ACLU and Digital Rights Groups Support Nonprofit in Lawsuit Over Its Reports Critical of Content on X
SAN FRANCISCO — The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Northern California, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that X, formerly known as Twitter, cannot enforce its terms of service to penalize the Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc. (CCDH) for using automated data collection — known as scraping — to inform research criticizing X for allowing what CCDH deemed disinformation to remain on the platform.
The brief argues that when a party attempts to use an anti-scraping contract term to bypass the high standard for defamation claims and circumvent public policy protections for speech that contributes to public discourse, a court should decline to enforce the contract term. In this case, a public policy protecting speech in the public interest is reflected in the federal First Amendment, California’s constitutional equivalent provision, and California’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law. Scraping when done in the context of public interest research is part and parcel of the subsequent public interest speech it enables.
Courts cannot, and should not, allow private companies like X to wield breach of contract claims as a weapon to punish criticism and to secure damages stemming solely from claimed reputational harm resulting from that criticism.
“Allowing X to hold CCDH liable for breach of contract will create significant dangers for other researchers and journalists seeking to use basic digital tools like scraping to provide the public with insight into the powerful platforms that we all now rely on for information,” said Esha Bhandari, deputy project director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.
In this case, CCDH allegedly engaged in scraping to inform the public of instances when X failed to remove posts that CCDH deemed dis- and mis-information, despite evidence the content violated X’s content guidelines.
“Companies like X Corp. can’t be allowed to use their terms of service to bully and shut down researchers who provide the public with valuable insights into the platforms on which we rely for information and communication,” said Cindy Cohn, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The speech of research organizations like CCDH, as well as academics and journalists — in many instances made possible only by scraping — has shed necessary light on a panoply of concerns that powerful social media platforms have failed to independently monitor and correct, and has provided crucial information for regulators to take enforcement action. Such public interest research serves as a key accountability mechanism to reveal the platforms’ content moderation choices and privacy policies and practices.
“If the companies are able to wield terms of service as a cudgel against public-interest research they don’t like, much of the research we need to hold them accountable simply would not happen,” said Ramya Krishnan, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.
The brief was prepared with the significant contributions of Jake Karr, deputy director of NYU’s Technology Law and Policy Clinic, and law students Rebecca Delaney and Maeve O’Brien.
Related Documents
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.