Family sues Facebook, Google, Twitter over dad’s death in terror attack

The family of a California man killed in the Barcelona terror attack filed a lawsuit Wednesday against Google, Facebook and Twitter, alleging the tech giants played a role in “aiding, abetting and knowingly providing support and resources” to the Islamic State group.

  • Hard Little Machine

    Zero chance this works. You can’t blame the phone company for facilitating a conversation between two criminals

    • Drunk by Noon ✓

      Bad analogy, simply because telephone conversations are usually deemed privileged and private. I can’t legally listen in on your calls and a third party.
      While at Facebook and Twitter everything done and said is out in the open.
      Until recently, meaning Trump’s election, Facebook and Twitter pretty much refused to crackdown on jihadis by using the freedom of speech excuse, while totally disregarding that standard and actively shutting down conservatives.
      I hope they ‘eat it’ on this one.

      • Hard Little Machine

        Ok then this one. Your ISP isn’t a party to you stealing movies via a Tor browser

        • Drunk by Noon ✓

          The courts say they are!
          That’s why Cox cable got sued recently for not terminating customers who were turned in for repeated bit torrenting of movies and music in violation of copyright laws.

          • Hard Little Machine

            Can you sue your ISP for that? Can you win?

          • Drunk by Noon ✓

            Cox got sued by the music and film industry.
            They lost!
            As a consumer, can I sue. I haven’t seen any cases yet where that’s happened.

      • Jabberwokk

        I don’t because regardless of our united distaste for there treatment of some, law applies to all. If this goes through expect more censorship to evade potential liability. In this case if they lose they win.

        • Drunk by Noon ✓

          They are already censoring our side much more than they are the jihadis anyway, so I don’t see how it could get any worse for us.
          That standard was never equally enforced as they decided that conservatives were WORSE than jihadis.

          • Jabberwokk

            Agreed on all counts. That does not mean we should hand them a business argument to hide behind which is much harder to fight than what we have now. I would prefer if the courts rules that they are (and are to remain)a neutral platform and nothing more. To many times people go ‘over the head’ of their intended target instead of facing them, mostly because they have no power over them.

        • Watchman

          The problem with more interference is that at some point your interference is deemed to be your control of anything communicated through that medium. If you act like a common carrier, you will tend to be treated like a common carrier and not liable for any speech or data flowing through your medium, just like the phone company is right now,

          Websites have been successfully sued because their failure to remove libellous material was deemed as their condoning that material if they have been consistently removing other libellous material.

          • Jabberwokk

            Agreed. That’s why It’s either one or the other. I would prefer that they remain neutral and not get involved in policing the internet. Mostly because they suck at it. If I was media tech company I would say we provide a product and nothing more. Like buying a fork. You can use it to eat. You can also use it to stab someone in the eye. The choices and consequences are up to the end user not the provider. Well that’s the way I think it should be anyway,otherwise yeah you end up opening pandora’s box as google/youtube/twitter has. But I figure since they want to be able to censor anyway, having the PR excuse of saying ‘we don’t want to be liable’ works in their favor where as on neutral ground they lose.

      • Starlord

        It would be nice if they ate it. Big time.

        See jihadI, anti white racist shit posted stuff all the time on Twitter. It fuels terrorism and enables it.

        Meanwhile if you say something truthful against fgm you get suspended or kicked off.

  • shasta

    “The lawsuit hinges on the interpretation of a portion of the 2016
    Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which provides litigants with
    broad ways to “seek relief against persons, entities and foreign
    countries, wherever acting and whenever they may be found, that have
    provided material support, directly or indirectly, to foreign
    organizations or persons that engage in terrorist activities against the
    United States.”

    Well that pretty well includes most earthlings.