Fields v. Twitter, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2333 (Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019) · 18 U.S.C. § 2339 (§ 803 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001) · 18 U.S.C. § 2339A (§ 120005 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 2339B (§ 303 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 47 U.S.C. § 230 (Communications Decency Act § 230)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Rafael Navarro v. Sherman Block · Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance · Batzel v. Smith
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“by itself, shields from liability all publication decisions, whether to edit, to remove, or to post, with respect to content generated entirely by third parties. " (Emphasis supplied.) Id. at 1105 (III) (C). In Fields , supra, family members of a government contractor killed by a terrorist organization sued Twitter, alleging that it violated the Anti-Terrorism Act by permitting members of terrorist organizations to sign up for accounts. Id. at 1118 . The court in Fields , supra, noted that "the decision to furnish an account, or prohibit a particular user from obtaining an account, is itself publishing activity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[a] policy that selectively prohibits ISIS members from opening accounts would necessarily be content based as Twitter could not possibly identify ISIS members without analyzing some speech, idea or content expressed by the would-be account holder: i.e., 'I am associated with ISIS.' " Id . Like the plaintiffs in Fields , Plaintiffs in this case attempt to penalize a publishing decision by imposing liability on Google for failing to prevent ISIS followers from using YouTube. The alleged wrongdoing challenged by Plaintiffs is "the decision to permit third parties to post content.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“decisions to structure and operate itself as a 'platform ... allow[ing] for the freedom of expression of hundreds [of] millions of people around the world,' and, through its hands-off policy, allowing [a terrorist group] to obtain 'dozens of accounts on its social network' 'reflect choices about what [third-party] content can appear on [Twitter] and in what form.' " (internal quotation marks and citations omitted; alterations in original) ). Plaintiffs' new allegations that these policies allow users to join Facebook's platform and to "self-publish”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.