Amazon called a lawsuit by Parler ‘meritless’ and the facts ‘unequivocal’ in a case that pits the conservative social media platform against the giant web service provider who did not want to back down due to incitement to violence.
In a court document that reflects and expands a statement from Amazon Monday, Jeff Bezos-led company attorneys said Parler’s case “is not about suppressing speech or weakening views. It is not about a instead, this case is about proving Parler’s unwillingness and inability to remove content from Amazon Web Services (AWS) servers that threatens public safety, such as rape, torture, and assassination. to encourage and plan on the said public officials and private citizens. “
Related story
Donald Trump publishes new video calling for an end to unrest: “No true supporter of mine can ever endorse political violence”
Apple and Google have already removed Parler from their app stores and the AWS move actually forced it to shut down. According to Parler’s ruling, Amazon’s decision was politically motivated and “apparently designed to reduce competition in the microblogging services market in favor of Twitter.”
In the case – at the Western District Court of Washington in Seattle – Amazon maintains that there is’ no legal basis to compel AWS to offer content of this nature. AWS repeatedly notified Parler that its contents violated the parties’ agreement, requested the removal, and reviewed Parler’s plan to address the issue, only to establish that Parler was unwilling to do so. AWS suspended Parler’s account as a last resort to prevent further access to such content, including plans for violence to disrupt the impending presidential transition. ”
Supporters of the reluctant outgoing president, Donald Trump, violently besieged the Capitol building last Wednesday. Five people were killed. By the end of the week, Twitter had permanently banned Trump’s account and Facebook had blocked him indefinitely. Trump supporters turned even more heavily to Parler, who no longer supported AWS on Monday. Parler sued and requested a temporary restraint.
In its court ruling, Amazon said that when Parler contracted with AWS in 2018, he agreed, among other things, ‘not to use AWS to offer certain content, including content that’ violates the rights of others, or that is harmful to others. can be ‘.’ It said Parler began violating the agreement in mid-November as false, unfounded allegations that Joe Biden stole the election, which was spread by President Trump and his allies, sparking violent reaction on social media, including on Parler. Posts that ‘clearly encourage and incite violence’ have gradually increased, which ‘makes it clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service,’ Amazon said.
Parler first breached his contract with Amazon, in other words, not the other way around.
“Over many weeks, AWS has reported to Parler on dozens of examples of content that encouraged violence, including calls to hang public officials, kill black and Jewish people, and shoot police officers in the head … Parler systematically not ‘access suspended’ to this. content, even less to do so immediately, and has shown that there is no effective process to ensure future compliance. Parler himself admitted that he has a backlog of 26,000 reports of content that violates the (minimum) community standards that he has not yet reviewed. Parler’s own failures left AWS with little choice but to suspend Parler’s account. ”
The filing (complete below) contains a list of dozens of violent reports that have brought it to Parler’s attention, which are ‘only’ representative of amounts of content that pose a security risk and harm others. ‘
“People are responding to these calls: Parler is being used to incite, organize and coordinate the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.”
The nation is currently only trying to penetrate after the inauguration of Joe Biden on January 20th. Decisions taken by social giants in this period of turmoil have sparked an already heated debate about the extent to which platforms can or should become and moderate content on their platforms.
Amazon’s long refutation contains a reference to Article 230, a law in the Communications Decency Act that President Trump is trying to eliminate. Section 230 states that the provider of an interactive computer service is immune to act in good faith to restrict access to material that is excessively violent, harassing or otherwise offensive. “This is exactly what AWS has done here: remove access to content that it has deemed excessively violent and harassing,” he said.
Full fling: