Facebook Sued for $1 Billion for Alleged Use of Medium for Terror (bloomberg.com) 204
A group of Israelis and American lawyers are suing Facebook for a sum of $1 billion in damages for allegedly facilitating deadly Palestinian militant attacks on their loved ones. The application accuses Facebook of helping Hamas militants plot attacks that killed four Americans and wounded one in Israel, the West Bank and Jerusalem. Bloomberg reports:"Facebook has knowingly provided material support and resources to Hamas in the form of Facebook's online social network platform and communication services,â making it liable for the violence against the five Americans, according to the lawsuit sent to Bloomberg by the office of the Israeli lawyer on the case, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner. Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by the U.S., European Union and Israel. The suit said the group used Facebook to share operational and tactical information with members and followers, posting notices of upcoming demonstrations, road closures, Israeli military actions and instructions to operatives to carry out the attacks.
Contempt of Court (Score:1, Insightful)
Throw these clowns in jail for a while for filing frivolous lawsuits. Then put them in the town square (of NYC or something) with a vat of tar and a pile of feathers, let passers by apply liberal amounts of each.
Re:Contempt of Court (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Contempt of Court (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not so sure it is frivolous. FB opened this can of worms itself by engaging in censorship and control of its pages. Now, if they can prove in court that it is just a false perception of censorship and control, they can get away with this. But, if they are filtering their content manually at all, they become legally responsible for all of it.
It is worth noting that Facebook's reporting system appears to be designed more for hate speech and nudity than for terrorism, and they made design decisions in the reporting system. For example, there are thousands of shares of terrorist hoaxes every day that they don't appear to even try to stop. E.g. the meme about all the stolen UPS uniforms (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/upsuniforms.asp)
Re:Contempt of Court (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
and/or genocide
Typical propaganda and typical Anti-Semetic bullshit. The actual charter for Hamas calls for actual "Genocide". You know, the "peaceful muslims".
I want to know what "crap" is going on in West Bank, other than Israel Pull out and Hamas promptly started violence towards Israel.
And as for support for Palestine, fine, and dandy, but you should know, that they are REALLY not very nice to all kinds of people, who aren't just like them. People like women, gays, christians, jews .... just about everyone who isn't a
Re: (Score:2)
Typical propaganda and typical Anti-Semetic bullshit. The actual charter for Hamas calls for actual "Genocide". You know, the "peaceful muslims".
Well look at what your founding documents say:
Re: (Score:2)
You go back 3500 years ago to get that? Wow, that is IMPRESSIVE! Never mind the nearly 2000 years where Israel didn't exist due to attempted Genocide of the Jewish people, and the whole WWII thing that caused the world to give Israel a small piece of land surrounded by Peaceful Muslims (who promptly invaded).
Yeah, ignoring anything between 3500 years ago, and now is PERFECTLY acceptable.
And if you're white, you exterminated the peaceful Neanderthals, you piece of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
You go back 3500 years ago to get that?
OK, here's something more recent.
Re: (Score:2)
You know what, I am totally with this line:
In 2009 he published a book (The King's Torah) in which he writes that it is permissible for Jews to kill non-Jews (including children) who threaten the lives of Jews.[3]
The rest of that seems to veer into crazyland. As this isn't a published work of the Israeli government, I am not sure why you would think it applies in this case though.
Re: (Score:2)
I will NEVER understand why any Jew is a liberal.
https://youtu.be/BUh-djbgRx4?t... [youtu.be]
Mir vern gehast un getribn
mir vern gepflogt un farfolgt.
un alts nor derfar vayl mir libn
dos oreme shmakhtnde volk.
We are despised and driven away,
We are tortured and dispersed;
And why? For only one reason:
because we love the poor.
We are shot and hanged,
robbed of our lives and our rights,
and for only one reason:
because we demand freedom for downtrodden slaves.
Put us into iron chains,
tear us apart with blood;
you can only kill our bodies;
not our ideas.
You can murder us, tyrant
Re: (Score:2)
^^^THIS.
Someone who gets it. Of course, that's anathema to the likes of Netanyahu who just wants to continue to suck on the teat of US military aid.to continue his racist policies.
The only way to get serious negotiations going is to end that unconditional aid.
Re:Contempt of Court (Score:5, Interesting)
They're breaking the rules too. See creating, approving, and encouraging building of settlements in occupied territory. A lot of Israelis are opoosed to this but they're not able to break up the majority coalition (ie, the ultra orthodox will happily side with the hardliners as long as they continue to be exempt from military service). Rationally it is obvious that building the settlements only disrupts the possibility of peace but politics and rationality don't cooperate with each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Who's rules. What makes those external rules law? I thought war and losing makes the law. As far as I see, all the land that Israel got after 1963 is the result of the arabs fucking up. So, tough. I am not jewish, christian or muslim. But I am a realist.
There actually are rules of war, and there is international law. The Geneva Conventions cover the rules of war.
So, if if the Nazis confiscate the home of a Jewish woman, and the Nazis in turn are defeated by the Soviets, the Soviets don't own her home. And in fact the Soviets did respect property claims by Jews. The Jewish woman or her descendants could come back and claim her home (although because of the documentation and other requirements it wasn't easy).
The Israelis can decide that they won't recognize
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement_timeline
http://passblue.com/2014/07/11/israeli-settlements-a-timeline-from-1967-to-now/
How about someone take your country illegally, then tell you to stuff it, and get the world to agree because it's anti-semitism otherwise. Then proceed to demolish your villages and put in apartment blocks for illegal settlers? The picture below shows hundreds of thousands of settlers relocating to contested lands over the last two decades. Lands which are not theirs accord
Re: (Score:2)
There's considerable question as to how much of Israel was taken illegally. Much of it was bought legally, and the Palestinians then migrated to (IIRC) Egypt, but it could have been Jordan or Syria. Then, later, the countries they migrated to threw them out again, or essentially so. (This was all back before the 7 day war, so it's a bit fuzzy.) At that time Israel had a mixture of Israelis and Palestinians living there, but as the war dragged on prejudices became stronger, and more and more Palestinians
Re: (Score:2)
There's considerable question as to how much of Israel was taken illegally.
Well, according to Theodor Meron, who was chief legal counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry in 1967, it was illegal under international law for Israel to take any of the lands seized in the 1967 war (beyond the Green Line).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe I argued against that point of view.
OTOH, it's also worth remembering that at that time both Syria and Egypt were attempting to take and hold ALL of Israel. Which would also have been against international law. (That was what the UAR was about. They wanted to seize all the land in between them to create a contiguous country. I doubt that even had they done so they could have created a working government, but that doesn't change what they planned.)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not trying to figure out who the good countries and bad countries are any more. There don't seem to be any.
But if you're trying to figure out a solution, international law is a good way to sort things out.
I think -- and Theodore Meron thinks -- that Israel would have been better off if they had followed international law.
The Likud created their own problem and they're dragging us down with them.
Re: (Score:2)
So, when are you going to demand the US give Texas back to Mexico as the land was taken "illegally" in war?
The land was taken in a war, Israel was attacked, and they conquered the areas. By international law, if it were any other country, it would be legally their land. I don't see the UN demanding that Russia give back sections of Georgia and Ukraine that they have annexed in war.
Re: (Score:2)
The land was taken in a war, Israel was attacked, and they conquered the areas. By international law, if it were any other country, it would be legally their land.
You obviously don't know anything about international law.
Theodore Meron was the Israeli government's own lawyer and he wrote in 1967 (and still believes) that the occupation of the West Bank would be illegal.
I think you will agree that Meron knows more about international law than you.
Under international law, a country doesn't get legal ownership of territory just because they conquered it in war.
Re: (Score:2)
So where is your issue with Russia taking parts of Georgia and Ukraine?
How is Texas in any way different? The US fought a war and took Texas from Mexico, how is that not illegal by your definition?
Re: (Score:2)
(1) I don't know all the facts about Russia taking parts of Georgia and Ukraine.
(2) Texas left Mexico before modern international law was established, including the Geneva Conventions that Meron cited.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, let's try it this way:
On what basis do you not consider the Israeli government an organization of terrorists.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that Israel doesn't engage in acts of terror, I can't imagine how you could even try to make that kind of statement.
Palestinians randomly fire rockets at Israel cities. Israel calmly calls the people and tells them they should evacuate as the area is about to be bombed (to try and take out the rocket launchers). Who commits an act of terror here?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? When was the last time anyone held the Palestinians to any kind of behavioral standards? They can bomb, knife, stone, shoot, or otherwise harass anyone they want anytime they want and "international peace organizations" say nothing about it.
How about last Saturday.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/lat... [amnesty.org]
The deadly attack on civilians at a Tel Aviv shopping and restaurant complex last night displayed a stark contempt for human life, Amnesty International said.
Two Palestinian gunmen opened fire at the Sarona market in Tel Aviv on Wednesday evening, killing four civilians and injuring others. Several of those wounded were still hospitalized on Thursday morning. Israeli forces apprehended the attackers, wounding one of them.
"This heinous attack flouted f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the Palestinians are really bad at war, and Israel's Iron Dome is very effective, doesn't mean that Israel isn't being attacked.
Re: (Score:2)
Terrorism isn't hate speech? What worse form of hate speech is there than "I want everyone who isn't like me dead and will take actions towards those ends"?
Re: (Score:2)
Anything legal that rids us of Facebook is a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh yes, the "two wrongs make a right" as long as one of the "wrongs" is in your favor argument.
Legal doesn't make it moral.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case you're assuming getting rid of Facebook is immoral. You're entitled to your opinion just as I am. I would love to see Facebook gone and all the gossip-drama that goes with it.
If Facebook has contributed to terrorism then Zuckerburg and it's C-level staffers need jail time. Not just a ( Pinky finger at corner of mouth ) 1 BILLION Dollar slap on the wrist.
Re: (Score:3)
No, I am not assuming "get rid of Facebook" is immoral. Using questionable tactics to do so is immoral. In this case suing them for whatever "Terrorism" plot was hatched on it. Just wait until voting for "Unacceptable candidate" of your choice is deemed "Terrorism" by the powers that be. Or whatever tool they used (Zello, Slack, Google Docs, Google+ ....) that you like is also sued for the exact same reason.
No, the problem I have isn't Facebook, it is that two wrongs don't make it right, EVEN IF the result
Re: (Score:2)
First Amendment meet frivolous lawsuit. Frivolous lawsuit meet the dumpster.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up.
Re:Contempt of Court (Score:5, Insightful)
They should go after the perpetrators of the violence. But wait, they have no money. So let's take $RANDOM_AMERICAN_BUSINESS, because not only do they have money, American juries are made up of average Americans. With an average IQ of the Siberian mean temperature.
Re: (Score:2)
These attorneys should be ashamed of themselves.
Have you met any attorneys? The whole profession is built around lack of shame.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Where you did what? Took a dump? Farted? Stuck a booger?
Re: (Score:2)
Zuckerberg can be replaced by one of his stooges.
What we need is some way, without killing people, of simply eliminating all the data on Facebook's servers and all their backups too. That would be a boon for humanity.
Doing the same for Microsoft would be as well.
Re: (Score:2)
We already have excellent replacements, people just don't want to use them.
ZDnet says Linux Mint 18 is the best desktop, period [zdnet.com].
Good Jew vs. Good Jews (Score:2)
OK, I was going to use "Evil" instead of "Good" in my subject line, but I know how Slashdot works and undoubtedly one of God's Chosen People would have modded me down for that (they can be so petty).
So now the people who believe that God has chosen them and will favor them in any dispute against any other people are taking offense that Facebook is not opposing free speech hard enough. Maybe they are even upset that Facebook is not killing Palestinians and evicting Palestinian families out of their own coun
Re: (Score:2)
But to also be fair this primarily happens through the "report" feature. A closed group dedicated to this is not going to be reporting itself.
Communications is aiding terror? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Communications is aiding terror? (Score:5, Insightful)
Before Facebook, did they used to sue paper and pencil manufacturers for the same thing?
No, they don't have the fat loot FB has. If they're suing FB though, why stop there? Why not sue the ISPs for providing connections to Hamas. They couldn't use FB if they couldn't connect!
Re: (Score:3)
Why stop there? I bet a bunch of terrorists use cell phones to communicate with each other - why not sue both the cellular providers and the phone manufacturers while you're at it.
Re:Communications is aiding terror? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is probably the reason Twitter doesn't ban the neo-nazis that are running wild on their system.
To be fair... (Score:2)
If Facebook filtered all terrible content there wouldn't be much left.
Re: (Score:3)
About as far as they have already gotten.
Or do you think everyone is a neo nazi? The reality is that they are a tiny minority in a large population.
Re:Communications is aiding terror? (Score:4, Insightful)
Paper and pencil manufacturers can't censor things that their customers write. Facebook can and has censored content already.
IMHO everyone on the internet should have to declare if they're a common carrier or if they accept responsibility for what they allow on a platform they control. One can't censor copyright infringement but then turn a blind eye to terrorism.
Don't fall down that slippery slope (Score:2)
The answer is for a service like Facebook not to censor at all. One is supposed to be 18 or over to use the service, and controls should exist so that people can self censor. Who cares what a terrorist group says if you didn't sign up to read it? Even if they paid to spam, their opinions don't bug me at all. I'm very confident in my own opinions, ask anyone that knows me. Actions cause harm, words do not.
Of course FB decided to censor to suite their master's agenda. So in this case they could in my op
Re: (Score:2)
Actions cause harm, words do not.
You of all people should know Words cause Actions.
Re: (Score:2)
A better analogy would've been phone companies and then the Internet Service Providers.
And it would still have been an invalid analogy, because neither the phone companies nor the ISPs filter based on contents. You may be too young to remember, but this was frequently an argument over Usenet censorship during early-to-mid 1990ies — that by censoring some posts an ISP may lose their Common Carrier [wikipedia.org] status and have to sensor all post
Re: (Score:2)
You may be too young to remember, but this was frequently an argument over Usenet censorship during early-to-mid 1990ies — that by censoring some posts an ISP may lose their Common Carrier [wikipedia.org] status and have to sensor all posts from then on.
You may be too old to remember, but ISP's were dragged kicking and screaming into being classified as Common Carriers just last year. The FCC forced this status upon them in order to enact net neutrality rules. I'd give you a link, but you helpfully already did...see the last sentence under "Telecommunications".
In the early to mid 1990ies, ISP's most certainly did not have common carrier status.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't it '96 when the Title II provisions that the telecommunications industry operated under were repealed? Luckily the link was already posted and you even pointed out the section that says
Re: (Score:2)
Bah, everyone is thinking too small. Sue any government who's money has touched the hand of a terrorist. Start with suing the US government for all it is worth... erm wait... 19 trillion in debt. Well we can work out a payment plan.
_ISRAEL_ suing ANYONE for terrorism? LAUGHABLE. (Score:5, Insightful)
These schmucks are thumbing their noses at the International Criminal Court and UN findings of war crimes, systematic abuses of Palestinians decried by the international community at large, a peace plan based admittedly in LIES, and are constantly ratcheting up attacks on civilian areas while complaining that people there are being radicalized into terror by their very actions. For Israelis to feel they have standing to sue FACEBOOK for FACILITATING TERRORISM?
It takes more than a little chutzpah. It's ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you are losing sight of the fact this isn't a nation suing but individuals that were harmed. Regardless if they are Israeli or in this case Americans too, people shouldn't be murdered no matter what land they are on. Is it alright for ISIS to murder people because it is now their land? What about if an American is murdered in a Native American reservation? The point being is this is a civil matter brought by victims families against people they believe had a hand in the events that led to people the
AT&T needs to watch out... (Score:1)
I suppose they also sued the phone company for aiding and abetting also? Maybe the stores where the terrorists bought their burner phones, the electric company for supplying the power they used to charge their phones, the grocery store for feeding them, and the water company for slaking their thirsts....
Re:AT&T needs to watch out... (Score:5, Informative)
Phone companies are common carriers. Common carriers are shielded from liability if someone uses their network to plan or commit nefarious activities. They even lobbied to be common carriers so they specifically aren't held liable for the content of the conversations that traverse the telephone network.
Internet companies are NOT common carriers. They have lobbied to NOT be common carriers specifically so they have the power to control and and disallow speech they personally disagree with. By NOT censoring terrorist groups, they have shown that they are giving de facto support to those groups and that they effectively agree with the speech of terrorists, thereby they can absolutely be held liable for the content of the conversations and speech that traverses their networks.
Re: (Score:2)
Turn in your law license, now.
The [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The second part (sec. 230(c)(1), which is actually the first part of that subsection) says that they are not liable for not censoring things. Did you read that? Did you read the part that of my post that specifically discussed it?
Were those parts too difficult for you to understand? How do you propose to get around 230(c)(1)? Shall I drag out the ever growing canon of CDA caselaw that puts the concept in even plainer terms for you?
The first part addressed the bad argument that because they choose to cen
Re: (Score:2)
(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny, because you've quoted it.
47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1)
Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
Not liable for publishing third party content [ericgoldman.org]
over [ericgoldman.org]
and over [ericgoldman.org]
and over again [ericgoldman.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Hosting illegal materials is still illegal. The CDA doesn't exonerate someone who knowingly and willfully continues to make content available that is illegal regardless of who is considered the "publisher". Ever seen the operator of a child porn site get raided? Yeah, it's like that except with terrorists. Just because Facebook is Facebook doesn't make them above the law, and trying to cling to your weak/twisted interpretation of the CDA doesn't change that.
Re: (Score:2)
Prevailing interpretation of the CDA [arstechnica.com] to you.
It's n [courthousenews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It helps if you read everything that I wrote. Then again, the original poster did not say that Facebook could be sued for not censoring something, so I didn't emphasize that point.
If you want to take that position, you should research the CDA [arstechnica.com] as well. We've seen it before [courthousenews.com], we will see it again, and I for one do not expect to see a different result.
Re: (Score:2)
Common carriers are shielded from liability if someone uses their network to plan or commit nefarious activities.
One should not need a special common carrier status to avoid liability for a crime that one did not actively and knowingly participate in—if only to the point of willful negligence. Common carrier status is nothing more than a way for the government to exercise control over neutral service providers by threatening them with unjust punishment for the crimes of others unless they comply.
Did Facebook have positive knowledge of these specific terrorist activities? No! Is Facebook's service used primary fo
Re: (Score:2)
Name three acts of terror committed by the State of Israel...
Just search through the Goldstone report three times for "white flag".
Israel is fighting terrorism (Score:2)
This may or may not have been a horrible war crime, but it was not an Act of Terror. There is a fairly clear definition [princeton.edu]: civilians must be the targets (not bystanders) of calculated (not accidental or mistaken) violence for the purpose of intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.
Hamas has uses [liveleak.com] ambulances to t
Re: (Score:2)
I used to work in Israeli public relations, so I can do a better job than you of making up arguments to defend Israel. And I know they're bogus.
I'll never convince you.
But for the benefit of anyone following this argument, I'll point out the central fact -- you won't even condemn the murder of a 3-year-old child.
Re: (Score:2)
Yours may be. Mine are indisputable — which is why you are admitting defeat:
Surrender accepted.
I said, it may have been a horrible war crime. Without knowing more than an obviously-biased Internet-poster would claim, it is impossible to offer a stronger condemnation.
Now, for the benefit of anyone following this argument, I'll
What goes around.... (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Pro-Israel pages get removed on a regular basis. Ant-Israel pages and antisemitic pages live long and strong. I'm fully in support of taking down violent pro-Israel pages. I think you'd be hard pressed to find one. Meanwhile, in Arabic, Facebook is filled with pro-stabbing, death-to-Jews messaging.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
> death-to-Jews
Please stop lying. Anti-Israel posts predominantly advocate against Zionists and occupiers NOT Jews. Your attempt to conflate Jews and Zionists/Israelis is offensive and anti-Semitic. Please stop. If you are having trouble understanding the difference between these groups maybe an analogy will help:
Israelis/Zionist are to Jews as Mafia members are to Sicilians.
Mafia member make a big deal about their Sicilian heritage however even decent law abiding Sicilians regard them as what they are;
Even frivolous suits can have a grain of truth (Score:3)
Regardless of this specific lawsuite, we should ask ourselves, are Facebook and others doing enough to stop terrorists for leveraging their platform?
Consider the great effort by Youtube and others to stop copyright infringements. Both internally and by use of DMCA notice and take-down.
The effort in stopping not only incitement to racial violence but also operational planning of such acts seems meager.
I think lawmakers are almost inherently behind the times on this, and we seem to not have an anti-terror lobby anywhere as strong as the stronger-IP lobby. It would be nice to see Facebook get their act together and do more, setting standards for others to follow and if necessary become law.
Re: (Score:3)
One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. This is not a cut and dry issue, you start censoring something and you will be censoring everything in no time at all.
Re: (Score:2)
If they weren't censoring *some* communications I would agree with you. If they pick and choose, then they should rightfully be the target of suits.
Why is there so much confusion? (Score:5, Interesting)
Has no one ever heard the term "common carrier"? You don't get to pick and choose what speech you allow on your little safe space AND be free from liability if someone commits crimes or otherwise does "bad things" on your services. This is why telephone companies have been classified as common carriers for nearly a century. If you allow all speech, unfettered, then you're free from liability for what anyone does on your service.
I'm honestly shocked it took this long for someone to call these hypocritical companies out on their bullshit, and I support it 100%. They want to be able to control speech, but only speech "they" dislike. That's fine, but when you open up that can of worms, you'd better be ready to make sure you're keeping the walled garden free of ALL vermin (and apply your policies equally, which we all know these scumbags don't) or someone's eventually going to call you out on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The CDA clearly states that the service won't be held liable for actions taken TO RESTRICT access to the things mentioned.
It doesn't say ANYWHERE that they won't be held liable for illegal activities that they fail to restrict. In fact, I believe that if you were to go in front of a judge and point out the fact that a service deletes and restricts extremely mundane content they disagree with while continuing to allow jihadi training videos and unfettered communications between terrorists (that, you know, i
Re: (Score:2)
Has no one ever heard the term "common carrier"? You don't get to pick and choose what speech you allow on your little safe space AND be free from liability if someone commits crimes or otherwise does "bad things" on your services.
One should not need a special common carrier status to avoid liability for a crime that one did not actively and knowingly participate inâ"if only to the point of willful negligence. Common carrier status is nothing more than a way for the government to exercise control over neutral service providers by threatening them with unjust punishment for the crimes of others unless they comply.
Did Facebook have positive knowledge of these specific terrorist activities? No! Is Facebook's service used primary fo
Shouldn't hey be suing their god (Score:2, Funny)
for not smiting the Palestinian people and allowing hem fight back? Wouldn't that mean your god doesn't like you or likes the Palestinians more?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, doesn't it already say something about that god that he buries all OUR oil with the Muslims?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's a test.
American Airlines and Boeing sued (Score:2)
for use of their airplanes as a medium for terror.
Better sue FedEx and Amazon also. And Google, but then, everyone's already suing Google.
If you use Facebook, you could be a terrorist (Score:2)
Spread the new meme. Maybe this will affect the idiots in HR who refuse to hire job applicants without facebook accounts.
Gasp! (Score:2)
I have to admit, I did not deem it possible. If someone had told me, I would have said he is a liar and that this is completely unpossible.
Me, siding with Facebook on something.
Sue Tim Berners-Lee et al. (Score:2)
Not that I like facebook but... (Score:2)
this lawsuit is retarded. They might as well sue the manufacturers of pens and paper for facilitating terrorism too.
This is actually brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
This lawsuit is actually brilliant, and it should succeed rather easily.
Here's why. Telecommunication services like Facebook, Google, and the Phone Company, are either classified as common carriers or as media providers. The difference between the two is that the former carries any content someone wishes to transmit, and the latter picks and chooses the content it will transmit.
The former is immune from lawsuits over the content that it carries because it takes no part in deciding what that content is. They are a neutral carrier with no interest in the content. The latter, however, does pick and choose the content that it carries, and because it does so, it is responsible for the outcome of that decision.
So, since Facebook knowingly censors and curates content, controls speech, and otherwise acts as a content provider and not a common carrier (and indeed I am not aware that Facebook is considered by the government to be one), they are responsible for the content they carry, even if they did not themselves put the actual content on the site.
I'm looking forward to the outcome, but I imagine these activist CEOs will have to find a way to shove their agendas down our throats another way.
Re: (Score:2)
Car Anology (Score:2)
Facebook seems suspiciously pro-radical Islam (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything that even hints at criticizing Islam is immediately censored as "hate speech." No matter how innocuous, or true, the criticism may be.
But the same Facebook is just fine with allowing Hamas to use Facebook to plan terror attacks.
I don't know about the merits of the lawsuit, but Facebook's behavior seems suspicious.
Three words. (Score:2)
Sue the Road Dept (Score:2)
Sue the Road Department for facilitating every crime which involved the use of a motor vehicle on a road or highway. Those guys aren't going to get away helping terrorists so easily!
Why, in my town they built a road that runs right past the bank, and some bank robbers used it when they held up the branch. Tell me that those road-building bastards aren't complicit!
Hmmm... (Score:2)
Why didn't they sue The Internet? It's bigger and has more money.
Re: (Score:2)
Search up "common carrier' in your favorite engine. If internet companies would like to be free from liability for illegal activity conducted on or facilitated by their networks, they should see about becoming one. Of course, then they don't get to control narratives by censoring and disallowing speech they don't like.
Can't have their cake and eat it, too.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine it's both. It's like being paid to film porn.