The matter of Twitter Inc v.Taamneh Reina Nightclub in Istanbul, Turkey, served as the focal point of a significant terrorist incident in 2017 that was carried out by an ISIS operator named Abdulkadir Masharipov. A total of 39 people, including Nawras Alassaf, have filed this case under Title 18 of the United States Code, claiming that the attack wounded them. The family then filed lawsuits against Facebook, Google, and Twitter, alleging that these companies helped ISIS and were therefore responsible for the attack on the Reina nightclub. The plaintiffs claimed that for years, ISIS and its supporters had exploited these social media sites as a means of disseminating their message.ISIS and its followers created accounts on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, just like many other people throughout the world, and posted videos and messages for everyone to see. These social media sites have featured ISIS material like ads and graphic execution videos. As a result, the plaintiffs claim that Twitter and other social media have been essential to ISIS’ expansion because they have helped it reach new audiences, recruit new members, and propagate its message of terrorism.
whether the social media business defendants’ actions warrant culpability for aiding and abetting the Reina nightclub attack
Conclusion of the SCOTUS
Justice John Roberts, CJ., Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson make up the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)’s Full Bench. While considering the current case, it was claimed that Twitter, Facebook, and Google (which owns YouTube) had helped the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) carry out a terrorist attack at the Reina Nightclub in Istanbul by knowingly allowing the terror group and its supporters to use their platforms for recruiting, raising money, and spreading propaganda. Allegations that these social media corporations helped and enabled ISIS in its terrorist attack on the Reina nightclub do not adequately articulate a claim under Title 18 of the United States Code, Chapter 113B, 2333(d)(2), according to the 9-judge bench of the court, which reached this unanimous conclusion.