Supreme Court Hypothetical: Twitter's Liability for Aiding and Abetting Child Trafficking

Aiding and Abetting Liability Hypothetical

• ⚖️ Justice Amy Coney Barrett posed a hypothetical to test the scope of aiding and abetting liability, questioning if Twitter could be liable for failing to remove an account used for child trafficking.
• 💡 The core of the question is whether Twitter's knowledge of illicit activity, without actively facilitating it, constitutes aiding and abetting.

Twitter's Role and Liability

• 🚫 The argument presented suggests that unless an exception is carved out for imminent physical harm, Twitter would not be liable based on its understanding of the platform's role.
• 📌 This is based on the premise that platforms have no inherent duty to terminate users for illicit ends once discovered, as stated in previous court rulings.
• 🤝 The discussion draws parallels between contributory infringement liability and aiding and abetting liability, suggesting they are often treated interchangeably by the courts.

Abuse Team Functionality

• 🛠️ Twitter's abuse team handles a wide range of issues, including copyright infringement, phishing, fraud, and hacking.
• 📊 The team processes millions of notices, indicating a broad scope of activity beyond just copyright, with no legal duty to act on all detected abuses.