Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Sued For Giving Voice To Islamic State (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader writes: An American woman named Tamara Fields has sued Twitter in U.S. federal court, saying the social network gave the Islamic State a voice to spread its propaganda. Fields's husband died on November 9, when the terrorist organization attacked a police training center in Amman, Jordan. The complaint alleges, "Without Twitter, the explosive growth of ISIS over the last few years into the most-feared terrorist group in the world would not have been possible." At the end of 2015, Twitter stepped up its efforts (or at least its official policies) to block such content from its site. But the company has been under fire for over a year from citizens and law enforcement officials over the activity of various terrorist groups on its platform. Fields's attorneys hope that her husband's death will give her proper standing to challenge Twitter in court.
Suing an online commentary platform for allowing comments is ridiculous. However, anything that damages social media is welcome as far as I'm concerned.
It will be a glorious day when Twitter and the rest of its ilk disappear into history just like myspace.
No, this is in the US. It is fueled by one thing and one thing only: GREED.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
That's giving them WAY too much credence. I'd go with non-intelligent. The constant demands from these "people" can be summed up as follows:
"We only want to hear / see / otherwise come into contact with things that we approve of, and if we come into contact with something that does not meet that criteria, then it must be destroyed and it's creator punished."
This is blatant oppression and authoritarianism. Something that the US's founders not only fled but created the US to escape from. (Granted it was for religious freedom but the point still stands.) These SJWs and others like them want to outright destroy one of the founding principals of the country they live in, just because it's currently inconvenient for them. Not realizing just how much they are currently benefiting from it. Indeed, without the first amendment their own demands could be censored by the government easily. In fact their demands are outright against the state due to their nature, and could even be considered treasonous. Without the first amendment, I have the feeling that their demands would have been censored long before it gained the SJW moniker. Yet here they are demanding that the government ignore the first amendment that they are benefiting from, punish, censor, and bring retribution on an entity that only served as a messenger, NOT the source of the message.
These people (and especially the plaintiffs in this lawsuit) are out for retribution and revenge. They are the exact reason why the first amendment exists, to prevent punishment based solely on what is said or written. To protect the means of communication so that ideas may flow freely without risk to those who distribute them. These people are idiots. They represent an alarming cancerous growth on the freedom of speech in this country, and I hope the judge laughs his ass off as he dismisses their case and walks back to his chambers.
Captcha: deleting. Even slashdot knows this comment is going straight to the -1 zone.....
There's greed everywhere. We just do it better than everybody else.
You are welcome on my lawn.
What proof does she have that her husband's killers were recruited by IS via Twitter? Absolutely none. Most of IS's recruiting is done physically in person, and for obvious reasons (Twitter is a hell of a lot easier for the NSA and military to track). Hell, almost every story I've heard about people joining IS is virtually the same: they met with a person at their mosque who saw them as an impressionable target and convinced them over a long period of time that they are being oppressed by the west and need to fight back.
Most of what IS posts on Twitter is not meant for their own members but to instill fear in the people they consider their enemies.