A federal judge today rejected Parler’s motion for an injunction against Amazon Web Services (AWS), thwarting the social network’s attempt to quickly return to Amazon’s web hosting platform.
Parler, who considers himself a conservative alternative to Twitter, had asked for a court order requiring Amazon to reinstate its web hosting service pending a full trial. But “Parler stayed away … from demonstrating, as he should, that he raised serious questions regarding the merits of his claims” and failed to prove “that the balance of actions falls in his favor, let alone strongly; in granting the injunction, “Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein said in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Parler may still prevail in the case, but he will not be reinstated to Amazon’s service in the meantime. Parler accused Amazon of conspiring to restrict trade, in violation of the Sherman Act; Breach of contract; and torturous interference with business expectations.
“AWS disputes all three claims, claiming that it was Parler, not AWS, that violated the terms of the parties’ Agreement and in particular the AWS Acceptable Use Policy, which prohibits’ illegal, harmful or offensive use ‘ ‘from AWS services, “wrote Rothstein.
Amazon repeatedly warned Parler
Amazon cut Parler’s web hosting service on January 10, saying that “we are unable to provide services to a customer who is unable to effectively identify and remove content that encourages or incites violence against others.” Parler has shown that “it cannot comply with our terms of service and represents a very real risk to public security,” said Amazon.
Parler sued Amazon on January 11. Later, Amazon said in a lawsuit that it had alerted Parler to more than 100 violent threats before disconnecting its service. As we wrote in the previous coverage, the posts that Amazon reported to Parler included requests to “kill a specific transgender person; to actively desire racial war and the murder of blacks and Jews; and to kill various activists and politicians like Stacey Abrams, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (DN.Y.) and former President Barack Obama. “
Amazon’s lawsuit said:
This case is not about suppressing speech or stifling points of view. This is not a conspiracy to restrict trade. Instead, this case is about Parler’s demonstrated reluctance and inability to remove content that threatens public security from Amazon Web Services servers, for example, by inciting and planning the rape, torture and murder of appointed public officials and private citizens. There is no legal basis in AWS customer contracts or otherwise to compel AWS to host such content. AWS repeatedly notified Parler that its content violated the parties’ agreement, requested removal and reviewed Parler’s plan to resolve the issue, only to determine that Parler did not want and could not do so. AWS suspended Parler’s account as a last resort to prevent further access to such content, including plans for violence to interrupt the impending presidential transition.
Parler’s statements are weak, the judge considers
Rothstein’s rejection of Parler’s motion said that “Although Parler has not yet had the opportunity to conduct the discovery, the evidence he presented in support of the [Sherman Act] claim is increasingly lighter and contested by AWS. It is important to note that Parler did not present any evidence that AWS and Twitter acted together intentionally – or even in any way – in restraining trade. “
Parler stated that “by shutting down Parler, but leaving Twitter alone, despite the identical behavior of users on both sites, AWS reveals that its expressed reasons for suspending Parler’s account are just a pretext” But Rothstein pointed out that “Parler and Twitter are not situated in the same way, because AWS does not provide online hosting services for Twitter. “
Parler’s request for breach of contract is equally weak, wrote Rothstein. Parler did not deny that he was in breach of his agreement with Amazon at the time of termination of the service, and the customer’s contract “gives AWS the right to suspend or terminate, immediately upon notice, in the event Parler violates,” Rothstein wrote.
Regarding the allegation of torturous interference, “Parler failed to claim basic facts that would support various elements of this claim” and “failed to raise more than the slightest speculation that AWS actions were taken for an improper purpose or by improper means” , the judge wrote.
If Amazon were forced to reinstate Parler’s services now, before Parler implements a more effective moderation system, the result would be “continued publication of the type of violent and abusive content that caused AWS to close Parler in the first place” , said the decision. . Continued:
The Court explicitly rejects any suggestion that the balance of actions or the public interest favors AWS ‘obligation to host the type of violent and abusive content in question in this case, particularly in light of the recent US Capitol riots. This event was a tragic reminder that fiery rhetoric can – more quickly and easily than many of us expected – turn a legal protest into a violent uprising.
Parler.com is currently online as a static web page with several posts from conservative figures like Sean Hannity and Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Along with a note on “technical difficulties”.