Amazon called Parler’s lawsuit “unfounded” and the facts “unequivocal” in a case pitting the conservative social media platform against the giant web service provider who declined to back it over incitement to violence.
In a court filing that echoes and expands a statement from Amazon on Monday, lawyers for the company headed by Jeff Bezos said the Talking lawsuit “was not intended to suppress rhetoric or stifle views. This is not a conspiracy to restrict trade. Instead, this case concerns Parler’s demonstrated reluctance and inability to remove Amazon Web Services (AWS) content from servers that threatens public safety, for example by inciting and planning rape, torture, and abuse. assassination of public officials and individuals. . “
Donald Trump becomes the first president to be impeached twice; House accuses him of inciting to the Capitol headquarters
Apple and Google had already removed Talking from their app stores, and the AWS move forced it to close. Parler’s lawsuit called Amazon’s move politically motivated and “apparently designed to reduce competition in the microblogging service market for the benefit of Twitter.”
In the case – in Seattle’s Western Washington District Court – Amazon insists that there is “no legal basis … to compel AWS to host content of this nature.” AWS has repeatedly notified Parler that its content violates the parties’ agreement, requested deletion, and reviewed Parler’s plan to resolve the issue, only to determine that Parler was both reluctant and unable to do so. AWS has suspended the Talk as a Last Resort account to prevent further access to this content, including plans of violence to disrupt the impending presidential transition. “
Supporters of reluctant outgoing President Donald Trump violently besieged the Capitol building last Wednesday. Five people died. By the end of the week, Twitter had permanently banned Trump’s account and Facebook had blocked him indefinitely. Trump supporters have turned even more to Speak, which AWS stopped supporting on Monday. Parler filed a lawsuit, seeking a temporary restraining order.
In its court response, Amazon said that when Parler contracted with AWS in 2018, it agreed, among other things, “not to use AWS to host certain content, including content that ‘violates the rights of others, or that can be harmful to others. He said Parler began violating the deal in mid-November, as false and unsubstantiated claims that Joe Biden stole the election, broadcast by President Trump and his allies, prompted a backlash on social media, including Talking. Posts that “clearly encourage and incite violence” have increased steadily, making it “clear that Speaking does not have an effective process for complying with the AWS Terms of Service,” Amazon said.
Parler broke his contract with Amazon first, in other words, not the other way around.
“AWS reported to Parler over many weeks dozens of examples of content that encouraged violence, including calls to hang government officials, kill blacks and Jews, and shoot police officers in the head … consistently failed to “suspend access” content, let alone do so immediately, and demonstrated that no effective process was in place to ensure future compliance. Parler himself admitted he had a backlog of 26,000 content reports that violated his (minimum) community standards that he had not yet reviewed. Parler’s own failures left AWS with no choice but to suspend Parler’s account. “
The dossier (in full below) lists dozens of violent messages he brought to Parler’s attention, which he describes as “merely representative of volumes of content that pose a security risk and harm people. other”.
“People have responded to these calls: Speak was used to incite, organize and coordinate the January 6 attack on the United States Capitol.
The nation is currently trying to get to Joe Biden’s inauguration on January 20. However, the decisions made during this time of turmoil by the social media giants have sparked an already furious debate about the extent to which platforms can or should organize. and moderate content on their platforms.
Amazon’s lengthy rebuttal included a reference to Section 230, a law of the Communications Decency Act that President Trump sought to eliminate. Section 230 says that the provider of an interactive computer service is immune for acting in good faith to restrict access to excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable material. “That is precisely what AWS did here: remove access to content that it considered to be excessively violent and harassing,” he said.