President Trump’s executive order taking aim at Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is just the most recent in a long line of proposals from both sides of the aisle to potentially limit the statute’s broad scope.
Zoe Bedell is an attorney in the Washington, D.C., office of the law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP. Her practice focuses on complex commercial litigation, as well as privacy and technology issues. Before joining the firm, Zoe clerked for Justice Elena Kagan of the U.S. Supreme Court and for then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Zoe received her J.D. from Harvard Law School, magna cum laude. Prior to law school, Zoe served as an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps, deploying twice to Afghanistan, and worked at an investment bank for two years.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
The last few months have seen a spree of lawsuits filed against social media companies for allegedly providing material support to terrorists groups, particularly ISIS, by effectively allowing those groups to use their systems.
As I write this, British voters are deciding a referendum on “Brexit,” Britain’s potential exit from the European Union. By the time you read it, we might know how the the electorate went. Over the last few weeks leading up to the vote, you’ve undoubtedly read articles warning of dire consequences, either of staying or leaving.
Today is the second day of this set of commission hearings. Bin’Attash and al Hawsawi are not present, though KSM, Binalshibh, and Ali are. Also present are all of yesterday’s defense counsel; apparently Bin’Attash decided not to fire his (female) attorney.
Last week, Google announced it was appealing the French data authority’s decision to fine Google for refusing to delete links globally. With the right to be forgotten (RTBF) debate thus back in the news, this post takes the opportunity to map the lay of the land to date.
The Extraterritoriality Dispute
Tweeting Terrorists, Part III: How Would Twitter Defend Itself Against a Material Support Prosecution?
In Part I of this series, we listed the many designated foreign terrorist organizations (DFTOs) that seem to have overt Twitter accounts.
Tweeting Terrorists, Part II: Does it Violate the Law for Twitter to Let Terrorist Groups Have Accounts?
In the first part of this series, we noted the rather large number of designated foreign terrorist organizations that seem to have open Twitter presences, and we posed the following questions: Is Twitter openly violating the material support law by providing services to these organizations? And if so, does the Constitution preclude deploying that law against the company for activity that bears some significant relationship to publication?