A federal judge today rejected Parler’s motion for a preliminary injunction against Amazon Web Services (AWS) and rejected the social network’s attempt to quickly return to Amazon’s web hosting platform.
Parler, who sees himself as a conservative alternative to Twitter, has sought a court order asking Amazon to reinstate its web hosting service pending a full trial. But ‘Parler fell far short … to show, as he should, that he had raised serious questions in favor of his claims,’ and he could not prove ‘that the balance of shares in his favor wins, alone, or that the public interest lies in granting the order, ”said Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein in the U.S. District Court for the Washington District.
Parler can still gain the upper hand in the matter, but in the meantime it will not be reinstated in Amazon’s service. Parler accuses Amazon of conspiracy to restrict trade, in violation of Sherman Act; breach of contract; and powerful interference with the expectation of the enterprise.
“AWS disputes all three claims and claims that it is Parler, not AWS, who has violated the terms of the parties’ agreement, and in particular AWS’s policy of acceptable use, which constitutes the ‘illegal, harmful or offensive’ use of AWS services prohibited., “Rothstein wrote.
Amazon has repeatedly warned Parler
Amazon cut off Parler’s web hosting service on Jan. 10, saying “we can not provide services to a customer who cannot identify and remove content that encourages violence against others.” Parler showed that he “cannot meet our conditions of service and poses a very real risk to public safety”, Amazon also said.
Parler sued Amazon on Jan. 11. Amazon then said in a court report that it had issued warnings to Parler about more than 100 violent threats before its service was disconnected. As we wrote in previous reporting, posts that Amazon reported to Parler have calls to kill a specific transgender; actively wishing for a racial war and the murder of black and Jewish people; and to various activists and politicians such as Stacey Abrams, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (DN.Y.), and former President Barack Obama. “
Amazon’s court case said:
This case is not about suppressing speech or stifling points of view. This is not about a conspiracy to restrict trade. On the contrary, this case concerns Parler’s unwillingness and inability to remove content from the servers of Amazon Web Services that threatens public security, such as inciting rape, torture and assassination of said public officials and private citizens. There is no legal basis in AWS’s customer agreements or otherwise to compel AWS to offer content of this nature. AWS has repeatedly notified Parler that its contents violate the parties’ agreement, request the removal and review Parler’s plan to address the issue, only to establish that Parler is not willing 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.
Parler’s claims are weak, judge finds
Rothstein’s rejection of Parler’s motion stated that “although Parler has not yet had the opportunity to make discovery, the evidence he has provided is in support of the [Sherman Act] claim is both languishing and disputed by AWS. What is important is that Parler provided no evidence that AWS and Twitter deliberately – or not at all – acted together to restrict trade. ‘
Parler claims that “by pulling Parler but leaving Twitter alone, despite identical behavior by users on both sites, AWS reveals that the reasons why Parler’s account was suspended are merely pretext.” But Rothstein pointed out that “Parler and Twitter are not located in the same way because AWS does not provide online hosting services to Twitter.”
Parler’s breach of contract claim is just as weak, Rothstein wrote. Parler did not deny that it violated its agreement with Amazon at the time of the termination, and the customer agreement “gives AWS the right to suspend or terminate immediately upon notice if Parler violates,” Rothstein wrote.
On the claim of the ominous interference, “Parler failed to adduce basic facts which would support several elements of this claim” and “he raised no more than the rarest speculation that AWS ‘actions for an improper purpose or was done improperly “judge wrote.
If Amazon were forced to reinstate Parler’s services now, before Parler uses a more effective moderation system, the result would be ‘continuous posting of the kind of abusive, violent content that caused AWS to shut down Parler in the first place’ , reads the verdict. It continued:
The Court explicitly rejects any suggestion that the balance of shares or the public interest be promoted to compel AWS to present the kind of abusive, violent content in this case, especially in light of the recent riots at the U.S. Capitol. That event was a tragic reminder that inflammatory rhetoric – faster and easier than many of us would have hoped – could turn a legitimate protest into a violent uprising.
Parler.com is currently online as a static webpage with several posts by conservative figures such as Sean Hannity and Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Along with a comment on ‘technical issues’.