Twitter is facing legal action in Germany for supposedly not taking down hate speech after it had been reported.

The legal cases focuses on determining whether the social media site has a contractual obligation to its users, under its Terms of Service, to remove antisemetic Tweets which contain sedition, including trivialisation and denial of the Holocaust.

The verdict could set a precedent for numerous affected communities, and social media regulation as a whole.

HateAid, a non-profit digital rights group, and the European Union of Jewish Students (EUJS) have jointly filed a civil action against Twitter.

The two organisations are criticising the platform’s insufficient moderation of content that includes sedition, which is illegal under the German law code.

The subject of the lawsuit is six antisemetic and illegal comments that were not removed despite being reported to the platform. In one case relating to Holocaust denial, Twitter had even allegedly refused to remove the content.

HateAid and EUJS claim that this practice contradicts Twitter’s Rules and Policies, which are part of the terms of service for users, where the company states it will not tolerate threats of violence and behaviour that incites hatred.

The case would provide clarification about whether users have a legal claim to enforce these Rules and Policies as part of their contract with social networks, and would give users the right to sue for the removal of inciting content in the future, even if they are not personally affected from violations of their rights.

In its Rules and Policies, the American social media platform assures that it will not tolerate hatred and violence. The corresponding Hateful conduct policy states that Twitter is “committed to combating abuse motivated by hatred, prejudice or intolerance, particularly abuse that seeks to silence the voices of those that have been historically marginalised”.

In addition, the Abusive behaviour policy states that Twitter prohibits content “that denies that mass murder or other mass casualty events took place”, including, among other things, “events like the Holocaust”.

However, the rules appear to be vaguely enforced, according to the two groups filing the lawsuit. Particuarily after Elon Musk’s takeover, the company has repeatedly hit the headlines with decisions concerning the restoration of blocked accounts and the reduction of staff in moderator teams.

Josephine Ballon, Head of Legal at HateAid: “We’ve put the control over the public discourse on the internet into the hands of private companies and investors. Twitter assures it won’t tolerate violence on its platform. Users have to be able to rely on that. But in practice, we see the opposite happening: illegal content is at best removed in arbitrary and untransparent ways.

“This must finally change. Twitter owes us a communication platform where we can move freely and without fear of hatred and agitation.”

The case will be based in Germany, where their strict laws regulating antisemitism, Nazi propoganda, and Holocaust denial will be leveraged against the social media giant’s inaction.

Avital Grinberg, who, in her capacity as President of EUJS, is filing the complaint:

“Twitter has betrayed our trust. By allowing hateful content to spread, the company fails to protect users, and Jews in particular. What starts online, does not end there. Twitter cultivates real hate and violence, and assuch, disregards our democratic values.

“For young people, engagement also means to commit and express themselves online. If Jews are forced out of the virtual space due to antisemitism and digital violence, Jewish life will become invisible in a place that is relevant to society.

“We will no longer tolerate this! Remembrance of the Shoah must not be merely expressed through emotional speeches, but also through clear positions, resolute action and protective laws. This lawsuit is the response of resilient Jews to the failure of Twitter and the rule of law.”

According to the Guardian, the four of the tweets blatantly denied the Holocaust, another called for the gassing of “blacks” and another compared the Covid-19 vaccination programme to Nazi death camps.

Twitter either said the tweets were not in violation of their guidelines, or did not respond at all, the lawsuit claims.

Recommended

• DIGIT Deal Roundup | June 2023
• UK Gov Commits Further £34M to Maritime Decarbonising Tech
• Tay Cities Region Deal Announces Free Digital Skills Courses

Antisemism appears to be on the rise, and the link to social media is undeniable – reports show that young people have been exposed to conspiracy theories across social media, with activist group Hope Not Hate finding antisemitsm rife on social media, hitting new highs in 2020.

The European Commission found a sevenfold increase in antisemetic posting across French language accounts, and over a thirteenfold increase in antisemetic comments within German accounts in 2021.

While the lawsuit is based in Germany, it could have major affects for regulation in the UK. The Online Safety Bill aims to have social media organisations take more responsibility for harmful content like hate speech, but the current proposed system has been under fire for giving too much control over to social media sites.

Currently, the draft legislation introduces a triple shield protection, where social media sites will have to monitor their content on the basis of their own terms of service.

Rather than having government mandated terms of what is and is not allowed, social media giants may be able to rely on the same vauge language and moderation tactics they currently use to dissuade users and avoid fines.