Facebook Sued Again For 'Material Support' Of Terrorism, Because Hamas Uses Facebook
from the not-how-it-works dept
This is becoming quite the stupid trend: people who are true victims of terrorist attacks suing internet platforms because terror-associated groups are using those platforms generally. It began back in January, when a woman sued Twitter after her husband was apparently killed in an ISIS attack. The lawsuit made no connection between the use of Twitter and the attack. It's just "husband died in ISIS attack" and "ISIS people use Twitter." The judge in that case is not at all impressed and it seems likely to dismiss the case shortly. In the meantime, another similar case was filed against Twitter, Facebook and Google.And now... we've got a third such case filed against Facebook and asking for a billion dollars. A billion dollars. The lawsuit was filed by the families of some people who were killed in a Hamas attack. And the entire complaint is basically "Hamas killed these guys, Hamas uses Facebook, give us a billion dollars." It goes through a variety of stories, each involving Hamas or Hamas-affiliated attacks, without any actual connection to Facebook, other than "and they also used Facebook to celebrate." Here's just one example of a bunch:
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: blame, hamas, material support, platforms, section 230, terrorism
Companies: facebook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
1st Rule of Emotions...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This also sounds like the same logic employed in the argument that Google can magically remove all infringing content from the internet.
I didn't read through the entire lawsuit, but I'm guessing it doesn't illustrate how Facebook is supposed to know that the account users in question are actually Hamas or perpetrators of the referenced acts. I highly doubt Facebook is going to send agents to meet with Hamas to verify the identities and political affiliations of the account users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, you live in the same town as a Hamas bomber? You must be liable, have a lawsuit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The press attempted public shaming for that…
and customers didn't tell Toyota that they were terrorists. ;]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Something bad happened to someone I know, give me money."
I can sympathize with those that lose friends and family to a pack of assholes, but when they then turn around and try to shake down a third-party for ludicrous amounts of money my sympathy tends to disappear rather quick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Something bad happened to someone I know, give me money."
CNN, Fox, NBC, for reporting on terrorist attacks.
Al Jazeera for broadcasting their videos.
Sony/Panasonic/Nikon/Canon for manufacturing cameras without a "Terrorism Content Blocker"
Dow Corning, for making fiber optic cable that enables the Internet to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Something bad happened to someone I know, give me money."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While I do sympathize with the losses to any time of extremism (religious in this case), the ones that are filling these cases sound like they are just trying to exploit the loss to get some easy money. At least if you ask for a billion dollars you are just full of bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong defendants
Or would that make too much sense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong defendants
In would in the sense that the dingle-berries going around killing people are the ones actually responsible for the injuries and deaths, it wouldn't in the sense that said dingle-berries are absolutely not the types who would either show up in court, or pay money to people trying to sue them.
As far as punishing those responsible, while completely absurd it would at least make more sense to sue those actually responsible, but as far as trying to make a quick buck/billion it makes much more sense to sue a large company that had nothing to do with it beyond 'bad people use the service'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The case has already gone somewhere
Yes, but it already has gone somewhere: the people have hired lawyers, the lawyers have filed a case, and the case has made its way into the media.
Like with similar lawsuits, who are the lawyers that are taking these cases? Don't they know that can't win? Is the 1% chance of winning and getting $1 billion decision (or a higher chance to settle) really worth their time and effort to start a case like this?
And what happens if the 1% chance of winning comes true and a judge decides that every social media platform is liable for anything that happens on the site? Or do these lawyers not care that the case will set this kind of precedent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Who cares about the damage, I got paid!"
Actually winning is the unlikely jackpot option, the real goal I imagine is to pressure the companies to settle out of court for less in order to avoid the mess that would be going to court. if they're getting paid a percentage of winnings/settlement money then it's a chance for a large, easy paycheck, if not then win or lose they're still getting paid, so why do they care?
Or do these lawyers not care that the case will set this kind of precedent?
The kind of lawyer willing to take these kinds of cases is the same kind that would absolutely love to have that precedent set, as it would mean a whole slew of cases/money their way by people looking to make a quick buck by suing a company/service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bomb the north pole?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question about Section 230
Since Facebook edits and removes certain posts for violating "Community Guidelines" does that mean they are not protected by Section 230? Is there a chance the plaintiffs bringing the suit could win on Sec 230 grounds, as Facebook is capable of filtering and removing certain posts?
They will probably win on plain First Amendment grounds anyway, but I was curious as to the legal protections of 230.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question about Section 230
Moderating, editing and/or deleting comments DOES NOT remove a website's Section 230 Safe Harbor protection whatsoever:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140317/10060326596/why-moderating-comments-doesnt-rem ove-section-230-protection-why-more-lawyers-need-to-understand-this.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question about Section 230
True as a general statement - but when Facebook permits terrorist to use their services freely but then acts in an extremely censorious way towards those who most strongly oppose them
(See http://www.faithfreedom.org/facebook-is-enforcing-islamic-blasphemy-laws/ )
then you begin to wonder whose side they are actually on. At some point down that road they DO become liable. I don't think they are near that point yet but it could in principle happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question about Section 230
Before, it was all-or-nothing, either they don't touch the content at all or they carefully go over all of it, the law was changed such that they could safely remove or moderate some content without having to worry about being held responsible for all of it as a result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question about Section 230
Of course there is a phrase in the law "in good faith". So I would assume that a site that pretended to be an open forum - but in fact acted specifically as a terrorist recruiting operation - and which systematically deleted posts critical of terrorist ideology could at some point become liable.
(Having said that I just realised that such a site would most likely be being run by the FBI as a sting operation...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If A Social Media Service Can Be Sued Over Giving Access To Hamas ...
By all means, establish the precedent, why don’t you.
Unless, of course, it turns out there’s a double standard at play in the US...
...but then, why would I think that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wonder where they got the legal advice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everything is relative
Yeah, but are they really? It seems to me that the reaction to terrorist attacks and the threat of terrorist attacks is a much bigger problem than the attacks themselves.
If most of the time and resources that are currently allocated to "stopping terrorism" were instead redirected to bringing everyone to a living wage and basic education (globally, if possible)... then not only would it be more effective at reducing terrorism (IMO), but it is also likely to reduce pedestrian crime... and just be kinda nice.
But I won't hold my breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everything is relative
Yes, as is well known in Chess and similar games " a threat is stronger than its execution"
That is sort of the whole point of terrorism.
If most of the time and resources that are currently allocated to "stopping terrorism" were instead redirected to bringing everyone to a living wage and basic education (globally, if possible)
I used to think that, and I'd still like to think that, but Osama Bin Laden was a well educated multi millionaire and most of those who go to fight for ISIS come from the educated middle class. Unfortunately we also have to do a job of ideological opposition - just as we did against Nazism and Communism.
In fact the rise of Islamic terrorism is caused by wealth not poverty. We need to stop flattering the wealthy states which promote an ideology that is hard to distinguish from that of the terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what if the blame at social media were replaced with something else
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what if the blame at social media were replaced with something else
Already the plot of a movie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_Jury
and actually it would be a good idea, then there would be some positive control.
You Americans have far too many guns anyway.
There are roughly 3x as many gun deaths in the US as road accident deaths in the UK per 100,000 population.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
maketing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]