Nunes sues Twitter, some users, seeks over $250M alleging anti-conservative 'shadow bans,' smears
California GOP Rep. Devin Nunes filed a major lawsuit seeking $250 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages against Twitter and a handful of its users on Monday, accusing the social media site of "shadow-banning conservatives" including himself to influence the 2018 elections, explicitly and systematically censoring opposing viewpoints and "ignoring" lawful complaints of repeated abusive behavior.
In a complaint filed in Virginia state court on Monday, Nunes said Twitter was guilty of "knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly abusive, hateful and defamatory – providing both a voice and financial incentive to the defamers – thereby facilitating defamation on its platform."
Although federal law ordinarily exempts services like Twitter from defamation liability, Nunes' suit said the platform has taken such an active role in curating and banning content that it should lose that protection and face liability like any other organization that defames.
"Twitter created and developed the content at issue in this case by transforming false accusations of criminal conduct, imputed wrongdoing, dishonesty and lack of integrity into a publicly available commodity used by unscrupulous political operatives and their donor/clients as a weapon," Nunes' legal team wrote.
In large part because of Twitter's actions, Nunes "endured an orchestrated defamation campaign of stunning breadth and scope, one that no human being should ever have to bear and suffer in their whole life" in the past year, according to the complaint.
The complaint also named specific Twitter accounts that spread allegedly defamatory material about Nunes. One defendant, identified as "Liz" Mair, purportedly published tweets that "implied that Nunes colluded with prostitutes and cocaine addicts, that Nunes does cocaine, and that Nunes was involved in a 'Russian money laundering front,'" according to Nunes' lawyers. They specifically quoted a June 22, 2018 tweet that implied Nunes invested in a winery that "allegedly used underage hookers to solicit investment."
Mair did not respond to Fox News' request for comment. Fox News has also reached out to Twitter for comment on the lawsuit, but did not receive an immediate reply.
The complaint also names "Devin Nunes’ Mom," "a person who, with Twitter’s consent, hijacked Nunes’ name, falsely impersonated Nunes’ mother, and created and maintained an account on Twitter (@DevinNunesMom) for the sole purpose of attacking, defaming, disparaging and demeaning Nunes," according to the complaint.
"In her endless barrage of tweets, Devin Nunes’ Mom maliciously attacked every aspect of Nunes’ character, honesty, integrity, ethics and fitness to perform his duties as a United States Congressman," Nunes' lawyers wrote.
As of Monday afternoon, the DevinNunesMom account was suspended by Twitter when Fox News tried to access it. The complaint stated that "Twitter only suspended the account in 2019 after Nunes’ real mother, Toni Dian Nunes, complained. ... Twitter permitted @DevinNunesMom, for instance, to tweet and retweet with impunity throughout 2018."
However, according to the complaint, "Twitter did nothing to investigate or review the defamation that appeared in plain view on its platform. Twitter consciously allowed the defamation of Nunes to continue. As part of its agenda to squelch Nunes’ voice, cause him extreme pain and suffering, influence the 2018 Congressional election, and distract, intimidate and interfere with Nunes’ investigation into corruption and Russian involvement in the 2016 Presidential Election, Twitter did absolutely nothing."
The complaint also charged that Twitter "shadow-banned" Nunes in 2018 "in order to restrict his free speech and to amplify the abusive and hateful content published and republished by Mair, Devin Nunes’ Mom," and other accounts.
"The shadow-banning was intentional," the complaint continued. "It was calculated to interfere with and influence the federal election and interfere with Nunes’ ongoing investigation as a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Twitter’s actions affected the election results. The combination of the shadow-ban and Twitter’s refusal to enforce its Terms and Rules in the face of clear and present abuse and hateful conduct caused Nunes to lose support amongst voters."
The lawsuit cited numerous media reports, including a Vice News story from last summer , reporting that Twitter had, for a time, downplayed the visibility of prominent conservatives in its search results.
On Monday, Sean Davis, the managing editor of The Federalist, wrote that he had recently been the apparent victim of a form of shadow-banning on Twitter.
"Twitter gave me no notice or explanation when it shadowbanned one of my Tweets about Russian interference in our elections," Davis wrote. "But what's worse is how Twitter apparently gives its users the fraudulent impression that their tweets, which Twitter secretly bans, are still public."
Davis charged that Twitter "claimed in its e-mail to me that it 'mistakenly remove[d]' a completely anodyne tweet about public congressional testimony, but didn't explain why it left the tweet--and metrics showing no engagement--visible to me when logged in. Is conning users a bug, or a feature?"
Now tell me, who are the snowflakes again?
Hmmm, the same amount that kid's family is suing CNN for? See how far it gets you turd!
How is this different than the squealing that went on about Facebook after the 2016 elections?
Now there is the question that dosen't get answered
Was there another $250 Million court suit that we all missed? If not, that may be the difference you're looking for.
Many questions like that don't merit an answer.
Meh. We did have 2 years worth of congressional hearings, and now we're talking about government regulation of FB.
Keep in mind, whatever the settlement is, it won't be $250m. Also, we're talking about very big companies with very big revenues. $250m wouldn't hurt very much even if it did happen.
The hearings were more about how foreign companies, countries, individuals, use bots and social media to sway political opinion, thus maybe an election.
Facebook took it upon themselves to try to delete fake/bot accounts.
If one wants to compare the two, I would say that Nunes is upset that the practice is trying to be negated.
You know the seed is about Nunes suing Twitter right?
Nunes' suit is ridiculous. I hope he ends up paying their legal fees.
And your point is that the suit is ridiculous.
My point is that your point is simply an expression of your well-documented identity politics. If this was a Democrat suing, you'd be supporting it.
Why? Why is FB somehow supposed to be responsible for content that gets broadcast through their system and Twitter somehow isn't? The biggest difference seems to be that one complaint involved messaging working against Democrats and the other involves messaging working against Republicans, of course.
Unsurprisingly, you assume too much. If a Democrat was suing on the same basis as Nunes, I'd laugh him/her out of the party.
Well based on Nunes' filing, which I'm sure that you've READ, much like Trump, Nunes seems to lack a basic understanding of libel law, especially when it comes to PARODY. Maybe Nunes' lawyers should have done a little research on the subject before writing an utterly ridiculous filing.
Secondly, Nunes cited Liz Mair, who has 1st Amendment rights equal to Nunes and Trump for that matter. The majority of the issues with FB has been bots, unnamed or clandestine accounts. It's pretty fucking obvious that Liz Mair's account doesn't qualify as such.
If Trump can spew his ad nauseam attacks on anyone and everyone who he perceives as a threat, even the dead, Liz Mair has every right to do so too.
So unless and until Nunes demands that Trump be censored for his vitriol, he can go pound sand.
Nope.
Both FB and Twitter should be responsible for some content, but not if it just that the content hurts someone's feelings. The people that Trump insults, lies about, and demeans on Twitter cannot sue him, why should they be allowed to sue Twitter?
Riiiiiiiight. Given your post history, how could I have ever questioned your impartiality?
You're claiming your experience with libel law is more reliable than a highly paid team of experienced lawyers. Out of curiosity, does this amazing expertise extend to any other fields? Are you expert enough to know what Jon Gruden needs to do to revive the Raiders? Are you ready to advise the board of GE on how to turn around a faltering industrial giant? Maybe you should have lent Hillary some of this vast knowledge back in 2016 and saved her all that embarrassment.
Accusing someone of child prostitution and cocaine dealing? Good luck with that.
So the best you can really manage is "it's totally wrong but Trump does it, too".
The suit specifically describes Twitter not adhering to their own published rules.
Is that what you were questioning Jack?
What lead you to that conclusion?
Supercilious claptrap.
So you're saying that Clinton should be suing twitter for the whole child prostitution ring in the Pizza parlor basement thingy?
How about Obama suing twitter for Trump's wiretapping lie?
HOW is twitter libel for the content of Liz Mair's twitter feed?
I can manage much more but doubt you're worthy of the effort.
Suffice it to say that perhaps Nunes should grow a pair and address Liz Mair mano a mano.
The other 'defendants' are non-starters and anyone who is old enough to remember Hustler v Farwell knows that.
What the suit describes are Nunes' interpretation of Twitter's rules. Nunes ASSUMES that the rules outlaw defamation, they do not.
The irony that both you and Nunes seem to ignore is that were Nunes held to the SAME standard that he wants twitter to be held to, HE could be sued for defamation against Hillary Clinton based on his own twitter feed. I'm pretty sure that Nunes' feed will be scrutinized and a plethora of his own tweets will be labeled as defamation.
Nunes makes some pretty broad assumptions of twitter's 'motives', none of which he seems to support with evidence. He actually claims that the parody sites were somehow 'impersonating' him. Or maybe he's claiming that they were impersonating his cow, hard to tell from his ridiculous filing.
Plaintiff's attorneys usually work on a percentage of the settlement. They do not accept cases they don't think will be profitable.
Not enough people use the word "supercilious" these days. Or claptrap. Well done.
If either believes they can prove that they were harmed and Twitter violated or abridged their own terms of use...then yes...absolutely.
I think the word you're looking for is "liable" (they can be held "liable" for the "libel" on the site), but the accountability of internet platforms with regard to the content they host is a well established legal principle. You may have heard of "Napster" or "Kim Dotcom".
Twitter, Facebook, et al have Terms of Use agreements that everyone accepts without reading when they set up their account. If the owners of the platform fail to enforce the terms of use and people are harmed, they can be held liable.
They specifically prohibit abuse, harassment, and impersonation.
I'm sure you don't think so. I'm also sure the Jack Dorsey could stab him in the eye with a flathead screwdriver and you would struggle to find anything wrong with it.
Or his mother.
WTF does that have to do with your claim? Hint: nothing.
It would behoove you to recognize that there is a HUGE difference between defamation and theft of intellectual property.
Kim Dotcom what a criminal enterprise. Again, a false equivalency.
Actually, Twitter's Terms of Service states clearly:
*eyeroll*
Again, your committed, dogged refusal to see anyone's view but your own prevails. Again. And again. And again.
I'm sure you are desperate to believe so. I'm sure you are absolutely never, ever, ever going to admit that your initial knee jerk emotional biased reaction is not the absolute law of the land. But the fact remains that people have lost significant court cases based on content they hosted.
It clearly states:
Abuse: You may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so.
and
You may not impersonate individuals, groups, or organizations in a manner that is intended to or does mislead, confuse, or deceive others.
So we'll see. Some very high powered lawyers on both sides are going to make some very persuasive arguments, and the implications of the case are extraordinary.
YOU said:
That's not a question, that's a statement. YOU made an unfounded allegation. I asked you:
And instead of giving me a cogent answer, you blathered some bullshit about legal fees and posted the revelation that lawyers work for profit. In short, you deflected.
So what fucking 'view' are do you claim that I'm refusing to see Jack?
Again, your assumption is wrong.
More supercilious claptrap. Well done.
The fact remains that you've already cited 2, neither of which is relevant. I've already shot both of them down.
Conversely, I cited the precedent setting court case ruling on parodies of public figures.
How about instead of devolving to personal comments, you cite a case that actually relates to a host being held liable for defaming content posted by a user?
Perhaps you are unaware that twitter allows the account holder to block people AND to close down an account. Nunes should have used those tools to mitigate his 'distress'.
I READ his filing, I KNOW so.
You're also wrong AGAIN. You are commenting on what you think about ME instead of the LAW. Try harder...
BTFW, I could not care less about Jack Dorsey. Hell, I had to look him up.
The basis of the Hustler v. Farwell ruling is:
Nunes will have to PROVE that reasonable people who were exposed to the tweets believed that the depicted facts were true. Nunes being butthurt won't cut it...
NOT GONNA HAPPEN
'What the suit describes are Nunes' interpretation of Twitter's rules. Nunes ASSUMES that the rules outlaw defamation, they do not.'
Wasn't one of the tweets that Nunes' was Rump's little bitch?
It's not defamation when it's true.
Well now that it's in all caps, I agree completely....
THEY MADE FUN OF ME ON TWITTER! I'M SUING!
The gop just keeps on getting smaller and smaller and smaller. So, um, pathetic...
How sad is it that an acting member of congress is suing a company because he is butthurt.
Pathetic is correct.
I don't know how anyone can respect these people. They dish out the hate but can't take the scrutiny that comes with the job. Maybe Putin will step in.
Nunes is lining up some 'attorney money?' Better yet, call the Trump, maybe he can set you up with a Saudi loan.
Besides Mr. Nunes, being a cowardly lying weasel are 'piss poor' credentials for being a 'so called' conservative.
Cry baby cry.
"extreme pain and suffering"?????
Really, Mr. Nunes?
How dare he!
Who does he think he is, a Democrat?!!!!
Yeah, ride that nag and see how far it gets you.
Why ride anything at all?
You're debating with Harry Houdini of the internet...just disappears.
Meh fuck him. Don't say dumb shit on social media, problem solved.
I doubt that Nunes, being the mental defective that he is, recognizes that were Twitter be held to the standard that he wants to set for it, hundreds of people could sue Trump for his tweets.
Seriously, Trump perpetrates every one of the actions Nunes decries on an almost daily basis.
"the first of many"... shades of Sandman.
And yet Devin Nunes continues to have 2 Twitter accounts.....
""the first of many"... shades of Sandman."
I don't know if Nunes has an actual case but Sandmann certainly does. There's a world of difference between a politician who puts himself in the public sphere and a minor who passively stands still will being mocked and provoked with hate speech and threatened by a proven liar. The "adults" at WaPo and CNN should've known better than to vilify and encourage hate on an innocent bystander.
Ok, I'll grant you that there's a slight difference between the 2 suits, but not the outrageous amounts.
But tell me, who mocked a minor and provoked him with hate speech? What would that person's being a proven liar have to do with anything at all?
Besides, an "innocent bystander" was not forced to "stand his ground" was he? He had other choices, right?
I agree with the shades of sandman for the fact that it is a coordinated effort.
This seems to be a tactic of some republican operatives.
The people who provoked him were the Black Hebrew Israelites or whatever they call themselves who were hurling racial and gay slurs at not just the kids but even the Native American groups. The proven liar was Nathan Phillips who contradicted himself over and over. And no, Sandmann has every right to stand his ground. Americans do not have to flee and live in fear in the face of hate and bigotry.
In case you've forgotten here's a sample of the vitriol he had to face and even liberals condemning the biased media coverage in the video above.
What coordinated attack? Unless you mean the media deliberately did not do its job in researching the incident. The whole video that told the true story was readily available. Any competent journalist could've easily found it. At best it was gross negligence and shoddy work on the part of the media, at worst it was coordinated character assassination, hence the lawsuits.
Do you think this kid and his family have the ability to do all this on their own?
There are backers and people coordinating all of it.
This is the age of the internet and smart phones, anonymous keyboard warriors and people who post anonymous you tube films.
Can he sue Nathan Phillips for anything, no.
Can he sue the Black Hebrews for bad behavior, no.
Should he be suing anyone over the filming of his own behavior, maybe, but it isn't CNN or WAPO.
Like I said, he had ample opportunity to turn aside or walk away. That wasn't the media's decision.
Gotta love the new mentality. Don't like the outcome of a situation...sue.
What situation?
Phillips doesn't have an international platform with any journalistic ethics to uphold and I seriously doubt the Black Hebrews even have a source of income. Sandmann had absolutely no obligation to walk away. It's not about the filming or the online trolling from regular people either. It's about media groups with the ability to trash a person's reputation and job opportunities with reckless slander and malice. CNN and WaPo are guilty of journalistic malpractice. That's why WaPo at least gave a belated retraction over a month later. They know they screwed up.
Yup! Agreed!
He was never threatened. He was in no way defamed. His family hired a team of spin doctors and they're going to sue, sue, sue, and sue some more. It won't go anywhere.
NOPE
If Sandmann wasn't threatened by having Philips get in his face then Philips wasn't threatened in the original fake version of the story. You can't have it both ways.
The "spin doctors" as you call them include the attorney who represented Richard Jewell in the suit against NBC on the 96 Atlanta Olympics bombing coverage. NBC paid out and my guess is so will WaPo and CNN. If they don't I'll enjoy watching them squirm in court.
He wasn't threatened or harrassed in the slightest by Mr. Phillips.
Spin doctors. Frivolous lawsuit.
The little turd was taunted by those black israelites or whoever the hell they were.
The suit won't go anywhere. It's frivolous. 250 million? GTFOOH!
I don't recall anyone claiming Philips was "threatened" by Sandmann. I do recall people calling Sandmann a smug little racist shit, which regardless of the initial taunting by the black Hebrews, would still be the conclusion many have about Sandmann after watching him react to Philips.
Media, anywhere, even a small town newspaper, is like a magnifying glass. If you get "featured" people are going to have opinions and it's very unlikely everyone will draw the same conclusions. It seems here, Nunes, and other thin skinned conservatives, are trying to blame the media for printing stories about them that other people then express opinions about on the new social media of today which are just the new gossip rings. They also don't appear to know the difference between someone expressing an opinion and someone slandering or libeling them. If a story comes out about Nunes, or a video is shown of Sandmann, that is not libelous unless it contains actual false statements about them. Calling Nunes "Trumps whipping boy" or the white houses "little bitch" are just opinions formed after hearing the media stories and drawing your own conclusion. Twitter allows people to share their opinions, and calling someone names is protected speech and something these snowflake conservatives hero Donald Trump does all the time.
These cases will be thrown out, but I think that may have been their intent all along, to create more aggrieved conservatives who imagine the world, including the courts, is tilted against them when in reality they're the ones walking around with their heads cocked to one side.
The way they have been packing the courts, I know wonder how some of these would go.
"I don't recall anyone claiming Philips was "threatened" by Sandmann. I do recall people calling Sandmann a smug little racist shit, which regardless of the initial taunting by the black Hebrews, would still be the conclusion many have about Sandmann after watching him react to Philips."
The only people still calling Sandmann racist after watching the full video must be ones with a lot of hate in their hearts or a chronic case of TDS. It was a blatant case of journalistic malpractice.
I'll agree the Nunes case won't go anywhere but I seriously doubt he filed it thinking it would. That was most likely a way to draw attention to Twitter and their practices. But as long as conservatives keep using Twitter while complaining nothing will change. It's like Occupy Wallstreet pushing against the 1% while drinking coffee at Starbucks and using their I phones,
'Devin Nunes’ Cow' mooves past Devin Nunes in Twitter followers less than 2 days after lawsuit
Devin Nunes Cow now has 401,000 followers, topping the congressman's 394,500 followers.
Talk about unintended consequences !!
When the Judge calls you a ''snowflake'' you know that there is nothing brass about you...
Amusing you would come to this conclusion. What was it that inspired this gem of perception for such a thought? Do you know their families?
Actually he did. That property was permitted to the original Americans for their private use, not as a bus stop for a bunch of students.
Being youths, I wouldn't expect them to be abreast of those details. And since there obviously was a lack of proper adult supervision this situation got worse and became the scandal du jour for the right because the woman hating indoctrinators were spread too thin allowing a smug teenager to think he's 10 feet tall.
When he grows up and finds some compassion, the passing of this elder before he could learn to speak as man instead as a political prop will haunt him until his passing.
But by that time both will long be forgotten by self centered pricks that continue to make hay and sew hate. Those guys, they just disappear when responsibility for their input or facts come calling.
"Amusing you would come to this conclusion. What was it that inspired this gem of perception for such a thought? Do you know their families?"
Why would I want to get to know the families of bigots? These idiots were calling the Covington kids "faggots" and the Native Americans "Uncle Tomahawks". I'm sure they're just as unemployable as the neo Nazis in Charlottesville since they are all like minded bigots and thugs.
Going to a pro life rally doesn't make them women haters anymore than pro choice rallies are full of baby killers. It's the extremist nonsense like that which keeps the country divided.
The last I checked the Lincoln Memorial was available to everybody. The kids were under no obligation to move. The "elder" that lied repeatedly about his behavior deserves no more respect than any other liar who lies about his military record and the details of the incident. That whole event proved who has hate and prejudice and its wasn't the kids.
Devin Nunes Cow, 586K followers, and growing.
DeveinNunesMom account previously deleted by Twitter at the request of the actual Mrs.Nunes
has been replaced by Devin Nunes Alt-Mom.
American ingenuity at it's best.
Meanwhile someone dug up a clip of Nunes being interviewed and asked what he thought of protesters calling John Lewis a "ni###r and Nunes appears to defend their right to free speech......
He was born stupid but has vastly increased it by diligent hard work on his own ever since. Most of his stupidity is self-made. A truly self-made moron.
I don't know if he has a case or not but I do know that Twitter has been two sided and biased in their standards. When Candace Owens retweeted Sarah Jeongs racist tweets but replaced the word white with other groups she got hit with a temporary suspension. It was rescinded but it still shows some level of bias.
That said I don't think he'll get too far since he's a public figure but maybe it'll get Twitter to clean up their act for a while.
Who is Candace Owens?
She is what progressives hate most.
An opportunist who will say and do anything for money?.....Yep! Sure do!
She is a great American 🇺🇸!
last years token that can only safely appear on a friendly network now
I knew who the dumb bitch was. She can't even get on Fux 'news'. I think she has a you tube show.
Also, the RIGHT WING EXTREMIST KILLER in New Zealand named the darling on the 'right'
Ugh! I have to get my calender straightened out...
Okay, last week we hated Jews the most..
The week before that we hated black people because we enslaved them, wrote Jim Crow laws, hung them, set their homes on fire, raped their children...and there were no conservative injured during our murderous melee'
And the week before that we mostly hated.......
Oh, that's right, now I remember.
We hated America because we are for swinging the doors wide open for every drug dealer, terrorist, human traffiker, .....well, except for the ones that know the president personally and conveniently own massage parlors near Mara Lago.
It sounds like youv'e finally got it!
"Leading people into the blind alley of dependency and grievances may be counterproductive for them but it can produce votes, money, power, fame and a sense of exaltation to others who portray themselves as friends of the downtrodden."......Thomas Sowell
It is time to sue social media up one side and down the other over their bigoted bias against conservatives and Christians. The intolerance has gone too far and if it takes lawsuits to bring them to fairness and objectivity so be it. [deleted]
a frivolous lawsuit by an asshat that obstructed justice. Constitution trumps bible. tough shit.
I stand by all that I said.
testify
A "temporary suspension"? Wow that kinda smarts.
She must have reallly fucked up to be fired from FOX.
So, shouldn't Democrats be lining up to investigate? Or does using social media to interfere with an election only become a problem if it harms a Democrat?
I wouldn't exactly call a concerted effort by a hostile foreign country the same as people making fun of Nunes on twitter.
Poor little buttercup. I guess I can be sued for saying that?
And if that's all it is, I would agree. But the accusation is that there was interference in a federal election. For the last two years, that has been enough to launch several investigations.
I don't know why.
Exactly, if not for those horrid tweets, Nunes would have been re-elected.
Oh wait.../s
Why should that matter? Do you care about the integrity of our system or not? Maybe you only care about getting Democrats elected and you don't care how it happens?
It matters because in his lawsuit, Nunes is claiming that he was HARMED.
Yes.
Hey, I'd be fine with opening up Liz Mair, who BTFW is a conservative commentator, to libel litigation, IF it opens Trump up to libel litigation too. I'm sure Cindy McCain would be first in line to nail Trump.
Its always amusing when a republican who defends the bullying of the president gets the vapors over some funny tweet 'attacks'. Maybe he should read some of the tweets Trump's followers sent Cindy McCain. Meantime, Devin Nunes' Cow now has far more followers than he does. Its hilarious.
This entire brouhaha (Haha!!!) is indicative of the moral decay infesting the youths of our society today in the perilous times in which we live!
There's only one solution-- we must totally ban the Internet!
Or sue it.
Apart from the fact that these two Twitter accounts belong to a woman who's a conservatarian Never-Scumbag the other extra bonus for this idiotic ploy is that apparently it's being funded by billionaire wingnut libertoonian Peter Thiel who must have let his one-off success at taking down Gawker go to his head. But Twitter isn't Gawker and Nunes is definitely not Hulk Hogan (Terry Bollea) so let him spend all the money he can to lose.
[Love the picture for this article. What a Sad Sack.]