Online Library

The 2023 Supreme Court case Twitter v. Taamneh found that defendant social media companies were not liable for aiding and abetting a terrorist attack overseas. The Court alluded to the existence of an alternative set of facts that might alter their analysis or produce a different outcome. This Comment explores those “other contexts” and seeks to identify what factors could produce a successful Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) aiding and abetting claim against a social media company for an act of terrorism overseas. This is difficult, in part, because the framework for aiding and abetting liability provided in JASTA is seemingly incompatible with the operations of social media companies. To better evaluate how JASTA’s framework should apply to social media companies, both JASTA cases that do not involve social media companies and aiding and abetting cases derived from other sources are analyzed for their relevance to the social media context.

Ultimately, this Comment concludes that it would take an extraordinary set of facts to find social media companies secondarily liable for an act of terrorism. This is, in part, due to the nature of how social media operates and continues to progress at a rapid pace. The increasing role that social media plays in society highlights why deterring further Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) use of social media is critical; as avenues to recruitment and international planning increase, the risk to the United States’ national security also increases. Given that JASTA is not a solution, this Comment suggests other avenues to encourage social media companies to heighten their detection of FTO activity and prevent future attacks.

VOX-Pol Blog Post.

VOX-Pol Blog post.

This report, by the Urban Warfare Analysis Centre, is a fictitious account of how a young person in America could become a suicide bomber for an Islamic extremist group. It is the fifth in a series of reports on Web 2.0 technology and future urban warfare. All references to people, groups, and products are intended for illustrative purposes only. As such, the authors do not suggest that any of the products or organizations listed condone or support extremist activities.

Extreme online content from far-right organisations, including the website of a banned terrorist group, is accessible via hardware based in the UK, potentially in breach of the law, and in contrast with Theresa May’s call for technology companies to act to remove terrorist content from their platforms.

A comparative approach to social media hate speech. This study compares a Finnish anti-refugee and anti-immigration Facebook group criticised for hate speech and links to the extreme right, with a Finnish anti-racist Facebook group that opposed it, alongside a Facebook group aimed at dialogue between the two.

A critical-comparative analysis of social media hate speech can help us to assess the dangers of this speech, and can provide the necessary conceptual distance needed to come up with new ideas and strategies that can help to prevent violence.