Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Is Not Legally Responsible For The Rise of ISIS, Rules California District Court (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: A lawsuit accusing Twitter of providing material support to ISIS has been dismissed by a California District Court. First filed in January, the lawsuit argued ISIS's persistent presence on Twitter constituted material support for the terror group, and sought to hold Twitter responsible for an ISIS-linked attack on that basis. Filed by the family of an American contractor named Lloyd Fields, the lawsuit sought damages from an ISIS-linked attack in Jordan that claimed Fields' life. The plaintiff's initial complaint alleged widespread fundraising and recruitment through the platform, attributing 30,000 foreign actors recruited through ISIS Twitter accounts in 2015 alone. The judge assigned to the case was ultimately not swayed by that reasoning, finding that the plaintiffs had not offered a convincing argument for holding Twitter liable. The plaintiff will have the chance to submit a modified version of the complaint within 20 days of the order, the second such modification ordered by the judge. The report adds: "Apart from the private nature of Direct Messaging, plaintiffs identify no other way in which their Direct Messaging theory seeks to treat Twitter as anything other than a publisher of information provided by another information content provider," the ruling reads. At the same time, even the private nature of Twitter's Direct Messaging feature "does not remove the transmission of such messages from the scope of publishing activity under section 230(c)(1)."
I skimmed the full opinion, but a 1928 case is instructive. In the 1928 case of Palsgraf v. LIRR a women in a train station was injured when another passenger dropped a box of fireworks that caused some heavy equipment to fall on the women. The women sued the railroad company (as they likely had deeper pockets than the person dropping the fireworks). The court found that the rail road was too far removed from the events that occurred to find them liable. Here too, Twitter is too far removed from the actions of terrorists to find them liable.
This is a pretty interesting example of classic legal concepts being applied to new technology. Anyone who says that the law is outmoded or needs to catch up, only needs to read this opinion.
Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
Cause I thought the general consensus was that Twitter is responsible for the rise of Isis, and terrorism in general.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
This guy is a police instructor, and goes to Jordan to train police in a part of the world that's not exactly known for being all rainbows and unicorn turds.
Well after there have already been many "green on blue" attacks where instructees have shot up the (American) instructors in the name of extremist Islam, it happens to him and he gets killed in just such an event.
His family doesn't go after the Jordanian police for not checking background information sufficiently, or taking other measures to watch for this kind of problem.
His family doesn't go after the contracting company that he worked for, for not protecting him sufficiently while there.
His family goes after...Twitter? Wow...let me JUST TAKE A WILD FUCKING GUESS why they went after Twitter...no, wait, I think I got it...
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Let's be honest, Bush shouldn't have started the invasion in 2003. There were no WMDs, and things like banned missiles were actually being destroyed. Hans Blix actually praised Iraq for disarming themselves and destroying the missiles just before Bush started the invasion. However, over the next several years, things were eventually brought under control by the troop surge and paying Iraqi militia to provide security. Obama stopped those payments and undid what Bush had finally gotten right. And he's shown utter incompetence in his handling of the situation in Syria. We should have learned that arming groups in the Middle East might provide temporary benefits, but has always come back to hurt the US. We regretted arming the Mujahedeen during the conflict in Afghanistan inviting the Soviets. We armed Iraq in the 1980s as they fought Iran, then regretted it when they committed genocide against the Kurds and invaded Kuwait. And yet somehow Obama thought it was a good idea to arm Syrian rebels. Assad is a piece of shit, no doubt, but he's content to be a brutal dictator in his own country and not destabilize his neighbors. Twitter isn't responsible. If they didn't exist, ISIL would distribute their propaganda through other channels. Obama, however, is very much to blame with his incompetent foreign policy.
Either Twitter is:
1. Run by delusional SJWs who refuse to ban people who support and praise the most unapologetically despicable quasi-state the modern world has ever seen (because any concession to Islamophobia would be worse.)
2. They are constantly being approached by three letter agencies who alternately beg and demand that they not ban these accounts so that the users can be traced, warrants can be generated (against anyone who likes or retweets them), closet jihadi sympathizers goaded into saying something stupid, etc. And NSLs prevent them from saying anything about it.
Now, I'm not saying that SJWish Islamophilia is never a problem in the West, but If you think the first possibility is more likely than the second... your tinfoil hat is on inside out.
Leon Panetta, who was Obama’s defense secretary from July 2011 to February 2013, wrote in his 2014 book, “Worthy Fights,” that as the deadline neared “it was clear to me — and many others — that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability” in Iraq. As a result, the Obama administration sought to keep 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. combat troops in Iraq, as Sullivan said in his statement.
But negotiations with Iraq broke down in October 2011 over the issue of whether U.S. troops would be shielded from criminal prosecution by Iraqi authorities. Panetta wrote that Maliki insisted that a new agreement providing immunity to U.S. forces “would have to be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for its approval,” which Panetta said “made reaching agreement very difficult.”
Yes, Bush punted and Obama didn't want to take away all reconstruction aid to force Iraq to capitulate. But cut to the chase.... BUSH negotiated and signed the force agreement that mandated troops be removed, and while his people HOPED it could be renegotiated, that doesn't absolve him from negotiating and signing it.
There's a lot of worthless fucking partisans out there who want to "misremember" that Bush got us into this whole fucking mess a long time before Obama was even thinking about being on the scene. I can't tell sometimes if they're all just natural born fucking liars, or their simply too fucking stupid to use their brains.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
islam, the religion of peace, thats what i blame
https://www.thereligionofpeace...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
ISIS came from Al Qaeda In Iraq.
Al Qaeda In Iraq came to be because Bush The Lesser invaded Iraq and deposed its leader.
A leader who, while being a horrible person and general pile of evil, also tended to keep a lid on extremism in his country, albeit for self-serving reasons (they threated his own power).
The pull out came because of an agreement signed by Bush the Lesser's Administration, agreeing to pull out by a certain time in 2011.
The Obama administration actually tried to negotiate to stay longer , but was unable to reach an agreement with the Iraqi government.
This is because the Iraqi government wanted the American troops to be subject to Iraqi laws and law enforcement. .
The Obama Administration wisely said no to that condition, and therefore was compelled to adhere to the existing agreement, and pulled out.
The ensuing (actually it began before bush eevn left office) mismanagement of Iraq's defense and military btw is mostly due to the man installed in power by Bush the Lesser's administration, Maliki, started out as a moderate, but quickly became corrupt himself and began using his power (and the military) to silence or coerce his political rivals and enemies. He weakened the morale of the Iraqi troops we trained and armed, he misused them, and then when faced with an actual threat, the merging of elements in Syria with Al Qaeda In Iraq into what has become ISIS, they bailed.
Which has since causes the US to re-enter Iraq, with ever growing number of troops, begin bombing ISIS (for over 2 years now), and quite successfully. ISIS made some large initial gains because of momentum and the bailing of the Iraqi Army. However they have since been pushed back out of over half the territory they originally took.
So the point is this:
calling Obama the found of ISIS in the face of the campaign against ISIS, is like calling Obama a socialist at a time when the capitalist economy of the US has never been better: pure delusional BS. If Obama is a socialist, he is the worst socialist ever. Likewise, if he is the founder of ISIS, he is horrible at it, and was only made possible by the missteps and outright lies of the administration of Bush the Lesser, the man who actually is responsible for the rise of ISIS.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.