Posted on 03/11/2021 1:20:12 PM PST by USA Conservative
Twitter refused to take down widely shared pornographic images and videos of a teenage sex trafficking victim because an investigation “didn’t find a violation” of the company’s “policies,” a scathing lawsuit alleges.
The federal suit, filed in January by the victim and his mother in the Northern District of California, alleges Twitter made money off the clips, which showed a 13-year-old engaged in sex acts and are a form of child sexual abuse material, or child porn, the suit states.
When the plaintiff, who is a minor referred to only as John Doe, was 13 – 14 years old, he was manipulated into sending sexually explicit images to human traffickers who pretended to be a 16-year-old girl who went to his school, according to the lawsuit. The traffickers then began blackmailing Doe into sending more explicit photos and videos, telling him that if he did not send the material, they would show the photos he had already sent to his parents, coach, pastors, and others in the community.
Eventually, Doe blocked the traffickers and they stopped harassing him, but at some point in 2019, the videos surfaced on Twitter under two accounts that were known to share child sexual abuse material, court papers allege.
Over the next month, the videos would be reported to Twitter at least three times — first on Dec. 25, 2019 — but the tech giant failed to do anything about it until a federal law enforcement officer got involved, the suit states.
But what is widely ignored by the mainstream media is the court documents that surfaced this morning and they show that Twitter now moves to dismiss the minor's case and their argument is that Twitter has "immunity" from the minor's claims using section 230.
Images below:
Twitter's filing reveals the extent of child sexual exploitation (CSE) content on it platform.
"During the six-month period from January to June 2020, Twitter suspended 438,809 accounts for violating its policies prohibiting CSE material."
Image below:
Full document on SCRIBD
If using Section 230 to defend against allowing sexual harassment and exploitation of a minor doesn’t show the overreach of that law, nothing will.
I'm sure it will only get better from here, though.
They are using Section 230 to defend against a child porn lawsuit!
“They are using Section 230 to defend against a child porn lawsuit!”
That’s ok, I’m a pointy-headed libertarian type here and since they’re a PRIVATE COMPANY, they can do whatever they want - be it allowing child porn or rigging elections. Now, if the government were doing anything like that, I’d be mad, but since private business can ‘do no wrong’, no problem here.
We must NEVER sway from our ideals, lest we live under tyranny.
The problem is it’s a Federal Lawsuit and it should be a Federal Prosecution and the US Marshall’s should have SEIZED their Domain instantly.
Well played.
“Well played.”
Thanks, I was livid in October when McConnell couldn’t get the Republicans to even have hearings on Section 230. Just the hearings, under oath, may have slowed down the Election Steal and the blatant and ILLEGAL electioneering that was going on.
...and then some people here actually DEFENDED the tech companies, thereby helping the Democrats pull off their coup. And hence my comment...
Twitter made it very clear that they were NOT covered under Section 230 when they censored President Trump. Can’t go back and claim it now...no, Twitter is a child pornography company BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION.
Twitter is more toxic and filthy than a cesspool.
...
Jack Dorsey is a pedophile.
it seems to me that Section 230 allows immunity for ‘statements’
but if twitter allowed felonious “images”, and profited off those felonious images, then there should be no avenue to claim immunity
it also seems to me that the parents should sue the attorney general along with twitter, for failure to act to enforce the provisions and limitations of Section 230.
One night one of my followers on Twitter, posted a link to child porn on Twitter. I and many many others reported it. The poster said he’d been trying to get it taken down for over two weeks. I went into the child porn poster’s profile and started checking out his followers and OMG! Every one of them were tweeting more child porn. Twitter is filled with it if you know where to look. I reported everything I found of his followers’, and NOTHING was done. I then started reposting the crap, it was all I could think of to do. Interestingly, normally when you repost a video it shows up as a video. With this child porn stuff, it only showed up as a link. I wonder why that is?
Anyway, it took another week until it was taken down. At least I think it was taken down.
He looks like some sort of pervert, for sure.
A Sports Illustrated model Genevieve Morton is suing Twitter over her nude images on a calendar she was selling. She was selling from her site.
They now appear on many xxx sites and Twitter was working with the xxx providers who would steal the images of anyone and use them at their website. Twitter gets paid by the xxx providers according to the lawsuit. Her images are now being portrayed as a xxx model when her images were tasteful images and she says at her website that all the jobs for magazines, ad agencies etc are affecting her getting regular ad work.
https://www.mortonvtwitter.com
Expect Nancy to pass a pile of crap to protect these criminals even more
That's not a libertarian viewpoint, that's anarchic. Libertarians don't believe private property rights override child porn laws.
He was instrumental in relabeling pedos as “minor attracted persons” to relabel it as a sexual orientation and thus protected by law.
That is seriously their angle.
He also said nobody was hurt by it, a typical claim made by pedos.
“That’s not a libertarian viewpoint, that’s anarchic. Libertarians don’t believe private property rights override child porn laws.”
Well, that was what they were ‘protecting’. Why should the tech companies fear anything at this point - they have the Dems supporting them because of The Steal, and they have the pointy-headed libertarian-type Republicans protecting them because they are a ‘private company’. Seems to me that we’re getting just what we asked for.
Who are they being protected from?
Do you want the government to go after them because they disagree with you politically?
“Who are they being protected from?”
Apparently they were being protected so that they could continue to help take out Trump, when they were CLEARLY breaking election law (against corporate in-kind contributions).
They used the libertarian angle as their excuse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.