Judge On Whether Twitter Is Legally Liable For ISIS Attacks: Hahahahahaha, Nope.

from the decision-in-140-characters-or-less dept

This is not a surprise, but the judge overseeing the case where Twitter was sued by a woman because her husband was killed in an ISIS attack has tossed out the case. We fully expected this when the lawsuit was first filed, and the judge was clearly skeptical of the case during a hearing on it back in June. The order dismissing the case comes in at slightly longer than 140 characters, but you get the feeling that was really about all that was needed to point out how ridiculous this case was. As we expected, Twitter pointed to CDA Section 230 to say it's simply immune from such a claim and the judge agrees:

As noted above, courts have repeatedly described publishing activity under section 230(c)(1) as including decisions about what third-party content may be posted online.... Plaintiffs’ provision of accounts theory is slightly different, in that it is based on Twitter’s decisions about whether particular third parties may have Twitter accounts, as opposed to what particular third-party content may be posted. But it is not clear to me why this difference matters for the purposes of section 230(c)(1). Under either theory, the alleged wrongdoing is the decision to permit third parties to post content – it is just that under plaintiffs’ provision of accounts theory, Twitter would be liable for granting permission to post (through the provision of Twitter accounts) instead of for allowing postings that have already occurred. Plaintiffs do not explain why this difference means that the provision of accounts theory seeks to treat Twitter as something other than a publisher of third-party content, and I am not convinced that it does. Despite being based on Twitter accounts instead of tweets, the theory is still based on Twitter’s alleged violation of a “duty . . . derive[d] from [its] status or conduct as a publisher.”

Even if Section 230 wouldn't have resulted in the case being tossed, Judge William Orrick notes a number of other problems with the lawsuit, including that the claims in the lawsuit don't even make sense (that seems like a big problem). The judge first focuses on how the plaintiffs' arguments shift back and forth between whether it's the mere providing of service to ISIS members that's the problem or the failure of Twitter to prevent the spread of ISIS content. These two things are different, but the lawyers for the plaintiff don't do much to distinguish the two from one another.

Plaintiffs characterize these allegations as “focus[ed] on [Twitter’s] provision of . . . accounts to ISIS, not the content of the tweets.” ... But with the exception of the statement that “ISIS accounts on Twitter have grown at an astonishing rate,” ..., all of the allegations are accompanied by information regarding the ISIS-related content disseminated from the accounts. Plaintiffs allege not just that ISIS had approximately 70,000 Twitter accounts, but that ISIS used those accounts to post at least 90 tweets per minute, ... not just that Al-Furqan maintained a Twitter page, but that it maintained one “where it posted messages from ISIS leadership as well as videos and images of beheadings and other brutal . . . executions to 19,000 followers,” ... not just that Twitter failed to stop an ISIS-linked account from “springing right back up,” but that an inflammatory message was tweeted from this account following the shooting attack in San Bernadino, California in December 2015....

The rest of the FAC is likewise riddled with detailed descriptions of ISIS-related messages, images, and videos disseminated through Twitter and the harms allegedly caused by the dissemination of that content. The FAC also includes a number of allegations specifically faulting Twitter for failing to detect and prevent the dissemination of ISIS-related content through the Twitter platform.

That issue is a big part of the reason why Twitter's Section 230 defense works. The lawyers for the plaintiff argued that it wasn't a 230 issue because it's about the provisioning of services, not the content of the tweet, but their complaint focuses almost exclusively on the content, which clearly keeps liability off of Twitter.

And then there's the other big, non-230, problem with the lawsuit: there's nothing whatsoever in the lawsuit arguing that Twitter had anything directly to do with the ISIS attack that killed Lloyd Fields.

The third problem with the provision of accounts theory is that plaintiffs have not adequately alleged causation. Although the parties dispute the exact formulation of the appropriate causal test for civil liability under the ATA, they agree that the statute requires a showing of proximate causation....

Even under plaintiffs’ proposed “substantial factor” test, ..., the allegations in the FAC do not support a plausible inference of proximate causation between Twitter’s provision of accounts to ISIS and the deaths of Fields and Creach. The only arguable connection between Abu Zaid and Twitter identified in the FAC is that Abu Zaid’s brother told reporters that Abu Zaid had been very moved by ISIS’s horrific execution of al-Kassasbeh, which ISIS publicized through Twitter.... That connection is tenuous at best regardless of the particular theory of liability plaintiffs decide to assert. But the connection is particularly weak under the provision of accounts theory because it is based on specific content disseminated through Twitter, not the mere provision of Twitter accounts.

The plaintiff, Tamara Fields, can still file an amended complaint that tries to fix these problems, but it's not clear how she'll get past them. I imagine that the various copycat lawsuits that have been filed against Twitter, Facebook and Google in the past few months will all face similar fates.

Filed Under: isis, lloyd fields, material support, section 230, tamara fields, terrorism, william orrick
Companies: twitter

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: Yes, the situation is horrifying and awful. No doubt about that. But blaming Facebook for it is idiotic... and also likely to go absolutely nowhere. Facebook is clearly protected by Section 230 of the CDA and it would be amazing if a court didn't toss this lawsuit very quickly. And, yes, obviously it's absolutely horrible if your family member is killed in a terrorist event. I'm sure I'd be distraught and angry and many other feelings that I can't begin to imagine. But lashing out at various neutral social media platforms is just ridiculous. It stinks of being a Steve Dallas lawsuit in which lawyers decide to sue tangentially related companies because that's where the money is. Meanwhile, Hamas is already claiming that this lawsuit is proof that the US is fighting against "freedom of the press and expression." Of course, that assumes that the lawsuit will actually go anywhere, which seems ridiculously unlikely. Terrorist attacks are a real problem. Suing Facebook or other social media platforms isn't going to help one bit.

Filed Under: blame, hamas, material support, platforms, section 230, terrorism
Companies: facebook

Judge Doesn't Find Much To Like In 'Material Support For Terrorism' Lawsuit Against Twitter

from the doubling-down-on-wrong-does-no-one-any-favors dept

The lawsuit against Twitter for "providing material support" to ISIS (predicated on the fact that ISIS members use Twitter to communicate) -- filed in January by the widow of a man killed in an ISIS raid -- is in trouble.

Twitter filed its motion to dismiss in March, stating logically enough that the plaintiff had offered nothing more than conclusory claims about its "support" of terrorism, not to mention the fact that there was no link between Twitter and the terrorist act that killed the plaintiff's husband. On top of that, it pointed out the obvious: that Section 230 does not allow service providers to be held responsible for the actions of their users.

As reported by Nicholas Iovino of Courthouse News Service, the presiding judge doesn't seem too impressed by what he's seen so far from the plaintiff.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick said the complaint fails to show a link between the social media network's actions and the attack that took five lives in Jordan.

"I just don't see causation under the Antiterrorism Act," [Judge William] Orrick said. "There's no allegation that ISIS used Twitter to recruit Zaid."

That deals a blow to one of the lawsuit's allegations. Orrick also didn't find the plaintiff's claim that Twitter direct messages are somehow different than regular tweets when it comes to Section 230 protections.

Orrick was not persuaded that companies like Twitter could be sued for messages sent by users.

"Just because it's private messaging doesn't put this beyond the Communications Decency Act's reach," Orrick said.

This was in response to the plaintiff's lawyer's assertion that because direct messages are not accessible by the public, Twitter couldn't avail itself of Section 230 protections as a "publisher." Twitter's lawyer countered by pointing out email providers are still considered "publishers" and they can't be held responsible for users' communications, even though those messages are never made public.

It only took about 40 minutes for Judge Orrick to reach a decision, albeit one that doesn't shut down this ridiculous lawsuit completely. The lawsuit has been dismissed, but without prejudice and with an invitation for the plaintiff to file an amended complaint.

Given the hurdles the plaintiff needs to leap (some logical, some statutory) to find Twitter responsible for the actions of terrorists halfway around the world, it's unlikely that an amended complaint will fix the seriously misguided lawsuit. The only people truly responsible for the plaintiff's husband's death are those who took his life. While it's an understandable emotional response to want someone to pay for the murder of a loved one, sometimes there's no way to receive that sort of closure.

Twitter isn't a closed platform developed solely for terrorists' communications. It's available to anyone with an email address… even terrorists. Twitter is routinely criticized for its handling of illicit material and abusive behavior, but the undeniable fact still remains: these unpleasant communications are created by users, not by Twitter. Any attempt to connect the dots between a terrorist attack and terrorist chatter is tenuous, and any attempt to hold platforms responsible for the actions of their users carries with it the potential to make the internet worse for millions of law-abiding users.

Filed Under: cda 230, material support, section 230, terrorism, william orrick
Companies: twitter

Twitter, Facebook & Google Sued For 'Material Support For Terrorism' Over Paris Attacks

from the like-suing-automakers-for-car-bombs dept

It's an understandable reaction to tragedy. When faced with the unthinkable -- like the death of a loved one in a terrorist attack -- people tend to make bad decisions. We saw this recently when the widow of a man killed in an ISIS raid sued Twitter for "providing material support to terrorists." Twitter's involvement was nothing more than the unavoidable outcome of providing a social media platform: it was (and is) used by terrorist organizations to communicate and recruit new members.

That doesn't mean Twitter somehow supports terrorism, though. Like most social media platforms, Twitter proactively works to eliminate accounts linked with terrorists. But there's only so much that can be done when all that's needed to create an account is an email address.

As difficult as it may be to accept, platforms like Twitter, Facebook, etc. are not the problem. Like any, mostly-open social platform, they can be used by terrible people to do terrible things. But they are not responsible for individual users' actions, nor should they be expected to assume this responsibility.

Another terrorist attack and another death has prompted a similar lawsuit [PDF] from the father of Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed in the Paris terrorist attacks. The lawsuit contains a number of allegations, but every single one can be countered by Section 230. Reynaldo Gonzalez claims that Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube all provide "support" for terrorism by both refusing to take terrorist-related content/accounts down and not proactively policing their platforms for terrorist-linked users.

The lawsuit contains several quotes from pundits, terrorism experts, and government officials about ISIS's successful use of social media platforms. What it doesn't contain, however, is anyone offering support for the lawsuit's position: that social media platforms should be held directly responsible for terrorist attacks. But that's the sole purpose of this lawsuit: to make the platforms pay for a death they had nothing to do with.

There are calls from government and law enforcement officials for these platforms to "do more" contained in the lawsuit as well. But if there's anything we'll never run out of, it's government officials calling for "x non-government entity" to "do more" in response to [insert latest tragedy here].

As was pointed out earlier, Section 230 immunizes the defendants against lawsuits of this sort. And the fact that there's no direct connection between the terrorist attack and Twitter/Facebook/YouTube's actions means there's no way for Gonzalez's father to seek damages from these defendants for a terrorist attack carried out on foreign soil, as Twitter pointed out the last time it was sued for "providing material support for terrorism."

Whether or not Section 230's protections will hold up remains to be seen. This case has been filed in the Ninth Circuit, which just recently handed down a decision opening up service providers to new levels of liability if they fail to warn users about other, possibly more dangerous users. This isn't exactly the best fit for the bad en banc decision, but with the circuit leaning that direction thanks to recent precedent, lower courts may be more willing to reinterpret Section 230 in ways that will make the internet worse.

Filed Under: isis, material support, nohemi gonzalez, section 230, terrorism
Companies: facebook, google, twitter, youtube

Twitter Asks Court To Dump Ridiculous Lawsuit Claiming It Provides Material Support For Terrorists

from the should-be-an-easy-one dept

Back in January, we wrote about an absolutely ridiculous case, in which Tamara Fields sued Twitter, after her husband was tragically killed in an ISIS raid last year. Why Twitter? She apparently blames Twitter for the rise of ISIS. She provides no evidence to show that the people who killed her husband (a government contractor for DynCorp International) was killed by people who used Twitter. Or that anything about the attack was related to Twitter. It's entirely just "ISIS uses Twitter. ISIS killed by husband. Let's sue Twitter." As we noted at the time, Section 230 should easily get this lawsuit tossed out quickly, and the company has now filed its Motion to Dismiss. The TL;DR: "Section 230, Section 230, What a stupid lawsuit this is."

Plaintiff’s claims seek to hold Twitter liable for the content of messages posted to its platform by third parties and are thus barred by Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230 (“Section 230”). In enacting Section 230, Congress unequivocally resolved the question whether computer service providers may be held liable for harms arising from content created by third parties. Announcing the policy of the United States to preserve the “free market that presently exists for the Internet . . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation,” 47 U.S.C. § 230(b)(2), Congress broadly immunized entities like Twitter against lawsuits that seek to hold them liable for harmful or unlawful third-party content, including suits alleging that such entities failed to block, remove, or alter such content

Of course, even without Section 230, the lawsuit should be dumped, because Twitter had nothing to do with anything in this case.

It fails to state a claim for relief under the Terrorism Civil Remedy provision. That provision requires Plaintiff to allege and prove (1) that she was injured “by reason of”—i.e., that her injury was proximately caused by—(2) an “act of international terrorism” committed by Twitter. 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a). The Complaint’s allegations satisfy neither requirement. First, the link the Complaint attempts to draw between Twitter’s alleged conduct and the attack is, as a matter of law, far too tenuous to establish that Twitter proximately caused Mr. Fields’ death. Second, the Complaint’s allegations amount to nothing more than the claim that Twitter made its communications platform available to everyone in the world with an Internet connection. As a matter of law, that conduct cannot have constituted “an act of international terrorism” as defined by the statute because it plainly does not “appear to [have been] intended” “to intimidate or coerce a civilian population,” “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,” or “to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping,”...

Later, the filing notes:

The Complaint makes no attempt to connect Twitter directly to Abu Zaid or his attack. It does not allege that ISIS recruited Abu Zaid over the Twitter platform. Nor does it allege that Abu Zaid or ISIS used the Twitter platform to plan, carry out, or raise money for the attack. It does not even allege that Abu Zaid had a Twitter account or ever accessed the Twitter platform. And although the Complaint devotes considerable attention to how other terrorists allegedly used the Twitter platform, it never explains how that alleged use had even the remotest connection to Abu Zaid’s “lone wolf” attack. The Complaint does not, for example, allege that ISIS helped Abu Zaid plan the attack or that ISIS provided Abu Zaid with weapons or funds. Beyond the speculation that Abu Zaid and ISIS may have shared the common objectives of inflicting harm on Americans and establishing a transnational Islamic caliphate, the closest the Complaint comes to even hinting at a connection between the two is the allegation that ISIS’s “brutal execution of Jordanian pilot Maaz al-Kassasbeh in February 2015” may have inspired Abu Zaid to become a “lone wolf” terrorist nine months later.

Obviously, having your husband killed in a "lone wolf" attack is a horrible and horrifying situation for anyone to go through. But suing Twitter seems like a particularly misguided response. It would be positively shocking if the judge actually lets this case go any further.

Filed Under: isis, lloyd fields, material support, material support for terrorism, section 230, tamara fields, terrorism
Companies: twitter

Moral Panics: Twitter Feels Compelled To Tell You It's Deleted Over 125,000 Terrorist Twitter Accounts

from the what-good-has-that-really-done? dept

It seems we've entered the next big moral panic: the fact that terrorists like ISIS use social media. It's a point of contention that keeps coming up, leading Presidential candidates to talk about stopping terrorists from using the internet. There was a whole big "summit" between White House officials and tech execs in which questions were raised about blocking ISIS from using social media. And, then, of course, you've even had some tech company execs support the idea.

And now, the inevitable followup on this is tech companies feeling the need to show just how "tough on terrorism" they are by highlighting how many people they've kicked off their service. Up first, Twitter. The company was just recently sued by a woman who lost her husband to an ISIS attack, in which she claims that Twitter is guilty of material support for terrorism, because it allowed ISIS to use Twitter to grow. And so now, Twitter feels the need to proudly highlight the removal of 125,000 terrorist accounts:

e condemn the use of Twitter to promote terrorism and the Twitter Rules make it clear that this type of behavior, or any violent threat, is not permitted on our service. As the nature of the terrorist threat has changed, so has our ongoing work in this area. Since the middle of 2015 alone, we’ve suspended over 125,000 accounts for threatening or promoting terrorist acts, primarily related to ISIS.

Our efforts have not stopped there. We have increased the size of the teams that review reports, reducing our response time significantly. We also look into other accounts similar to those reported and leverage proprietary spam-fighting tools to surface other potentially violating accounts for review by our agents. We have already seen results, including an increase in account suspensions and this type of activity shifting off of Twitter.

Every company, of course, has the right to determine who can and who cannot use their service, but is this really the best response? Hell, just recently there was a situation in which an ISIS leader used Twitter and other social media platforms to try to urge more Muslims to join ISIS, and it turned into a ton of Muslims totally mocking ISIS. When you start deleting accounts, you lose out on those kinds of interactions, which I would imagine are ridiculously more powerful than shutting down accounts of terrorists who will simply open up a new one hours later.

On top of that, merely deleting those Twitter accounts actually hides some information that can be used to track down ISIS members and see what they're doing. Obviously no one wants to be seen "supporting" ISIS, but building a moral panic over the fact that they happen to use social media to spread idiotic ideas hardly seems helpful. If anything, it suggests that their messages are a lot more powerful than they really are. Shutting them down makes them think that what they're saying is having an impact. Mocking them and laughing at them (or even ignoring them) shows that it's having the opposite effect.

But, of course, for much of the media and many politicians, such nuance is not allowed. Instead the focus needs to be on shutting such accounts down. And that leads you to silly announcements like Twitter's from last week.

Filed Under: counterspeech, deleting accounts, free speech, isis, material support, moral panic
Companies: twitter

Woman Files Ridiculous Lawsuit Against Twitter For 'Providing Material Support' To ISIS

from the not-how-it-works dept

Over the past year or so, there has been some people questioning if merely tweeting could be considered "material support for terrorism." Taking things to another level altogether, Tamara Fields, whose husband (a government contractor for DynCorp International) was tragically killed in an ISIS strike late last year, has now sued Twitter for providing "material support" for ISIS.

Let's be clear on a few things: I can't even imagine the horrors of having your loved ones killed that way. It is horrible and tragic, and the pain must be unfathomable to those who have not gone through it. But, at the same time, that's not Twitter's fault no matter how you look at it. The full lawsuit, filed in California by lawyers who should know better, makes a number of ridiculous assertions, including the idea that the rise of ISIS would have never happened without Twitter.

Without Twitter, the explosive growth of ISIS over the last few years into the mostfeared terrorist group in the world would not have been possible. According to the Brookings Institution, ISIS “has exploited social media, most notoriously Twitter, to send its propaganda and messaging out to the world and to draw in people vulnerable to radicalization.” Using Twitter, “ISIS has been able to exert an outsized impact on how the world perceives it, by disseminating images of graphic violence (including the beheading of Western journalists and aid workers) . . . while using social media to attract new recruits and inspire lone actor attacks.” According to FBI Director James Comey, ISIS has perfected its use of Twitter to inspire small-scale individual attacks, “to crowdsource terrorism” and “to sell murder.”

Is ISIS fairly adept at using Twitter? Sure. Does that mean that it wouldn't have become the group it's become today? That's ridiculous. The rest of the complaint takes a number of statements, concerning Twitter's support for free speech rights totally out of context, including repeatedly relying on quotes from individuals who haven't worked for Twitter in years. It also quotes people whining that Twitter should do more as evidence that the company has a legal obligation to do more.

The lawsuit is going nowhere. First of all, considering that it's a civil lawsuit, Twitter is totally and completely protected by Section 230 of the CDA that says the company is not liable for how people use the platform. That's enough to end the case right there. The case will almost certainly be tossed pretty quickly based on 230. Even if that wasn't the case, the claims in the lawsuit that Twitter does basically nothing to stop terrorists are laughably untrue. In fact, ISIS has been issuing death threats against the company and its execs because they've been removing accounts.

On top of that, many have actually been complaining that Twitter goes too far in these efforts. Hell, just a couple weeks ago, the company accidentally shut down the account of a guy people mistakenly thought was ISIS's leader, despite actually being a strong supporter of democracy and freedom, who just happened to have the same last name.

Too many people seem to think that there's some magic wand that Twitter can wave that'll make ISIS "disappear" from the service. It doesn't work that way. The law certainly doesn't require that. And while Twitter does proactively look to take down accounts that are advocating for terrorism, that doesn't mean it's even possible, or reasonable, that it can find every one. Targeting Twitter for a lawsuit just smacks of a Steve Dallas lawsuit, where upset people sue a large company barely involved in things, because that's where the money is.

Finally, over and over again, intelligence officials keep claiming that the fact that ISIS folks are tweeting and Facebooking is actually one of the best ways to keep track of what they're doing and saying. Shutting them down may seem appealing, but actually could decrease the ability to track them and their activities.

Either way, this lawsuit is dead on arrival. It will get tossed out thanks to Section 230. The lawyers who filed it should have known better. Yes, the situation is tragic and horrible and unfortunate. But it's not Twitter's fault -- and suing the company over it just looks ridiculous.

Filed Under: carl fields, cda, cda 230, free speech, isis, lloyd fields, material support, section 230, tamara fields, terrorism
Companies: dyncorp, twitter

FBI Turns 18-Year-Old With An IQ Of 51 Into A Terrorist; Dumps Case Into Laps Of Local Prosecutors

from the truly,-the-A-bomb-drop-of-the-War-on-Terror dept

Another would-be terrorist is in the hands of law enforcement, thanks to a joint effort by the FBI and the St. Clair (Alabama) Sheriff's Department. (h/t The Free Thought Project)

An Alabama prosecutor says an 18-year-old has been charged with soliciting or providing support for an act of terrorism, though details of the case aren't being released.

St. Clair County District Attorney Richard Minor said Tuesday that 18-year-old Peyton Pruitt of St. Clair County was arrested and charged Friday.

County Judge Alan Furr set Pruitt's bail at $1 million and refused to lower it, despite evidence surfacing that the young man is developmentally-disabled (IQ estimated at 52-58, last tested at 51) and the total amount of "support" was "less than $1,000" -- a Class C felony, which normally results in much lower bail amounts. (The guidelines in the state's criminal procedure rules suggest a $5,000-$15,000 range, although judges are free to depart from this recommendation.)

Judge Alan Furr must not like alleged terrorist sympathizers. Two accused murderers and a teacher charged with sexual misconduct involving a student who previously faced Judge Furr combined for less than half the amount set for Pruitt ($450,000).

This is the dangerous terrorist now behind bars.

Witnesses, friends and family members uniformly described Pruitt as a "child" - a teenager with an IQ of 51 who cannot tie his own shoes, soils his clothes, has little verbal skills and lacks the ability to distinguish reality from fantasy.

The FBI, which has never shown any reluctance to trumpet its ability to push mentally-challenged people towards acts of terrorism, doesn't have much to say about this particular bust. It seems content to let local law enforcement run with this one, bringing state charges rather than federal. But it's still behind the elevation of Pruitt from a guy who needs assistance using the restroom to a guy who provides assistance to enemies of the United States.

Chief Investigator Tommy Dixon testified, reading from an FBI transcript of a four-hour interview on Nov. 13 with Pruitt, that the teenager expressed sympathy with Islam and shared information on how to construct bombs that he obtained from Inspire, an online magazine linked to al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. To access the information, Pruitt referred them to a Wicr [sic] account, an encrypted instant messaging application.

Dixon said Pruitt had told the FBI "he would be happy" if acts of terrorism were carried out. "He felt it would be understandable," he said. He also suggested targets for terrorism, including the CIA headquarters, police stations and "big events" such as football games, Dixon said.

Beyond quoting from FBI interview transcripts, local prosecutors and law enforcement have said nothing about the case. They claim they can't jeopardize an ongoing information. But it appears they may not actually be in possession of much more than what the FBI has handed them, which may not be everything it has.

Under repeated questions from Pruitt's attorney Gibson Holladay, Dixon said his testimony came from the FBI transcript and not any first hand evidence. Holladay also questioned the logic of charging Pruitt with soliciting material support for a terrorist act by reading the statute and asking if Pruitt had provided a safe house, or false documents, or money, or transportation to terrorists. Dixon said he had no knowledge of whether he had or hadn't. Prosecutors objected to the questions.

"All you've got is Peyton's statement, right?" Holladay said. "You couldn't tell me if Peyton contacted Santa Claus or a terrorist, can you? Was it a bomb or a recipe for banana pudding? You don't know, do you?"

It certainly looks like the FBI realized it has a potential PR nightmare on its hands and somehow persuaded the locals to take the case. The agency is refusing to answer any questions, referring all queries to the St. Clair County District Attorney's office.

The few things local prosecutors have actually said -- that aren't direct quotes from FBI paperwork -- have been completely ridiculous.

Dixon said in his testimony that the FBI is still reviewing Pruitt's computer. But several of Minor's questions suggested other evidence. During Waldrop's testimony, Minor asked if she would be surprised to learn Pruitt had used an encrypted website, she said yes.

Reading statements, he asked, "Would it surprise you that he can quote the Koran?" She said yes.

Both perfectly legal acts. I use an "encrypted website." (This apparently refers to Wickr, suggesting prosecutors really have no idea what they're actually dealing with.) I use Wickr and can quote from religious texts (even the unpopular ones). So what? Even combined, these two things add up to nothing. But these prosecutors are trying desperately to make both acts sound ominous and supportive of their assertions that an 18-year-old incapable of tying his own shoelaces posed a legitimate threat to those around him and, indeed, the security of the nation.

Thanks to the same judge who refused to lower Pruitt's bail, prosecutors won't have to face any tough questions in the immediate future.

A St. Clair County judge sent the case of a teenager accused of soliciting support for a terrorist act onto a grand jury as part of a two-hour preliminary hearing in Pell City today.

This is the normal chain of events for serious felonies in Alabama, but one that will allow the prosecutors to present the FBI's evidence without being challenged by incredulous defense attorneys or distracted by the sight of the defendant silently "rocking back and forth" while the next 1-10 years of his life are discussed.

From here, it looks as though the FBI has finally developed a sense of shame and has chosen to ditch this turdball with local prosecutors. Unfortunately, its sense of shame hasn't compelled it to drop the case or otherwise dissuade far-too-enthusiastic prosecutors from pursuing this further. Both ISIS and the FBI have a fondness for "useful idiots," but neither should actually find anything useful in a person who's mentally unable to handle their own bodily functions, much less contribute to a terrorist group in any meaningful way.

Filed Under: alabama, alan furr, fbi, material support, own plot, peyton pruitt, terrorism

FBI Closes Out 2015 With Another Questionable Terrorism Bust

from the 2016-Goal:-Stay-the-Course dept

The FBI has managed to get one more terrorist bust on the books for FYE 2015.

Emanuel L. Lutchman, 25, was arrested and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), a designated foreign terrorist organization. The charge carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

According to the complaint, Lutchman had big, violent plans for New Year's Eve.

LUTCHMAN discussed with CS-2 [FBI informant] doing assassinations and using a pressure cooker bomb. LUTCHMAN said that he wanted to execute the plan so they could be "in and out," noting that they should make it "quiet and simple" so they can go about doing what they need to do to make hijra [leave the US and travel to Syria]. He also said that, after the operation, "they're going to be hunting for us," meaning that law enforcement authorities would be seeking to capture them. CS-2 asked LUTCHMAN if they would use a knife in the event they could not use a pressure cooker bomb or firearm(s).

While Lutchman may have had big plans, he really didn't seem to have any of the necessary ingredients. He had occasional contact with a self-professed ISIL member overseas, but 99% of his planning was done with the assistance of three FBI informants. While he did profess a desire to perform an act of terrorism, nearly everything he needed to carry this out was going to need to be obtained from someone else.

LUTCHMAN stated that they would use knives during the attack, noting that he knew someone with a machete and that his wife has a dagger.

And:

LUTCHMAN stated that they would need to wear masks during the operation so they would not get caught by law enforcement authorities, noting that he had a "brother" who would sell the masks for $5.

Do you really need a "connect" for ski masks? I mean, maybe in Arizona. But upstate New York?

Both of these "sources" failed to produce the needed items, so Lutchman and an FBI informant headed to the nation's largest terrorist outfitter, Walmart. Even with the retail giant's famous low prices, Lutchman still needed seed money for his foray into terrorism. Fortunately, the FBI was there to help.

In the evening on or about December 29, 2015, LUTCHMAN met with CS-2 During the meeting, LUTCHMAN and CS-2 went to a Walmart store on Hudson Avenue in Rochester, New York, to purchase supplies for the operation. While there, they purchased 2 black ski masks, zip-ties, 2 knives, a machete, duct tape, ammonia and latex gloves. Due to the fact that LUTCHMAN did not have any funds with him at the store, CS-2 paid approximately $40 for these items.

Had it been left to Lutchman to carry out this attack, he may have been able to come up with a knife or two. The $5 ski masks apparently would have been out of his price range.

To be sure, Lutchman did make plenty of disturbing statements to the FBI informants, as well as to the overseas provocateur. He may truly have desired to commit an act of violence. But it does seem apparent he was pretty much incapable of moving forward with his plans on his own. Maybe he was just looking for a few people who would listen to him rant and never call him on his bullshit -- a position filled by competently by the three FBI informants.

The fact that he couldn't even come up with the $40 needed to fund a two-man knife attack makes the charge of "material support" somewhat laughable. Perhaps that's why the complaint makes it clear the "material support" being "provided" by Lutchman was very specific -- and, presumably, of limited use.

Attempt to provide material support and resources, namely, himself as personnel and services, to a designated foreign terrorist organization…

"Himself" being the only thing anyone could count on Lutchman being in possession of when the time came to carry out the attack.

Then there's Lutchman's rap sheet:

EMANUEL L. LUTCHMAN is a 25~year old United States citizen, who currently resides in Rochester, New York. He is a self~professed Muslim convert with a criminal history dating back to approximately 2006 (which includes a New York state conviction for Robbery 2 from 2006, for which he served approximately 5 years in prison), as well as previous state Mental Hygiene arrests.

The mental hygiene arrests suggest Lutchman could be a dangerous person -- not because of his allegiance to ISIL -- but in general. Mental hygiene arrests occur when a person is considered to be a danger to themselves or others. He may have been a threat, thanks to his mental issues, but a terrorist? Certainly, the mental instability could have made Lutchman much more susceptible to outside suggestions that he commit violence, but his arrest record suggests Lutchman didn't have the mental (and, apparently, financial) capacity to provide much "support" for the Islamic State's violent aims.

It may be safer now that Lutchman is off the streets, but this arrest doesn't really gain us any ground in the War on Terrorism. A majority of the FBI's busts have been just as dubious, suggesting the agency values quantity over quality when it comes to arresting suspected terrorists.

Filed Under: emanuel lutchman, fbi, isis, material support, material support for terrorism, own plot

One Man Troll Army Arrested For Supporting Terrorists: Where's The Line Between Trolling And Terrorism?

from the don't-troll-the-fbi dept

Remember Tanya Cohen? Earlier this year I wrote a story calling bullshit on a long non-sensical rant by "Cohen" in which "she" argued that the US was somehow against human rights and true free speech because it refused to criminalized "hate speech" with hate speech loosely defined as any speech "Tanya Cohen" didn't like. While some of the free speech crew attacked Cohen's piece, I pointed out that, to me, it was very clearly satire. There was no way anyone actually believed those statements. Take this one for example:

Anyone guilty of hate speech – which should carry criminal penalties of 25 years to life – should be sent to special prisons designed to re-educate them and to instill values of tolerance, freedom, democracy, and human rights in them.

Well, now it turns out that Tanya Cohen may be facing some fairly serious criminal penalties "herself" -- and, somewhat ironically, it appears that those charges are based mostly on sending some public web URLs to an FBI confidential informant pretending to be a terrorist. And, of course, "Tanya Cohen" is not Tanya Cohen at all, but rather Joshua Goldberg -- who was arrested last Thursday in connection with at least some of his trolling. Soon after that, a larger set of revelations about the trolling came out, suggesting that Goldberg was a one-man trolling army, setting up a huge variety of different accounts saying different things and often pitting one of his own accounts against another.

Some commentators have suggested that Goldberg was an extreme free speech supporter -- but it's difficult to tell if Goldberg believed in much of anything beyond trolling. He seemed to be an equal opportunity troller, willing to troll just about anyone. He set up fake profiles of real people and made them say heinous things. He had personas that were extreme free speech supporters. He had personas that were extreme anti-free speech supporters. He had personas that were white power racists. He had personas that advocated exterminating Palestinians. He had personas that were ISIS-supporting jihadis. It's that last one, rather than any of the other ones, that now has him facing criminal charges for material terrorist support.

You can read the details in the criminal complaint against Goldberg. Now, to be clear: Goldberg appears to be a world class asshole, and a somewhat obsessive and thorough internet troll (though the Cohen stunt really seemed so ridiculous that I'm still surprised people fell for it). And he also appeared to be playing with real fire. Trying to troll free speech/anti-free speech people is one thing. Trying to troll ISIS supporters is another. Among other things, his "Australi Witness" persona tried to take credit for the high profile shootings in Texas at a "Draw Muhammad" event. Here's what he posted about "himself" online:

Hello, this is Australi Witness. You might know me for inspiring the attacks in Garland, Texas, where two mujahideen entered an event mocking the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) with intent to slaughter the kuffar in it. When I encouraged the attacks in Texas, my biggest inspiration was the Australian Muslim human rights activist Mariam Veiszadeh, who has worked tirelessly and diligently to outlaw blasphemy against Islam in Australia. Any true Muslim knows that blasphemy against the Prophets of Allah (SWT) is a capital crime which cannot be tolerated under any circumstances, and Mariam Veiszadeh's work has provided me with a great deal of inspiration. All who defame the Prophet (PBUH) must be crushed. Bill Leak and Larry Pickering will soon meet their demise, as will Josh Bornstein.

The trolling is almost too convoluted to follow, but Mariam Veiszadeh and Josh Bornstein are both real people -- but are both people that Goldberg was trying to smear with other efforts, including setting up a fake persona pretending to be Bornstein, and then somehow convinced the Times of Israel to publish an absolutely ridiculous opinion piece advocating for the outright extermination of Palestinians, which didn't make the real Bornstein very happy.

But, it was those claims of inspiring the Texas attacks that caught the FBI's attention -- and suddenly made Goldberg the target of one of the FBI's patented "own plots," in which it sends in a "confidential informant" -- either an undercover FBI agent or, more commonly, a ex-con looking for some extra cash from the FBI to be a "paid informant" -- to see if it can entice the target to join a totally fake terrorist plot. From the criminal complaint, you see that after the FBI's "confidential human source" (CHS) made contact with Goldberg (playing the persona of "AusWitness"), it was actually the FBI informant who repeatedly suggested taking things up a notch. And then AusWitness played along, pushing the FBI informant to go do an attack.

Yes. This is some weird shit: it's a conversation between a renowned internet troll and an FBI informant, neither knowing who the other really is and each working angles to try to get the other to do something, without either one ever realizing the other is playing a really different game. And the end result is a totally fake bomb plot... and criminal charges.

The conversation between the two began with Goldberg as "AusWitness" pretending that he may have accidentally outed a fellow ISIS supporter in Australia, and pretending that he "felt guilty" about posting about the guy on 8chan. The FBI informant consoles Goldberg a bit and then switches the subject:

August 15, 2015 07:27
CHS - I don't know what else to say ahki.

August 15, 2015 07:33
CHS - Maybe we can put some more irons in the fire bro. I think we're on the same page as far as ideas go.

August 16, 2015 21:02
AW - What do You mean, brother?

August 16, 2015 22:40
CHS - Sounds like you're trying to do some planning Australia. I'm trying to do the same here. I have to get some sleep classes start again tomorrow but let's talk about this more tomorrow night

Notice that it was "CHS" the FBI informant who brings up the idea of starting a plot in the US. The next day, Goldberg does a trolly bit, baiting the FBI informant, by talking about mythical attacks that were supposed to happen and how "hopefully" they'll be some more attacks on 9/11 this year -- and the FBI informant responds:

We could probably figure something out.

Goldberg/AusWitness then asks the FBI informant if he has any bombs, and the informant admits he doesn't know how to make bombs. That's when Goldberg/AusWitness sends over some URLs of publicly available websites:

August 19, 2015 06:28
AusWitness - What weapons do you have brother? I can send you guides on how to make bombs if you need help making them.

August 19, 2015 06:29
CHS - I only have the one weapon but I do t think that is what Allah wants for me. I was arrested just before with the one weapon. Guides would be great ahki something bigger than just a gun attack alhamdulillah.

August 19, 2015 06:44
AusWfness - Alight, akhi. I'm gonna send you some bomb-making guides on Twitter soon.

The message sent on twitter contained five URLs to public facing websites. It sounds like the kind of websites pretty much any idiot could find with a quick Google search, and which might help some people create explosives, but (more likely) would lead people to injure themselves trying. From the complaint, describing what was sent:

... five website links that contained instructions on how to construct explosives, including pipe bombs or incendiary devices are listed.

Later, Goldberg/AusWitness did suggest a target (a memorial event in Kansas City commemorating first responders in NYC on 9/11), but again, we're still in a conversation between a troll and an FBI informant. Still, it turned out that was really enough. Amazingly, at about this same time, some folks down in Australia, who were also being trolled by Goldberg figured out who he was, and got into a conversation with him online, in which he basically admitted to everything, and even talked about his pro-ISIS trolling, laughing off the idea that anyone was actually going to do anything based on his online efforts, saying "these guys are pussy keyboard warriors." The people who had this conversation with Goldberg passed it along to Australian law enforcement, who shared it with the FBI... just as they were wrapping up their investigation. The FBI, in the complaint, notes that it wasn't sure if Goldberg's trolling efforts was really that relevant, and admit they had no idea about it when they began the investigation, but are including it just in case it's important.

Either way, here's the crux of the complaint against Goldberg:

Based on the facts and circumstances described above, there is probable cause to believe that Joshua Ryne Goldberg (Goldberg) illegally distributed information relating to explosives, destructive devices, and weapons of mass destruction, namely that on or about August 19, 2015 through and including August 28, 2015, in Clay County, in the Middle District of Florida, Goldberg distributed information pertaining to the manufacturing of explosives, destructive devices, or weapons of mass destruction in furtherance of an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence by sending to a person five website links for websites that provided instructions that could be utilized to construct or make explosives, destructive devices, or weapons of mass destruction, as part of a plot to explode a bomb on September 13, 2015 at a memorial ceremony in Kansas City, Missouri that commemorates the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 842(p).

Again, the key part: that he sent five public URL links to an FBI informant.

Once again, no one is denying that Goldberg is a world class asshole troll. Some may feel that he deserves to be locked up for that aspect of his life. But it seems rather noteworthy that at no point was anyone even remotely in danger here. At no point was anyone even remotely connected to ISIS or any terrorist organization involved here. Instead, you had a one-man internet trolling army pretending to be ISIS trying to troll someone else he thought was a wanna-be ISIS supporter in the US, but who actually turned out to be working for the FBI. And Goldberg was never actually a part of the plot. He wasn't planning to take part in it. He just sent the guy some links to websites about making bombs. The FBI doesn't say, but it seems likely that those websites are still very much online and accessible.

It's hard not to cheer on seeing an internet troll get "hoist on his own petard," but there was no terrorist plot here. There were just two people playing other people online for different reasons, trying to get the other to do something.

Meanwhile, now that we know a little bit more about "Tanya Cohen" -- and it similarly reveals that the person who repeatedly kept trying to convince me that "Cohen" was real was... also Joshua Goldberg. One of his many other personas was "Moon Metropolis" and he kept a blog and a twitter feed, in which he pretended to not just be the anti-Tanya Cohen, but to insist to me and others that Cohen was absolutely real and meant every word of "her" crazy rants:

Since then, he sent me a few similar links, continually insisting that Cohen was (a) real (b) crazy and (c) very typical out in the world -- even sending me some other "examples" of people who said similar things to Cohen. Except, it appears that even his support was just another Goldberg persona. That "Aussie Freedom Fighter" account? Pretty sure that's just another Goldberg persona... and he was just desperately trying to do some sort of triple troll. Create trollish account. Then troll the person who called out the fact that the troll account was fake... and support it with another troll. It's a jerky thing to do. And, apparently, when you try to pull the same jerky bullshit on the FBI, they may eventually come down on you with terrorism charges.

Oh yeah. One more thing: it seems that Goldberg was never really that good in covering his tracks. Just days after my original post, a Twitter user going by @healing_bible and @preacherskidd actually told me that Tanya Cohen was likely a creation of Moon Metropolis... who was really Joshua Goldberg... leading Moon Metropolis to flip out in return. @healing_bible, whoever you are, step on up. You win a prize. You figured it out months before the FBI ever did. And next time you tell me to investigate something, perhaps I'll actually take you up on it. Also, based on that, it appears that Goldberg as "Moon Metropolis" was active in the comments of Cohen's own stories insisting that "Cohen" was real, while again insisting that this kind of crazy thinking was common around the globe. So, yeah, create troll story with one account, attack it and "legitimize" it with another. Trolling 101.

In the end, it's quite clear that Goldberg was an extreme internet troll, who engaged in a variety of trollish personas. And, in the end, one of those personas got him arrested and facing some pretty serious criminal charges. But, as nice as it may sound to throw a troll in jail, it's hard to see how he actually did anything that supported terrorism in any way... unless you consider internet trolling a form of terrorism. And then, you might find someone like "Tanya Cohen" to agree with you. But I'm guessing Joshua Goldberg might not agree. Then again, it might just depend on which persona he's decided to take on that day.

Filed Under: fbi, free speech, internet troll, isis, joshua goldberg, material support, moonmetropolis, own plot, tanya cohen, terrorism, trolling