Twitter’s new argument in Devin Nunes lawsuit: It can’t be sued over internet cow’s tweets

Twitter in a new court filing argues that California Republican Rep. Devin Nunes cannot sue the social media company over disparaging remarks made by anonymous writers because federal law gives it “broad immunity” from liability for the comments of its users.

The document represents Twitter’s second attempt to ask a Virginia judge to dismiss the defamation case Nunes, R-Tulare, filed last year against the San Francisco company along with Republican political strategist Liz Mair and two anonymous writers who heckle the congressman online under the personas of his mother and his cow.

Previously, Twitter argued it could not be sued in Virginia because Nunes accepted a user agreement that directs lawsuits against the company to California courts, and because any political harm Nunes might have suffered because of online criticism would have occurred in his San Joaquin Valley district.

A judge in the Richmond-based court ruled against that motion in October, finding that Mair lived in Virginia when she posted tweets about Nunes.

In the new motion filed Wednesday, Twitter said Nunes’ claims that Twitter had neglected to take action against users who he says defamed him contradicted a law that protects companies like Twitter from liability in cases just like this.

“Congress granted providers of online platforms like Twitter broad immunity from claims that seek to hold them liable for harms caused by defamatory or otherwise harmful content that appeared on the provider’s platform but were created by third parties,” the motion to dismiss reads. “(The law) protects such providers not only from liability but also from being subjected to the burdens of discovery or other aspects of litigation.”

The federal law referenced specifically states that no providers of an “interactive computer service” should be treated as “the publisher or speaker” of things said by a third party on their platform.

Nunes in his complaint against Twitter argues the company limits the reach of conservative viewpoints on its platform, and that it enabled his adversaries to conspire against him during his 2018 re-election campaign by not removing posts he considered to be defamatory. Nunes won re-election, defeating Democratic challenger Andrew Janz.

Twitter has refused Nunes’ demands that it disclose the identities of the two parody accounts.

The company has a history of refusing to disclose the identities of anonymous users. In 2017 Twitter filed a federal lawsuit to block the U.S. government from forcing it to reveal the identity of who was behind the account @ALT_USCIS. The account’s author claimed to be the work of at least one federal immigration employee who claimed to be part of the “resistance” to President Donald Trump. Twitter has still not revealed the account’s identity.

Twitter argues it should be dismissed from Nunes’ lawsuit even if the court allows the congressman to sue political strategist Liz Mair and the anonymous authors of the two satire accounts.

“The sole claim (Nunes) asserts against Twitter — for negligence — rests entirely on the theory that Twitter did not prevent third parties from posting the statements on the Twitter platform and/or did not do enough to remove the statements after they were posted,” Twitter’s new motion reads.

The Twitter lawsuit was the first of six that Nunes filed in 2019. He is also suing media companies, progressive watchdog groups and an investigative research firm that worked for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

McClatchy, parent company of The Fresno Bee, is among the media companies Nunes is suing. McClatchy is fighting the lawsuit in Virginia and a judge is expected to issue a ruling on whether the case can move forward by Feb. 9.