Facebook, Twitter, Google sued by Orlando shooting victims' families
17 replies, posted
[QUOTE]SAN FRANCISCO — Facebook, Google and Twitter are being sued by the families of three victims slain in the mass shooting at an Orlando nightclub for allegedly providing "material support" to the Islamic State.
The lawsuit, first reported by Fox News, was filed Monday in federal court in the eastern district of Michigan on behalf of the families of Tevin Crosby, Javier Jorge-Reyes and Juan Ramon Guerrero.
The lawsuit is the latest to target popular Internet services for making it too easy for the Islamic State to spread its message. In June, the family of a California college student killed in last year's terrorist attacks in Paris sued Facebook, Google and Twitter. Keith Altman, the attorney representing the three families in the Orlando nightclub lawsuit, also represents the family of that student, Nohemi Gonzalez, in the Paris terrorist attacks lawsuit.
The Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, uses popular Internet services such as Facebook, Twitter and Google's YouTube to spread propaganda, to attract and train new recruits, to celebrate terrorist attacks and publicize executions.
Earlier this month, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter said they would share a database of terror images and videos to more quickly remove terrorism content.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/12/19/facebook-twitter-google-sued-orlando-shooting-victims-families/95634736/[/url]
This is about as retarded as suing gun manufacturers for shootings.
Oh great, this nonsense again.
While I understand the anger of the families, i think you also have to consider how hard it is to keep track of a network that has millions using it frequently
you cant be fucking serious
your anger is understandable, but they literally did nothing
You're grieving already, why also make yourself poor through lawsuits?
[QUOTE=DepDirkson;51556876]This is about as retarded as suing gun manufacturers for shootings.[/QUOTE]
Something that happened frequently enough that there are specific protections in US law for gun manufacturers that hold them not liable for misuse of their products. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a law created specifically for online companies in the next few years laying out exactly what their responsibilities are against extremism, while providing protection as long as they comply, similar to how the DMCA works for websites.
[QUOTE=catbarf;51556885]Something that happened frequently enough that there are specific protections in US law for gun manufacturers that hold them not liable for misuse of their products. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a law created specifically for online companies in the next few years laying out exactly what their responsibilities are against extremism, while providing protection as long as they [B][U]comply[/U][/B], similar to how the DMCA works for websites.[/QUOTE]
No thanks. If comply means give the government backdoors and make flawed encryption and security, I'd be happier seeing a lawsuit here and there.
When can we sue the human race for causing this?
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51556884]You're grieving already, why also make yourself poor through lawsuits?[/QUOTE]
I've heard that in cases like these predatory lawyers often show up and convince them that this is a good idea
its so hard to moderate those channels tho, fb and twitter do a great job already of banning accounts linked to IS and so does google
you cant stop everything
i don't think there could be an easier way to say 'we want money'
I'd like 'Frivolous Lawsuits' for 1000, Alex.
If this even makes it to trial something went wrong. These companies already go above and beyond to filter the terrorists out of their services. they are not liable here.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51556930]I've heard that in cases like these predatory lawyers often show up and convince them that this is a good idea[/QUOTE]
As I type this the TV in my work's breakroom is running an ad for ambulance chasers :v:
[QUOTE=averygoodname;51556970]i don't think there could be an easier way to say 'we want money'[/QUOTE]
How about 'we want money'?
Unless the shooter was making threats or discussing his plans right in the open on Facebook and they failed to act I can't for the life of me understand the grounds for this lawsuit, but bad situations bring out the greed in people.
[QUOTE=rider695;51556926]No thanks. If comply means give the government backdoors and make flawed encryption and security, I'd be happier seeing a lawsuit here and there.[/QUOTE]
Because I genuinely do not know, did the DMCA force Google and other content aggregators to install government backdoors and flawed encryption and security, or is this unfounded paranoia?
Either way, it's going to happen. Drafting legislation and lobbying to get it through government is cheaper than fighting frivolous lawsuits.
Way to lose my sympathy when you try to squeeze some money out of your relatives' deaths.
[QUOTE=catbarf;51557363]Because I genuinely do not know, did the DMCA force Google and other content aggregators to install government backdoors and flawed encryption and security, or is this unfounded paranoia?
Either way, it's going to happen. Drafting legislation and lobbying to get it through government is cheaper than fighting frivolous lawsuits.[/QUOTE]
I actually don't think it's going to happen anywhere in the near future. With all the commotion about net neutrality and privacy, lobbying for this would be very difficult.
Even in this lawsuit the case is extremely wonky because all these companies being sued for "providing material support" didn't make their services for this purpose and actively fight against it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.