Terror victims’ families sue Facebook over “material support” for terrorism

Facebook will likely argue for protection under Section 230 of CDA.

Read the whole story

 

[THavoc]

The plaintiffs allege that the social networking giant is liable as it provides “material support” to Hamas—which the United States government considers a terrorist group—by allowing its leaders and followers to openly use the service.

I am sorry for your loss and I can't begin to understand the pain you must be feeling.

Having said that tho, sorry, you don't have a case here.

 

[Kilroy420]

(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.

From Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

I wonder how the plaintiffs plan to wriggle their lawsuit past this one.

 

[JWoody907]

I'd say its pretty clear that there's no case here. Facebook and other companies are well protected under Section 230 for cases specifically like this. The plaintiff is really reaching.

 

[xeoph]

I'm not sure how they are expected to police this. Maybe like most of the job applications that have a checkbox that ask if you're a part of a terrorist organization?

 

[Droiddest]

Truly an excellent way to honor your loved ones memory.

 

[bongbong]

They might be angling for rasing public awareness to support changing section 230, which is a long term goal.

 

[nehinks]

Can anybody interpret that image at the top? Seems a little bizarre.

 

[lewax00]

Can anybody interpret that image at the top? Seems a little bizarre.

What? I thought everyone knew an elongated key and a knife make a great replacement for a violin.

 

[Kilroy420]

nehinks[/url]":1xbjht4b]Can anybody interpret that image at the top? Seems a little bizarre.

Terrorist version of the "tiny violin"?

Just a wild guess...

 

[Static and Noise]

nehinks[/url]":2u10c49x]Can anybody interpret that image at the top? Seems a little bizarre.

Sure thing!

"Tweet cartoon of a Palestinian playing on a knife instead of a violin with a key (representing the so-called "right of return" of the Palestinian refugees to Israel). The Arabic reads, "[Our] knives play a tune of victory, praise and honor on the throats of the Zionists" (Twitter account of , أنا كبرياء الصمت ‏@lolo2403, October 13, 2015)."

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/article/20888

It's pretty cool you can use an image to do a Google image search.

 

[ConLawHero]

Normally, I'll defend lawyers litigating issues that have, at least, a colorable argument under the law. However, these lawyers are clearly just trying to cash in on the pain and suffering of the plaintiffs. There's no merit to this case, whatsoever.

However, because this is a fairly complex area, and they're going to throw tons of arguments, I'm sure their generating tremendous legal bills.

These are the type of lawyers that give the rest of us a bad name.

 

[Akemi]

I don't get it. All these lawsuits when terrorism has been happening since long before the Internet was even a thing as well as a time when it was largely a fragmented patchwork of isolated pay-to-access services (CompuServe, Delphi, AOL) and local BBS's (yay for ASCI porn). I seem to recall plenty of reports on the news in the 80's surrounding hijackings, bombings, and vile deeds being perpetrated upon civilians. Stuff like the Achille Lauro hijacking by the PLF in '85. Or shady government deals with less than upstanding folks like the '85 Iran-Contra deal pushed in secret to try and free prisoners taken by Hezbollah as well as fund/arm the Contra insurgents in Nicaragua.

Apparently Facebook and Twitter haven't spawned terrorism, and suing them won't stop terror attacks. Seems to me these people will get their message out even if the only medium is via smoke signals.

 

[mebeSajid]

ConLawHero[/url]":5nejc9u9]Normally, I'll defend lawyers litigating issues that have, at least, a colorable argument under the law. However, these lawyers are clearly just trying to cash in on the pain and suffering of the plaintiffs. There's no merit to this case, whatsoever.

However, because this is a fairly complex area, and they're going to throw tons of arguments, I'm sure their generating tremendous legal bills.

These are the type of lawyers that give the rest of us a bad name.

Given the counsel in this case, I think it's fair to say they've taken the case on a contingent fee basis (meaning they get ~ a third of what's recovered, but only get paid if they win).

 

[logic_88]

MCYL[/url]":213hc6fr]
Well good for you, Anderson Silva made $600K in 15 mins with no lead up training....and got cheered after losing.

Now Shill off!

Don't quote spam in your reply. That just makes leaves it hanging around after the OP gets removed.

 

[cfarivar]

nehinks[/url]":3d02nyeo]Can anybody interpret that image at the top? Seems a little bizarre.

Explained in the complaint here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... 34/a307382

 

[Mike D.]

Aside from Section 230, there is also the fact that some organizations that we have deemed terrorist groups also operate as humanitarian/governmental organizations in their base of operations. While Hamas may have an adversarial position against Israel and the West, the U.S. in particular, it is also the governing authority of the Gaza Strip; they in fact have a social service wing. Removing content promoting violence from the Hamas page is one thing, but banning them outright is a free speech issue even if they are not Americans. (We cannot, or at least should not, wear the banner of free speech within our borders while exercising taking it away from others abroad simply because we can.)

There are definitely organizations that exist solely for the purpose of committing acts of terror, but some of the Islamic/Middle Eastern organizations that we have come to associate with terrorism serve wider wider function amongst their own. This matter is more gray than black and white.

 

[Akemi]

Mike D.[/url]":18e57e1a]Aside from Section 230, there is also the fact that some organizations that we have deemed terrorist groups also operate as humanitarian/governmental organizations in their base of operations. While Hamas may have an adversarial position against Israel and the West, the U.S. in particular, it is also the governing authority of the Gaza Strip; they in fact have a social service wing. Removing content promoting violence from the Hamas page is one thing, but banning them outright is a free speech issue even if they are not Americans. (We cannot, or at least should not, wear the banner of free speech within our borders while exercising taking it away from others abroad simply because we can.)

There are definitely organizations that exist solely for the purpose of committing acts of terror, but some of the Islamic/Middle Eastern organizations that we have come to associate with terrorism serve wider wider function amongst their own. This matter is more gray than black and white.

Not just that, but US history is a tumultuous one (and what's taught in public schools is horrifically whitewashed, to say the least) and many of the people/groups we revere as American heroes/icons would have been rightly called terrorists by the English government/monarchy. For instance, the Sons of Liberty committed seriously violent acts of arson, murder and torture.

In the name of "Liberty" they were responsible for many acts of violence against supporters of the Crown. Tar and Feathering were among their favorite forms of retribution. Sam Adams' group, recruited from wharfingers, artisans and shipyard workers of North Boston, were ruffians to say the least. On August 26th, 1765 they burned the records of the Vice-Admiralty Court, ransacked the home of the comptroller of the currency, and looted the mansion of the Governor of Massachusetts, Thomas Hutchinson. Their effectiveness was demonstrated by the fact that all Stamp Act agents in the colonies had resigned before the Act was supposed to become law on November 1st, 1765.
http://www.revolutionarywararchives.org ... apter.html

One groups terrorists is often another groups freedom fighters/liberators. Thus banning speech because it's from a group you dislike can lead to a path where eventually speech you do agree with and admire is banned because someone else finds it distasteful.

 

[lewax00]

I find it glib of Ars to refer to the 'terrorists' so unthinkingly. By the definition of whom? Well, we know whom, but that does not reflect the views of all readers. Hamas conducts military campaigns, as does Obama with is drones. Both kill innocents. The difference is Hamas is opposing illegal military occupation and fighting for the rights of indigenous peoples.

The answer is right in the article:

Hamas—which the United States government considers a terrorist group

Which is relevant, because the case is in the US court system.

As for "illegal occupation"...that's also a matter of perspective, is it not? If the other side doesn't recognize the government calling it illegal, than from their own perspective it's not. It's not so simply black and white from either side.

 

[THavoc]

lewax00[/url]":2or11lxb]

I find it glib of Ars to refer to the 'terrorists' so unthinkingly. By the definition of whom? Well, we know whom, but that does not reflect the views of all readers. Hamas conducts military campaigns, as does Obama with is drones. Both kill innocents. The difference is Hamas is opposing illegal military occupation and fighting for the rights of indigenous peoples.

The answer is right in the article:

Hamas—which the United States government considers a terrorist group

Which is relevant, because the case is in the US court system.

As for "illegal occupation"...that's also a matter of perspective, is it not? If the other side doesn't recognize the government calling it illegal, than from their own perspective it's not. It's not so simply black and white from either side.

Also Australia and the UK.

 

[castleblanc]

So, Facebook and companies like them can't be held liable for messages posted using their platforms. So how is it that people have a hard time getting Facebook accounts when their real life name is "Isis" or something else evocative of terrorist groups?
What does Facebook care if your name is Isis if they can't be held liable for your posts?

 

[blacke]

logic_88[/url]":27w9p0wm]

MCYL[/url]":27w9p0wm]
Well good for you, Anderson Silva made $600K in 15 mins with no lead up training....and got cheered after losing.

Now Shill off!

Don't quote spam in your reply. That just makes leaves it hanging around after the OP gets removed.

Better yet, don't even reply to them. Just report and move on.

 

[ConLawHero]

mebeSajid[/url]":2lh3uwz2]

ConLawHero[/url]":2lh3uwz2]Normally, I'll defend lawyers litigating issues that have, at least, a colorable argument under the law. However, these lawyers are clearly just trying to cash in on the pain and suffering of the plaintiffs. There's no merit to this case, whatsoever.

However, because this is a fairly complex area, and they're going to throw tons of arguments, I'm sure their generating tremendous legal bills.

These are the type of lawyers that give the rest of us a bad name.

Given the counsel in this case, I think it's fair to say they've taken the case on a contingent fee basis (meaning they get ~ a third of what's recovered, but only get paid if they win).

I don't know about that. This is a purely bullshit case. I'd bet they'll do hourly because they know they have absolutely no chance in winning.

My firm will do the same thing. We will do contingency cases where we think we have a decent shot at winning. But, if we don't think we have a good shot and the client still wants to go ahead (after we advise them that the outcome isn't looking good) we give them an hourly rate.

I cannot believe a single, legitimate, lawyer would look at this case and say, "yeah, there's a colorable argument there, and there's a decent shot it could win."

As someone above stated, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 230(c)(1), also known as Sec. 230 of the Communications Decency Act, says:

(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.

I cannot fathom how 230(c)(1) could possibly stand for the proposition that a provider could be treated as the publisher or speaker of the information.

 

[meelahi]

Kilroy420[/url]":7slu9h2a]

(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.

From Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

I wonder how the plaintiffs plan to wriggle their lawsuit past this one.

Probably watched one too many episode of Boston Legal.

 

[cburn11]

I cannot fathom how 230(c)(1) could possibly stand for the proposition that a provider could be treated as the publisher or speaker of the information.

Are you a relatively new attorney? In my experience there are numerous attorneys that would love the chance to pit sympathetic victims of terror and war casualties against deep pockets like facebook's on the chance of a quick settlement regardless of the height of the statutory or jurisprudential law that would ultimately stand in their way. It's almost a classic strike suit situation.

 

[Saint]

So when they ask for $1B, are they saying their loved ones are worth $1B? How do you put a number on a human life?

 

[kaibelf]

ConLawHero[/url]":9zab7p9c]Normally, I'll defend lawyers litigating issues that have, at least, a colorable argument under the law. However, these lawyers are clearly just trying to cash in on the pain and suffering of the plaintiffs. There's no merit to this case, whatsoever.

However, because this is a fairly complex area, and they're going to throw tons of arguments, I'm sure their generating tremendous legal bills.

These are the type of lawyers that give the rest of us a bad name.

Let's be fair. They aren't forcing these people to participate in this farce. People seem to be glad to blame these big bad lawyers every time, regardless of the fact that someone DID hire them.

 

[escape_velocity]

lewax00[/url]":2nvpslkj]

As for "illegal occupation"...that's also a matter of perspective, is it not? If the other side doesn't recognize the government calling it illegal, than from their own perspective it's not. It's not so simply black and white from either side.

Well, the Israeli settlements are illegal under international law which, as you note, Israel does not recognise. The trouble with saying "well, I don't recognise your stinking law" is that other countries might show you the same courtesy and that's when the real "fun" begins. And for "fun" read "the military-industrial complex becomes 300% richer".
There are far too many hot-heads and hardliners on both (more than that? I don't follow it in great detail TBH) sides of the equation and sweet FA is being solved, so the ever-growing corpse mountain (Golgotha?) continues to expand. It also doesn't help that one side in the conflict heavily outguns the other.
I don't have any solutions. Far more intelligent people than me have tried and failed. I can't believe that in my entire lifetime, the people in that area haven't got tired of all that death.

 

[jcnix]

I don't think Section 230 has anything to do with material support of terrorist organizations. Providing a platform that allows terrorist organizations to use would be illegal even if the operator isn't the publisher.

And I don't see what this has to do with objectionable speech. What objectionable speech?

The case, known as Force v. Facebook, is the latest example of families attempting to use terrorism statutes as a way to shut down objectionable speech online

 

[MosquitoBait]

Quisquis[/url]":1rf80c3t]

MosquitoBait[/url]":1rf80c3t]

Droiddest[/url]":1rf80c3t]Truly an excellent way to honor your loved ones memory.

With stupid actions like these, I don't think they ever really gave a shit about their murdered family. They were clearly just gold diggers in the first place.

I'm going to assume that this was unintentional, but even though it isn't stated, it's very likely that these are Jewish families considering the demographics of Israel, so calling them gold diggers is pretty racist (just for informational purposes; like I said, I'm assuming it was unintentional).

EDIT: Downvote all you'd like, but if you said it to their face, they wouldn't think you weren't referencing a racial jewish stereotype...

There's nothing racist about facts. Suing somebody rich just because they're rich and look like a easy target is gold digging, and black white red yellow Hindu Jew Catholic Zoroastrian doesn't matter.

 

[Static and Noise]

kaibelf[/url]":13k8o1mm]

ConLawHero[/url]":13k8o1mm]Normally, I'll defend lawyers litigating issues that have, at least, a colorable argument under the law. However, these lawyers are clearly just trying to cash in on the pain and suffering of the plaintiffs. There's no merit to this case, whatsoever.

However, because this is a fairly complex area, and they're going to throw tons of arguments, I'm sure their generating tremendous legal bills.

These are the type of lawyers that give the rest of us a bad name.

Let's be fair. They aren't forcing these people to participate in this farce. People seem to be glad to blame these big bad lawyers every time, regardless of the fact that someone DID hire them.

The one doing this case for the Berkman Law Office is Robert J. Tolchin. He's all in favour of doing things like suing countries and organisations that are against Israel. I'd not be surprised if he's doing this pro bono.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/24/w...rael-in-a-way-some-say-is-misguided.html?_r=0

"She is a crusading lawyer who serially sues rogue nations, terror groups and international banks to show, as she put it, “there is a price to Jewish blood.”"

"Critics call it “lawfare,” abusing the courts to score political points."

"Even American lawyers who work on the same side have clashed with Ms. Darshan-Leitner over costs, and say she is a tangential part of the process."

"But Robert J. Tolchin, a New York lawyer who collaborates with Ms. Darshan-Leitner, called her a “visionary” unafraid to pursue “guerrilla litigation.”" [My emphasis]

I dunno if Darshan-Leitner is involved here, but... Let's Google it. Oh. She is:

"The plaintiffs’ Israeli lawyer, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, said they had expert assessments linking Hamas to the other attacks."

http://fortune.com/2016/07/11/facebook-lawsuit-hamas-attacks/

Essentially, this lawsuit is about attention and scoring political points, not about winning.

 

[Neep33]

This lawsuit is itself evil and I seriously doubt the people killed in these attacks would want to destroy the internet (which is what would result from this idiocy winning in court) because in this one case it was used to facilitate evil.

Facebook didn't kill your loved ones. ISIS (or ISIL or IS) did. Sue them. Of course they have no money you can get it so you pick someone tangentially related and try to win a lottery.

I have sympathy for your loss, but no sympathy for this action.

 

[fryhole]

The plaintiffs allege that the social networking giant is liable as it provides “material support” to Hamas—which the United States government considers a terrorist group—by allowing its leaders and followers to openly use the service.

Yes ... because every account on FB is tied to each users real name and information. And if FB shuts those specific account down -- there would be no way for the terrorist leaders and their followers to create new fictitious accounts and continue with business as usual.

Sympathy for the losses but the reality is that the service is neutral -- like a gun -- a car -- a pair of scissors -- a baseball bat -- a wood chipper -- a chainsaw.

Are they planning on suing the ISPs that allow them to hack into their networks to access FB in the first place ? What about the cellphone makers and computer companies that inadvertently supplied the hardware / software ? What about the universities that trained some of these people in networking and computer systems and programming ? I'm sure the terrorist groups had to use FF -- IE / Edge / Safari / Chrome / Opera -- so sue the browser companies while they're at it. Unless of course we assume that the terrorist groups have individuals within their ranks that have the collective knowledge to invent and manufacture all those items and equipment on their own independently from the rest of the free world along with self-taught hacking skills.

 

[Quisquis]

MosquitoBait[/url]":31u8oplu]

Quisquis[/url]":31u8oplu]

MosquitoBait[/url]":31u8oplu]

Droiddest[/url]":31u8oplu]Truly an excellent way to honor your loved ones memory.

With stupid actions like these, I don't think they ever really gave a shit about their murdered family. They were clearly just gold diggers in the first place.

I'm going to assume that this was unintentional, but even though it isn't stated, it's very likely that these are Jewish families considering the demographics of Israel, so calling them gold diggers is pretty racist (just for informational purposes; like I said, I'm assuming it was unintentional).

EDIT: Downvote all you'd like, but if you said it to their face, they wouldn't think you weren't referencing a racial jewish stereotype...

There's nothing racist about facts. Suing somebody rich just because they're rich and look like a easy target is gold digging, and black white red yellow Hindu Jew Catholic Zoroastrian doesn't matter.

Like I said, the connection may be unintentional, but it is there none the less.

The fact of the matter is that this is about much more than gold digging; this is one small piece of a comprehensive strategy to manipulate the conversation about Israel/Palestine to keep up the "Israel good, Palestine bad" narrative.