Social Media Giants Sued For Helping ISIS (torontosun.com)

Long-time Slashdot reader nnet quotes the Toronto Sun: Social media giants Twitter, Google and Facebook are being sued by the families of victims of the San Bernardino terror attacks. The lawsuit claims those companies aided ISIS by letting them build their online profile and bolster recruitment. Fourteen people were killed in the December 2015 attacks by twisted husband-wife Islamist extremists Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. "Without defendants Twitter, Facebook and Google (YouTube), the explosive growth of IS over the last few years into the most feared terrorist group in the world would not have been possible," the suit, filed Wednesday in Los Angeles, alleges.

Comments

Won't go anywhere

[cigawoot]

As much as I feel for the families of those who were killed, there isn't much you can do. This lawsuit just feels like a desperate attempt at answers where they don't exist.

No court would expect the operators of social networks to pour billions of dollars into moderating their platforms. They can remove content when its found and reported, but it is completely unreasonable to expect the operators of social media platforms to keep their platforms free of terrorist material while at the same time keeping it open enough to be usable.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[__aaclcg7560]

This lawsuit is a desperate attempt to empty out some deep pockets.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[DRJlaw]

Unfortunately, that's the cost of actively policing your content. Once you start doing it, as Facebook and Twitter have, you lose "common carrier" status and can be held liable for what you've missed.

You're not a lawyer, so stop trying to practice law. The reason that we're so protective of that is that even well-meaning people get so many things so wrong.

For example, the EFF, which is significantly staffed by lawyers, reports:

Courts have held that Section 230 prevents you from being held liable even if you exercise the usual prerogative of publishers to edit the material you publish. You may also delete entire posts. However, you may still be held responsible for information you provide in commentary or through editing. For example, if you edit the statement, "Fred is not a criminal" to remove the word "not," a court might find that you have sufficiently contributed to the content to take it as your own.

Do you know why? Because the law literally 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.
(2) Civil liability[:] No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of--
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

So no, policing the content on your site does not make you liable, protections are not based on "common carrier" status, and you certainly cannot be liable for content that you've "missed" or even decided not to block.

BTW: I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer, in part because you're an idiot.

Re: Won't go anywhere

[DRJlaw]

Reread the last line.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[DRJlaw]

Pretty sure that you're wrong. Because it's been tried before, multiple times.

Also, you can't file civil suits based upon "supporting terrorist organizations" or "aiding the enemy." Only the U.S. government and the states can bring criminal charges, and note that they're not doing so...

Re: Won't go anywhere

[Plus1Entropy]

Boy do we ever need -1 Incoherent.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[Kjella]

Also, you can't file civil suits based upon "supporting terrorist organizations" or "aiding the enemy." Only the U.S. government and the states can bring criminal charges, and note that they're not doing so...

Since we have an actual lawyer here, how does it work in the US when the core of the civil tort is an alleged criminal act? Like say someone burned my house down, the police think they don't have evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a criminal conviction but I think I might have a "preponderance of evidence" to win in civil court. It certainly sounds like I'd sue for arson...

And the other question, if say a person was shot dead during a bank robbery, how many could the victim's family sue? The robbers themselves, of course. Anyone in a conspiracy. People aiding and abetting, people supplying like suppliers of illegal guns? The bank for defective alarms, cameras and metal detectors? The security guard for neglect or recklessly starting a shootout? Faulty bulletproof glass etc. that wasn't? Because this sounds like a major case of the butterfly effect, even if social media didn't do all they should it sounds quite removed from the actual terrorist killing.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[DRJlaw]

Since we have an actual lawyer here, how does it work in the US when the core of the civil tort is an alleged criminal act? Like say someone burned my house down, the police think they don't have evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a criminal conviction but I think I might have a "preponderance of evidence" to win in civil court. It certainly sounds like I'd sue for arson...

No, you're sue for "torts" such as destruction of property and intentional infliction of emotional distress. More to the point, you'd have to sue the gas station that sold the arsonist the gasoline for something such as negligence, which means that you'd have to prove that the gas station owed you a duty of care, that they beached that duty, that the breach caused your injury, and that there was actual damage. The mere fact that you partially blame the gas station for the arson isn't enough. Same thing in wrongful death situations.

You can go after everyone for everything that you perceive to have gone wrong (people and lawyers often do), but you're not going to succeed just because you blame them. You have to fit it into a recognized tort, which usually means that you have to show that someone owed you a duty of care, breached it, and that there was a sufficient causal connection to a concrete injury to you (or a close relative).

people supplying like suppliers of illegal guns?

Ah ha! The topical analogy rears its head. Let's sue Remington for manufacturing the gun. But the gun was legally manufactured and sold to Joe. Maybe Joe was a straw purchaser. Maybe Joe was a secret bank robber. Maybe Joe only later decided to rob banks. Who cares -- if Remington hadn't made those guns, this wouldn't have happened. So Congress enacts things like the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. You can't sue Remington for manufacturing and lawfully selling a gun that later ends up being used in a crime. Just like the Communications Decency Act says that you can't sue a service provider for providing a lawful service that happens to be used by a terrorist.

Congress decided that allowing communities to post and exchange information was valuable, that requiring background investigations for Internet accounts was ridiculous, and that moderating material should be encouraged but couldn't feasibly be mandated. They passed section 230 of the CDA. And until that law is changed, the law says that nobody on the internet (except for the actual poster of information) is civilly liable to anyone else for things posted by others on the internet. End of story.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[Kjella]

Thanks, easy read and very informative. One follow-up:

They passed section 230 of the CDA. And until that law is changed, the law says that nobody on the internet (except for the actual poster of information) is civilly liable to anyone else for things posted by others on the internet. End of story.

If it's so all-encompassing why do you need to follow USC 17/512 (c) and the DMCA take down procedures, aren't those about civil liability for ISPs?

Re:Won't go anywhere

[DRJlaw]

If it's so all-encompassing why do you need to follow USC 17/512 (c) and the DMCA take down procedures, aren't those about civil liability for ISPs.

My much longer answer was swallowed by the idiotic decision to have backspace function as both backspace and back-page in most browsers. Moronic.

The CDA and DMCA were being negotiated at roughly the same time and interlock in this respect. Also, the CDA says that a provider cannot be treated as the "publisher" or "speaker," but copyright law doesn't care - you're liable for reproducing and/or distributing, whether you published/spoke the post yourself or not.

The CDA therefore included a quasi-exception for intellectual property (47 USC 230(e)(2)), "Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.") and the DMCA shortly afterward extended the CDA immunity concept by saying that there's no civil liability for copyright infringement so long as you follow the notice/takedown/counternotice/restore procedure, do not have "red flag" knowledge of specific infringements, and terminate service to repeat infringers. Note that if you've complied with the technicalities of the DMCA (register an agent with the copyright office!) and restored material after receiving a counternotice, you're not civilly liable just as you would have been under an exceptionless CDA.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[thegarbz]

This has been the most interesting thread I've read on Slashdot for years. Thanks for your informative posts. This is getting bookmarked and referred to in the future.

And what next?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are going to sue manufacturer of the SUV which was used by terrorists to escape?

Re:And what next?

[mfh]

They are going to sue manufacturer of the SUV which was used by terrorists to escape?

I take your point but a vehicle is very different from a communication platform.

The manufacturer of the SUV relinquishes control of the vehicle to the licensed purchaser. The communications platform stays in communication and continues an ongoing relationship with those who could misuse it.

An example of this is if a hostile government used a private company to rig or influence an election with hate speech or false news. The owner of the communication infrastructure used is responsible to take appropriate measures to prevent the misuse of the platform through active moderation of said platform because they are taking part by continuing to profit from this misuse.

The same is not true for a cell provider because the use of the cellphone is private whereas the communication platform is public.

Section 230 of the Community Decency Act

[ameyer17]

Doesn't the Communications Decency Act give social media companies immunity in cases like this?

Re:Section 230 of the Community Decency Act

[ubrgeek]

Please don't tell me what "extra toppings" is code for ...

golf clap

[Hognoxious]

the explosive growth of IS

I see what you did there.

Not a logical argument.

[Gravis Zero]

I'm not fan of social networking but I realize that they are just tools for communication. By their logic, everyone that has forwarded communication technologies (e.g. telephones and internet) has also enabled them. Social networking isn't a weapon, it cannot hurt people. Perhaps they should go after the people who do sell things that are used exclusively to hurt people.

Sue the water company

[avandesande]

If they didn't provide water to terrorists, how could they survive?