Ridiculous Lawsuit Looks To Hold Social Media Companies Responsible For The San Bernandino Shooting
from the blame-game,-but-with-civil-judgments! dept
This hasn't worked yet, but that's not going to keep anyone from giving it another try. Excolo Law, representing victims of the San Bernardino attacks (and others in similar lawsuits), is suing Twitter, Facebook, and Google for [sigh] "knowingly and recklessly" supporting terrorism.
The lawsuit, like others before it, claims the social media platforms aren't doing enough to prevent terrorists from using them for communication, not taking down reported posts fast enough, and otherwise making the world a more dangerous place simply by offering their services.
Section 230 is the bar litigants have to clear before holding social media platforms accountable for the actions of their users. This hasn't happened yet, despite the suits being lobbed in California federal courts where some dubious 230 decisions have been handed down.
But try they will. Repeatedly. The lawsuit claims that if these three internet giants hadn't existed, the "most feared terrorist group in the world" would not have experienced as much growth as it has. Maybe so, but if it wasn't these three companies, it would just be other communications platforms being dragged into court -- third parties several steps removed from the underlying tragedies.
The lawsuit goes so far as to allege the perpetrators wouldn't have carried out the San Bernardino shooting if Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube hadn't existed. From the lawsuit [PDF]:
Farook and Malik were radicalized by ISIS’ use of social media. This was the stated goal of ISIS. Farook and Mateen then carried out the deadly attack in San Bernardino…
But for ISIS’ postings using Defendants’ social media platforms, Farook and Malik would not have engaged in their attack on the Inland Regional Center.
OK, then.
There's not anything new is this filing, the third by Excolo. I assume the firm will keep recruiting litigants and filing doomed lawsuits until its gathered enough dismissals to reach a cost/benefit tipping point. As always, the incidents underlying the suits are undeniably tragic. But that doesn't make suing third parties for other people's posts and communications any more correct than it does when nothing more than someone's allegedly-damaged reputation is on the line.
>
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: intermediary liability, isis, san bernardino, section 230, social media, terrorism
Companies: facebook, google, twitter, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
One would think after a while a bar would be embarrassed to allow these types of lawyers to file frivolous cases to pocket retainers & exploit people. But then they are lawyers too, and have little motivation to actually hold themselves accountable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wait, I assumed this was a class action suit ... when did they start requiring retainers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This isn't the first sue the platforms case and somehow they think they can hurdle the thing thats killed every other case.
I would not be shocked that they are getting a nice fee to file pointless crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But for ISIS’ postings using Defendants’ social media platforms, Farook and Malik would not have engaged in their attack on the Inland Regional Center
This is true. And if it were not for Apple/Samsung et al., they wouldn't have mobile phones to access said platforms. And if it were not for Microsoft/IBM et al. they wouldn't have computers to access said services. If it were not for TSM/Intel et al. they would not have any digital devices at all. If it were not for At&T et al. they would not have the ability to communicate faster than letters. If it were not for Ford/Boeing et al, those letters would need to travel by ship/horse to get anywhere. If it were not for Dow/Dupont et al, they wouldn't have explosive chemicals to use to attack people and would need to use swords. And if it weren't for Nucor et al, they wouldn't have metals to use in said weapons and would need to use wooden clubs. And if it weren't for Dow/Dupont/Monsanto/Acher Daniels Midland/Caterpillar they'd have to spend all their time in the fields growing food, rather than planning attacks. And if were not for Pfizer/Merck et al, they would have died from Polio/Smallpox/Cholera/Dysentery/Bacterial infections/whatever as children along with their victims and yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Checking
Not that I think they should, but their connection is at least as relevant as that of social media. The right to freely communicate (without being held responsible for someone else's crimes) is at least as important as the right to bear arms (without being held responsible for someone else's crimes).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just Checking
Since suing mfgs are mostly settled case now, they are looking for new ways to accomplish their bullshit agendas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just Checking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just Checking
Just stating that it will not stop them from trying anyways.
People want someone to blame, regardless of actual guilt. There is a primal driving need to see SOMETHING done, even if whatever is done is corrupt or tyrannically foisted upon the innocent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Checking
Social media has a variety of other uses so this is not an apples-and-oranges comparison unless you shoot at people to communicate with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Checking
All the while the crazy's can just buy a gun on the street corner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Checking
Has anyone with known mental issues ever done anything bad with a weapon?
Back ground checks are supposed to screen such individuals, there are many loopholes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Checking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Checking
Forget having a psychologist sign-off, I'd like to see a simple spelling test before people are issued a Twitter ID.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just Checking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just Checking
That might explain some of parent company Cerberus Capital Management's decisions regarding Remington.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just Checking
A gun manufacture does not have control of a weapon after they sell it. They are hands off after the transaction. There is nothing that a gun maker can do post sale to stop illegal use of the weapon. (some will argue that they could do more before the sale, but that's for a different day)
Facebook? Twitter? They remain in control of their product, which they constantly update. They can (and often do) choose what appears on your timeline, who has an account, and such. FB and Twitter both regularly cancel / shut down / delete accounts for various reasons at their discretion.
Therefore, this isn't an equal legal standing.
Nice try, but it's not right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just Checking
Facebook and Twitter can't be reasonably asked to control every single item that goes up because people like me upload many items per session. I tweet every few minutes while I'm on, sharing links and images I find interesting. Now multiply that by multiple millions. The answer would be to find a way to control users so they don't upload undesirable content. Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vultures Need to Eat Too
Steve Dallas would be proud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Several criminals use cars and motorcycles to do their stuff. How can vehicle manufacturers, fuel stations and toll boothsallow it? THey should inspect every passenger to make sure that there's no suspect using their services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Argusably where social media ARE at fault
Is the way that they take down content too easily.
I'm much less worried by the way they allow islamic extremists to post stuff than by the way they shut down islam's opponents.
https://heatst.com/culture-wars/exclusive-facebook-has-been-regularly-shutting-down-athei st-and-ex-muslim-groups/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Argusably where social media ARE at fault
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Argusably where social media ARE at fault
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ 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 ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
4. ???
5. PROFIT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who knew all you had to do to become a God was to make a user generated content platform?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]