Previous 10 / 11 Next

2:18-cv-02573-DCN Date Filed 02/08/19 Entry Number 17 Page 10 of 11 The parties are referred to the Notice Page attached hereto. ________________________________ Bristow Marchant United States Magistrate Judge February 8, 2019 Charleston, South Carolina 10

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Cox. v. Twitter

Case Law

Country

United States

Country Location

Latitude: 39.778231903243785

Longitude: -100.8801256788983

Country Location (linked Case Law): United States

Decision Date: Feb 8, 2019

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Motion Granted

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Injunction, Order, or Motion Granted

Keywords

Content Moderation
Hate Speech
Social Media

Court Name: District Court for the District of South Carolina Division

Case Number: 2:18-2573-DCN-BM

Case Summary: On February 8th, 2019, the District Court for the District of South Carolina Division granted Twitter’s motion to dismiss an action filed by a Twitter user whose account was suspended after publishing a tweet criticizing Islam that allegedly violated the platform’s Hate Speech policy. The plaintiff, Mr. Cox, presented a pro se complaint (acting on his own behalf) seeking monetary damages and certain specified declaratory and/or injunctive relief for suspending his account. However, Twitter, in its motion to dismiss, argued the plaintiff’s failure to establish that he had suffered any damages as a result of any actions by the platform. In its decision, the Court determined that Twitter qualified for Section 230(c)(2)(A) of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) safe harbor since the platform conducted publishing activity. Thus, the Court determined Mr. Cox’s claims to hold Twitter liable for exercising its editorial judgment to suspend his account were barred under the CDA.

Case Significance: In holding that Twitter’s decision to suspend the user’s account fell within the protection of Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, the Court precluded a policy based on possibly harmful content limiting the dissemination of free speech. Although the decision ultimately protects a legitimate limit on free speech, the Court focused its analysis on the contractual relationship between the parties rather than explaining the impact of the content on free speech.

This case did not set a binding or persuasive precedent either within or outside its jurisdiction. The significance of this case is undetermined at this point in time.

Related Caselaw (self)

Fair Hous. Council v. Roommates.com, LLC

Related Analysis

Case Law on Content Moderation and Freedom of Expression

Source URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: Jul 19, 2024

Primary Documents

U.S. District Court Report and Recommendation
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Cox. v. Twitter

Primary Documents

Notifications