Twitter says its platform not responsible for man’s murder by terrorist

Twitter: "Not even the thinnest of reeds connects Twitter to this terrible event."

Read the whole story

 

[haydenmuhl]

Forcing a platform like Twitter to police the content users decide to post would be completely unworkable. That's the whole point of the clause of the Communications Decency Act that Twitter is invoking. The internet would fall over without those types of protections for website owners.

 

[skicow]

Cut and dried case if there ever was one for the Communications Decency Act -- especially when you consider that Twitter is actively removing accounts that do promote terrorism.

 

[Katana314]

Allowing ISIS to recruit unknowns they could maybe criticize if accounts are not being banned. But are their accusations really about terrorists communicating with other terrorists? (through a channel that's easy to log and intercept)

 

[ITawAPuttyTat]

Let's sue the paper companies for allowing people to put their thoughts on paper!

About the equivalent in terms of the theory of liability.

 

[ackmondual]

I've heard the other side of the argument how the authorities use it to help track what suspicious groups like ISIS are doing, so I don't know if they'd be on board with holding Twitter accountable.

Saw an interesting story on "How The Internet Destroyed My Life" on SyFy how a British vacationer and his gf were coming over and to "destroy America". Most of us would have seen that he's going to enjoy the US and its various attractions, but DHS took the very protective route... when they got word of that tweet, they cancelled their visas mid-flight, had them detained upon arriving at LAX, and they were eventually sent back home, so they definitely are using that as a tool.

 

[BulkyZ]

What kind of desperate lawyer accepted this case?!

 

[Rosyna]

I have no doubt Dianne Feinstein will use this in her twisted agenda to make Twitter, Apple, Google, and Microsoft liable for ISIS.

 

[Akemi]

The suit, however, does not allege that any chatter on Twitter was directly connected to Fields' death. Instead, it describes a terror-laden message the shooter sent friends via the WhatsApp mobile messaging platform days before Fields was killed.

Besides the communications decency act issue. She's suing Twitter, when the claim is messaging came via WhatsApp (owned by Facebook). I don't get how anyone, including her attorney thinks she has even a remote chance of the case being allowed to stand rather than being tossed.

 

[Nowicki]

This terrorist had taken a dump minutes before his attack. Boycot Charmin Ultra. That terrorist cleaning company!!!!!

 

[Wiskers69]

I feel for this lady but her anger is misplaced. I wish her friends or attorney would help her direct it in the right direction.

 

[Derecho Imminent]

If this was allowed to stand the next step would be that lawyers would require twitter et al to monitor communications and remove any ISIS-like talk. Because if it sounds like ISIS then we better stop it. And then when we find that the corp cannot possible handle that much monitoring we will be forced to create a new government agency to do the job - the Ministry of Peace.

 

[TenderBabyMeat]

Did I miss the memo that told us that the courts are the new therapists/grievance counselors?

Yes, it's lousy that her husband died. I cannot imagine the pain she must feel at the loss. But the man took a risky and dangerous job in a part of the world where US citizens are not exactly adored. There are a great many people over there that will continue these types of actions against us every chance they get. They don't need Twitter or WhatsApp or postcards or messenger pigeons to do so, either.

Ma'am, seek counselling, rely on the love and support of family and friends to help you through this. Suing a company that has no ties or correlation to the event that led to your husband's death is meaningless. It will not bring you peace or reconcile your loss. Not even in a best-case outcome. And at worst, it makes you appear disingenuous and opportunistic.

 

[maxmurder]

Akemi[/url]":3k7n2xuf]

The suit, however, does not allege that any chatter on Twitter was directly connected to Fields' death. Instead, it describes a terror-laden message the shooter sent friends via the WhatsApp mobile messaging platform days before Fields was killed.

Besides the communications decency act issue. She's suing Twitter, when the claim is messaging came via WhatsApp (owned by Facebook). I don't get how anyone, including her attorney thinks she has even a remote chance of the case being allowed to stand rather than being tossed.

A fundamental misunderstanding of the technology would be my only guess.

 

[Quiet Desperation]

What are the odds on this leading to a suit against Apple for the SB shooter phone?

 

[Camp Freddie]

It would be great if more terrorists used twitter, since its almost certainly tracked by the CIA and as an American company it will quickly comply with any legal requests for user information (and probably any quasi-legal mass surveillance stuff too).

 

[rick*d]

Akemi[/url]":23z02r3n]

The suit, however, does not allege that any chatter on Twitter was directly connected to Fields' death. Instead, it describes a terror-laden message the shooter sent friends via the WhatsApp mobile messaging platform days before Fields was killed.

Besides the communications decency act issue. She's suing Twitter, when the claim is messaging came via WhatsApp (owned by Facebook). I don't get how anyone, including her attorney thinks she has even a remote chance of the case being allowed to stand rather than being tossed.

What rock have you been under?
"Terrorists" - Oh, well then, sure the NSA can have that meta data on everyone in America.
"Terrorists" - Oh, well then, of course Apple must create a new OS to open up that phone.
"Terrorists" - Oh, well then, naturally Twitter is responsible for what people wrote on WhatsApp.

Won't people think of the terrorists? How can the terrorists win if we don't totally disrupt our lives and throw away all our freedoms?

Some French cop was on 60 minutes last night saying we lose our freedom if we don't allow the cops unfettered access to our phones! That's the attitude we're dealing with here. We lose our freedom if we don't willingly give up our freedom.

 

[rick*d]

Wiskers69[/url]":37frgtfp]I feel for this lady but her anger is misplaced. I wish her friends or attorney would help her direct it in the right direction.

It's easier to sue Twitter than to sue the King of Jordan. Besides, if she honestly wanted to place blame she'd have to admit her husband put himself in a knowingly dangerous situation.

 

[eric123]

Quiet Desperation[/url]":3etrzino]What are the odds on this leading to a suit against Apple for the SB shooter phone?

thinking similar in where does this logic end?
we will all end up being responsible for terrorism.

 

[Danrarbc]

eric123[/url]":1xvruypz]

Quiet Desperation[/url]":1xvruypz]What are the odds on this leading to a suit against Apple for the SB shooter phone?

thinking similar in where does this logic end?
we will all end up being responsible for terrorism.

Ergo all of our phones must be hackable.

 

[rick*d]

Camp Freddie[/url]":3cr80olx]It would be great if more terrorists used twitter, since its almost certainly tracked by the CIA and as an American company it will quickly comply with any legal requests for user information (and probably any quasi-legal mass surveillance stuff too).

You know how the U.S. Post Office has the best OCR on the planet due to their requirement to scan millions of letters and packages a day? Well, it wouldn't surprise me to learn the NSA/CIA/FBI has the most advanced AI on the planet for scanning tweets and facebook posts (and intercepted texts and emails) looking for not only key words but also key combinations of words that indicate possible terrorist communications.

 

[therealeffingaeiouy]

I want to assume this is a skeezy lawyer trying to abuse someone's grief.

 

[Neep33]

Why are these idiots trying to hold Twitter liable for the behavior of others? What's next? Going after AT&T because the terrorists use phones? How about going after Toyota because the terrorists drive their pickup trucks?

This is beyond foolish and I am kind of shocked a lawyer would spent even a minute believing he would be successful with such a suit. I guess $$$ must have blinded him.

 

[Infinity4011]

therealeffingaeiouy[/url]":63pn3lvs]I want to assume this is a skeezy lawyer trying to abuse someone's grief.

It's almost guaranteed. After all, they didn't even bother to sue the actual platform the terrorist used. They opted to go for one that's higher profile and more likely to spark public outrage, even though Twitter has zero connection to the husband's murderer.

At best Dyncorp has some responsibility for the safety and security of their employees, and there's the possibility that they were negligent in their background checks on the people being trained as police. Beyond that Whatsapp is protected by the same statute that Twitter is using to defend itself.

 

[Boskone]

Well, if that's not an utterly asinine slippery slope, I don't know what is.

She's acting to limit a communications resource which could make it harder to respond to terrorist attacks. Can we send her to prison for aiding terrorism now?

 

[kennedye]

I'm surprised the NRA isn't slamming this case in public, since it could set a very dangerous precedent for them if those who make tools that happen to be used to commit crimes are legally liable for those crimes.

 

[Derecho Imminent]

rick*d[/url]":3659tlwh]

Wiskers69[/url]":3659tlwh]I feel for this lady but her anger is misplaced. I wish her friends or attorney would help her direct it in the right direction.

It's easier to sue Twitter than to sue the King of Jordan. Besides, if she honestly wanted to place blame she'd have to admit her husband put himself in a knowingly dangerous situation.

I think thats a large part of it. She probably harbors some guilt for being party to the decision to go there, and is now in denial. She cant face that she is partially responsible for his death so she needs to find someone else to blame.

 

[gijames1225]

kennedye[/url]":36lum3ei]I'm surprised the NRA isn't slamming this case in public, since it could set a very dangerous precedent for them if those who make tools that happen to be used to commit crimes are legally liable for those crimes.

That's immediately where my mind went as well. I'm not particular fan of Twitter as it currently stands, but this just doesn't make a lick of sense and would be horribly stifling on all sorts of economic and social interactions if a precedent is set here.

 

[tjones2]

kennedye[/url]":qkb8kfyb]I'm surprised the NRA isn't slamming this case in public, since it could set a very dangerous precedent for them if those who make tools that happen to be used to commit crimes are legally liable for those crimes.

I'm both for Twitter in this case and in favor of gun rights -- but linking the two issues would be a big strategic mistake. Guns are a very polarizing issue and there are a lot of people who will knee jerk oppose anything the NRA says, it would make for as many enemies as friends.

 

[Quixote2961]

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin quote

 

[Some Idiot]

Rosyna[/url]":1ztx4riz]I have no doubt Dianne Feinstein will use this in her twisted agenda to make Twitter, Apple, Google, and Microsoft liable for ISIS.

What's bitterly ironic is that she is the Senator elected from the regions surrounding Silicon Valley.

What's utterly horrifying is the rise in fascist tendencies within the American DoJ and the law enforcement agencies within the US. Those agencies give credence to the ideas of much more repressive regimes, such as Saudi Arabia, North Korea and Russia.

 

[sttm]

It seems odd the things people accept Twitter not being able to stop, Terrorism, and the things they don't accept Twitter not being able to stop, Harassment, Racism & Misogyny.

So what is it, can Twitter actually stop any of this, or is it on the users to report to law enforcement, to take their own protective measures, to be responsible.

 

[Dadlyedly]

Quiet Desperation[/url]":2w93ortk]What are the odds on this leading to a suit against Apple for the SB shooter phone?

That's too direct. This case is more like suing HTC over the SB shooting case, because cell phones were used.

 

[Quiet Desperation]

eric123[/url]":2abbv4ri]

Quiet Desperation[/url]":2abbv4ri]What are the odds on this leading to a suit against Apple for the SB shooter phone?

thinking similar in where does this logic end?
we will all end up being responsible for terrorism.

I love how you got upvotes for agreeing with my downvoted post.

 

[coslie]

Quixote2961[/url]":2qwqfaso]Vladimir Ilyich Lenin quote

I don't frankly see the relevance in this context. Also Marx said it, not Lenin, and not like that. Not surprising really, when a websites calls itself something like "Liberty Tree" it's probably best to double check their claims.

 

[Forensics Person]

A reasonably competent attorney would know this lawsuit will go nowhere but still he ponders, will the potential negative press intimidate Twitter over the possibility of copycat suits they will quietly settle this suit with an out of court settlement?

 

[Asvarduil]

Quiet Desperation[/url]":106gezu8]

eric123[/url]":106gezu8]

Quiet Desperation[/url]":106gezu8]What are the odds on this leading to a suit against Apple for the SB shooter phone?

thinking similar in where does this logic end?
we will all end up being responsible for terrorism.

I love how you got upvotes for agreeing with my downvoted post.

I wonder what I will get for posting a supporting post for, as well as also upvoting, a post that got upvoted for agreeing with a downvoted post?

Dear God. I see it clearly know. This is how lawyers were created. Can we (all) have a do-over?

 

[pjlahaie]

therealeffingaeiouy[/url]":1j3w034g]I want to assume this is a skeezy lawyer trying to abuse someone's grief.

One who should face disciplinary action from the BAR.

 

[Bondi Surfer]

It's like suing a boat manufacturer because some terrorists drive cars, which are also a form of transportation

I feel for the wife - her grief unimaginable - but this charade will only make her feel worse

 

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

haydenmuhl[/url]":1zzhjliv]Forcing a platform like Twitter to police the content users decide to post would be completely unworkable. That's the whole point of the clause of the Communications Decency Act that Twitter is invoking. The internet would fall over without those types of protections for website owners.

Arguably, while I sympathize with the woman in question, her claim is even more extreme than the usual CDA-stuff: the suit doesn't even allege that twitter was the platform actually used for planning/orchestrating/etc. the attack; just that it is a platform where some people ideologically similar to the guy who carried out the attack have operated.

The wisdom of allowing forums and platforms(not just online, are you going to shut down all the streets because drug dealers and getaway cars use them?) protection from blame for the actions of their users is already well established: this case would require not only overturning that; but also making them responsible for the actions of people who might have been influenced by things said on a platform. Responsible for everything the users do and everything that their readers do? Basically nothing is innocent or useless enough to be legal under that standard. You could go after the company that produced the steel the guy's gun was manufactured with if you extend liability that tenuously.