Since 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, the mainstream media has been shouting about "Russian election interference" because a Russian body distributed a few memes in Florida. Twitter and big tech have chimed in on the issue as well. Just seven months ago, Twitter reaffirmed its commitment to ending foreign interference.
But here we are, facing a new bout of election interference, and the mainstream media had nothing to say. What is worse, this interference is not coming from a source on social media sending memes or threats; it is coming from Twitter itself. In an initial ruling, a court has found that, having locked accounts of politicians during the 2019 EU elections, Twitter engaged in election interference.
LTO (translated with Google Translate):
But here we are, facing a new bout of election interference, and the mainstream media had nothing to say. What is worse, this interference is not coming from a source on social media sending memes or threats; it is coming from Twitter itself. In an initial ruling, a court has found that, having locked accounts of politicians during the 2019 EU elections, Twitter engaged in election interference.
LTO (translated with Google Translate):
from "Land Court Berlin prohibits Twitter account locking", Pia Lorenz, LTO:
The Berlin Regional Court (LG) issued a temporary injunction against Twitter on Thursday. The social network is not allowed to delete two tweets by the Berlin AfD or further use them as a reason to lock the account.
The tweets, as expressions of opinion and party politics, are not an influence on elections even according to Twitter's internal rules, according to the LG in its preliminary injunction, which is available to the LTO (decision of 23.05.2019*, file no. 27 O 282/19). Twitter is ordered to pay the costs of the interim legal protection proceedings, calculated on the basis of an amount in dispute of 30,000 euros.
As far as is known, this is the first court decision on the numerous account suspensions that the social network has made in recent weeks. Affected accounts remain visible to other users, but are no longer accessible to their owners. Twitter cites an internal guideline to justify the suspensions, which is intended to prevent any influence on elections in the run-up to the European elections next Sunday.
The social network also blocked accounts because of statements that were obviously satirical or undoubtedly covered by freedom of expression. Accounts of the Berlin State Secretary Sawsan Chebli (SPD), the Jewish General, the Berlin SPD politician and lawyer Sven Kohlmeier, but also of various lawyers were blocked. A Tweet, which cost the Vieltwitterer attorney Thomas Stadler the access to its account, was already several years old.
A simple means to eliminate political opponents?
Users who kept track of the blocks under the hashtag #twittersperrt soon suspected that the reporting function from the opposing political spectrum was being misused in the political opinion struggle to eliminate unpopular opinions.
But also the AfD got it. On 13 May, the Twitter account of the Berlin regional association was blocked, Twitter referred to two tweets of the association as justification. The first was "++ Berliner 'Edel' - Italiener will not host #AfD-Spitze ++ The exclusion takes on grotesque features. The establishment will not stop us".
The second tweet referred to an article in the Berliner Zeitung of 7 May under the headline "Teachers warn Berlin pupils against fasting". The right-wing populists twittered: "++ #Rahmadan: Teachers warn Berlin students against fasting ++ #Islamization is when foreign traditions change our everyday lives. Time for the AfD! Attached was a picture of a sleeping pupil.
LG Berlin: Opinion and party politics allowed, even on Twitter Now Twitter has to restore the posts and activate the account. With the blocking, the company had violated its contractual obligation in conjunction with § 241 Para. 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB) to respect the rights of the AfD, in particular its freedom of expression, according to the Berlin Regional Court.
The LG bases its examination on Twitter's own "Guidelines on the Integrity of Elections", on which the company based the ban. Neither the deletion of the tweet nor the blocking of the account had a basis in the directive, the resolution states. The tweets contained no misleading information or suppression or intimidation of voters, and the account was not forged either.
Whether the contract with the AfD is a service contract and whether the directive has been effectively incorporated is a matter left open by the Court: Finally, the Posts were excluded from the freedom of expression of the applicant, which included opinions on the articles in the B.Z., and as partisan positions on politics were also expressly excluded by the Directive itself. It states that if there are no other violations, they are not considered to be violations of the Directive "organic content that polarises, is biased or non-partisan, or contains controversial views on elections or politics" (more).
