives" (Score:1)
Can we please stop calling Republicans that? Republicans being right-of-center is so pre-2016. These are the guys who had the presidency and control of both houses, and are still giving us the biggest deficit ever. These are the guys who tax imports, deport immigrants, and anything else they can think of for government to act against free markets. "FUCK FREE MARKETS" is basically what got Trump elected, and Nunes did everything he could to protect the president from law enforcement and congressional oversig
Re: (Score:2)
They don't even resemble conservatives. They're on the left.
"Conservative" is one branch of right-wing politics. It's not the only one. These folks are on the right too, they're just not in the "conservative" part.
They definitely are not left-wing. None of their policies fit any of the branches there.
Re: (Score:2)
Snowflakes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's hilarious how those on the "right" are constantly going on about "snowflakes" and "safe spaces"
Go post a "ok to be white" flyer to your campus bulletin board, or maybe an image of the green Pepe frog. We'll wait.
their representatives like Trump and his minions like Nunes are the biggest collection of whiny, thin-skinned tantrumming snowflakes around.
I fully recall when criticizing POTUS, the attorney general, or the secretary of state, inevitably lead to accusations of racism, of bigotry, or misogyny. It doesn't seem like it was all that long ago.
The only thing hilarious is the utter lack of self awareness on display, and the same kind of insufferable behavior that helped Trump get elected. You just don't seem to learn, and I guess I'm o
For those wondering, "Why a cow?" (Score:4, Informative)
Nunes is from a family that primarily made it's money by ranching. And then real estate.
Part of Nunes campaign's tactics were to refer to that ranching history, in an attempt to make him more "down home" and "regular working-class guy".
The cows were shipped to Iowa many years ago. Nunes has about as much connection to living, breathing cattle as Theresa May does.
Re: (Score:2)
Nunes is from a family that primarily made it's money by ranching.....The cows were shipped to Iowa many years ago. Nunes has about as much connection to living, breathing cattle as Theresa May does.
But that hasn't stopped Nunez from collecting millions in federal agriculture subsidies for cattle he doesn't even own. Maybe the department of agriculture should count Nunez's cattle. We could all help him out, by dressing in cow suits and grazing near his home.
Re: (Score:2)
May as well sue Samsung.. (Score:3)
He better not turn on his TV, he'll find the late-night shows are all having a good laugh about this too...suing Twitter in this way makes about as much sense as suing his TV manufacturer for 'providing' similar commentary.
Re: (Score:2)
While lawsuit is unlikely to succeed due to Nunes being public figure, the merits of it are much closer to suing a tabloid for spreading false news.
This is udderly fascinating (Score:2)
Moo.
Re: (Score:1)
Please post a single link to a verified account calling for violent assault on the Covington teens. Not merely disagreement, actual violent assault.
I'm going to guess that the lack of arrests made (you know that encouraging violence is illegal, right?) means you're another stupid right winger who has no idea what's going on in Twitter (clue: it's more white s
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.bing.com/search?q=... [bing.com]
Enjoy.
Re: (Score:2)
I keep track of this pretty closely. It seems about 80% of violent rhetoric is from the Right. Often it is disguised somewhat as a joke. For example, congressman Steve King "joking" about a civil war and who has all the guns if there was one.
If I were looking for this kind of crap to shadow ban, who would get hit more? Conservatives or liberals? Why yes, it would look kind of biased, because one side can't seem to win in a fair election....thinks it is OK to start shooting to remedy that.
Maybe things look b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
we can enforce and change the ToS as we see fit, pray we don't change it further" doesn't stand up in a court of law in the rest of the country
I like how you think the right to free association does not exist in "the rest of the country"