Seems to be a valid prima facie claim of defamation, it's about time that social media to be held accountable. The trick will be overcoming the Section 230 barrier.
Typically, the passive nature of a website bars defamation lawsuits. The plaintiff will have to show that Twitter stepped outside of the traditional editorial function of removing user-submitted content. The plaintiff will accordingly argue that Twitter's publishing of its reasoning, i.e., the defendant is a hacker, constituted a second, non-traditional function, more akin to a user function, and thus outside of the scope of 230. It'll be interesting to see how this turns out, it could open the door to more lawsuits against Twitter.
Seems to be a valid prima facie claim of defamation, it's about time that social media to be held accountable. The trick will be overcoming the Section 230 barrier.
Typically, the passive nature of a website bars defamation lawsuits. The plaintiff will have to show that Twitter stepped outside of the traditional editorial function of removing user-submitted content. The plaintiff will accordingly argue that Twitter's publishing of its reasoning, i.e., the defendant is a hacker, constituted a second, non-traditional function, more akin to a user function, and thus outside of the scope of 230. It'll be interesting to see how this turns out, it could open the door to more lawsuits against Twitter.
The fucker they posted this banned me here, hypocrisy at its finest these right wing nozzles crying censorship.