Section 230 Doesn’t Protect Quote-Tweeting–US Dominion v. Byrne
I’ll focus on just one piece of the lawsuit. Byrne quote-tweeted a story about Dominion’s equipment allegedly being hacked with the following remarks from him: “I vouch for this. I have seen the photographs, the computer forensics,
the IP traces back to China. To a corporation whose name has long been linked to CP: Exam Indicates Georgia Tabulating Machine Sent Results to China.” Byrne claimed Section 230 protection for the quote-tweet. (Remember, Trump tried several times to repeal Section 230, but I guess #MAGA defendants still like it until they finish it off?) The court says simply:
While § 230 may provide immunity for someone who merely shares a link on Twitter [cite to Roca v. Opinion], it does not immunize someone for making additional remarks that are allegedly defamatory [cite to La Liberte v. Reid]. Here, Byrne stated that he “vouch[ed] for” the evidence proving that Dominion had a connection to China. Byrne’s alleged statements accompanying the retweet therefore fall outside the ambit of § 230 immunity.
Case citation: U.S. Dominion v. Byrne, 2022 WL 1165935 (D.D.C. April 20, 2020)
Related Posts
- Section 230 Protects Hyperlinks in #MeToo “Whisper Network”–Comyack v. Giannella
- Hyperlinking to Sources Can Help Defeat Defamation Claims–Adelson v. Harris
- Courtney Love Defeats Twibel Claims–Holmes v. Love
- Section 230 Doesn’t Protect Email Forwarding of Screenshotted Tweets?–Maxfield v. Maxfield
- Another Court Says It’s OK To Link To Defamatory Content–Slozer v. Slattery
- No Liability for Linking to Defamatory Content–Life Designs Ranch v. Sommer
- Linking to Defamatory Content Protected by Section 230—Vazquez v. Buhl
- Another Case Says No Liability for Linking to Allegedly Defamatory Content, Plus a Recap (Guest Blog Post)