How CNN’s interview with Osama bin Laden became Supreme Court Big Tech flashpoint
Kaelan Deese
Video Embed
Allegations that Twitter‘s hosting of unrelated content on its platform contributed to an Islamic State terrorist attack prompted Supreme Court justices to ask parties on Wednesday about what liability a business would have for dealing with Osama bin Laden.
The Supreme Court was deliberating the scope of two anti-terrorism statutes after plaintiffs alleged the Big Tech platform contributed to a 2017 ISIS attack in Istanbul by hosting content not directly related to the specific incident. The core of the issue is whether a family’s claims sufficiently allege Twitter knowingly provided “substantial assistance” to a terrorism act that would allow relatives of those killed in the attacks to seek damages under U.S. anti-terrorism law.
At one point, Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed skepticism over the scope of the statutes, which are the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, in their application to the plaintiff’s in the case. He pointed to CNN’s 1997 interview of then-leader of al Qaeda Osama bin Laden.
SUPREME COURT COULD BROADEN SOCIAL MEDIA LIABILITIES UNDER ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS
“Could, under your theory … CNN have been sued for aiding and abetting the September 11th attacks?” Kavanaugh asked Eric Schnapper, a University of Washington law professor who represented the plaintiffs, saying the video became a “famous tool for recruiting” into the terrorist organization.
Schnapper suggested CNN’s interview would not meet the conditions under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act text and stated that the First Amendment might protect the outlet for its interview.
“I think the First Amendment would solve that problem,” Schnapper said.
At one point, Justice Elena Kagan brought up bin Laden in a hypothetical to the Justice Department’s Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler, asking about a bank that offered services to a known terrorist that were the same services provided to nonterrorist clients. Kneedler answered that in that scenario, the bank could be sued under the anti-terrorism law.
The case argued Wednesday, Twitter v. Taamneh, arose after an ISIS terrorist opened fire at a nightclub in Istanbul in 2017. The shooting killed 39 people, including Nawras Alassaf. Alassaf’s family filed a suit against Twitter, Meta, and YouTube, alleging that they had aided and abetted in recruiting and promoting ISIS causes to the public.
The responses of some high court justices signaled they may think Twitter should bear some responsibility for indirectly supporting ISIS, even though the company is not directly responsible for the attack that led to the case.
“How specific must the knowledge be?” Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Twitter’s lead counsel, Seth Waxman, on Wednesday, saying there “must be” a range between aiding an enterprise and knowing the specific time, date and location of the violent act.
But Barrett was blunt about Twitter’s need to address and confront terrorists or violent organizations using its platform.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“If you know ISIS is using it, you know ISIS is going to be doing bad things, you know ISIS is going to be committing acts of terrorism,” Barrett added.
The Washington Examiner reached out to CNN for response.