
Families of San Bernardino Shooting Sue Facebook, Google, Twitter - gotchange
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sanbernardino-attack-lawsuit-idUSKBN1802SL
======
wand3r
Wow, horrifying. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt for such a
tradgedy and the emotional stress and grief it causes; but this is illogical,
dangerous and counterproductive. Terrorism seeks to change our way of life and
sueing a company for providing a platform for[0] free speech (which those
companies actually already curtail) will not only cause problems to this
already slippery slope, but simply displace terrorists to less visible places.

I hope this is not greed, because these companies are about as well funded as
they are unconnected/innocent in this incident.

[0] added "provide a platform for" free speech for clarity.

Also, I am aware these platforms moderate, Facebook just committed to hiring
1400ish people to mod the site.

~~~
nappy
Do you think corporations have the right to free speech? Do you think they
ought to?

~~~
acchow
This isn't about a corporation's free speech. It's about people exercising
their free speech using products built by companies.

~~~
nappy
A corporation spending money to host and spread speech in order to make a
profit.

~~~
bduerst
Ironic considering a for-profit organization is paying to host and spread your
speech right there.

~~~
nappy
I suspect if a user began to promote and recruit for ISIL on HN that they
would be banned.

~~~
bduerst
So then your problem is with censorship, and not for profit organizations
paying to host speech? Nice mobile goalposts.

------
freditup
> [The lawsuit] asserts that by allowing Islamic State militants to spread
> propaganda freely on social media, the three companies provided "material
> support" to the group and enabled attacks such as the one in San Bernardino.

> A number of lawsuits have been filed in recent years seeking to hold social
> media companies responsible for terror attacks, but none has advanced beyond
> the preliminary phases.

Here's another recent example of this [0]. At first glance of the definition
for material support [1], these lawsuits might seem (legally) reasonable.
Luckily though, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act [2] makes these
lawsuits fairly baseless. I can't imagine the consequences if social media
providers were liable for all content posted on them... (Disclaimer: IANAL in
the least)

[0]: [http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-
lawsuits...](http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-lawsuits-
social-media-terror-20170119-story.html)

[1]:
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2339A](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2339A)

[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act)

------
calvinbhai
I'm wondering why not sue the ISPs and the utilities that provide electricity
or the power generating nuclear reactors / coal power plants? Without any of
these, it'd be impossible for ISIS to spread.

~~~
gumby
I think we should sue the chemical companies for not polluting enough to kill
off the shooters.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
There are all sorts of parallels between open Internet/encryption and the gun
rights debate. It will be interesting to see how it all sorts out in the end.
For example, in the future could we see a joint campaign by the NRA and the
EFF?

~~~
tonysdg
Ironically relevant XKCD:
[https://www.xkcd.com/504/](https://www.xkcd.com/504/)

------
dntbgoat
That's like suing the coffee shops for the revolution

~~~
cloakandswagger
Or suing gun manufacturers for shoo--

[https://www.rt.com/usa/369036-sandy-hook-gun-
manufacturing-l...](https://www.rt.com/usa/369036-sandy-hook-gun-
manufacturing-lawsuit/)

..Oh

~~~
thesmallestcat
I don't think it's a valid comparison. Not making a statement on the Sandy
Hook suit's merit, but clearly the San Bernardino couple didn't shoot up the
place with tweets and wall posts.

~~~
post_break
Not a valid comparison? It's the exact comparison. What about suing the truck
manufacturers when that terrorist ran over a bunch of people, or Boeing for
9/11, etc. Just because they are a manufacturer of firearms doesnt excuse them
from this ideology.

~~~
mter
This is not a valid comparison because there is literally a federal law
protecting gun manufacturers. There is not a similar law protecting twitter.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act)

~~~
reynoldsbd
Lack of a federal law doesn't necessarily make that comparison invalid;
perhaps there should even be an analogous law protecting "free speech
platforms" that is rooted in the first amendment, similar to how the law you
cite it ostensibly rooted in the second.

------
aub3bhat
Wait not suing Apple?

To clarify Apple refused to unlock the phone, thus I expected them to be a
target of the lawsuit as well. Not saying they should have been sued or that
this lawsuit has any merit.

~~~
gruez
What did they do? All they did was refuse to unlock the perpetrator's phone.
How do they have standing in that?

~~~
misnome
They enabled the perpetrator's planning and communications by supplying him
the phone. I mean, they are just as culpable as Facebook, Google and
Twitter...

...i.e. not at all, but a large and wealthy company to try and extort a
settlement from.

~~~
usaphp
By this logic you can sue the clothing company that provided them with clothes
during their felony

~~~
NeutronBoy
That's pretty much the point the GP was trying to make.

------
kyledrake
Section 230, Communications Decency Act, no ISP is liable for what third
parties do on their site. There's an intense amount of case law backing it up.
This lawsuit will likely be dismissed before they even get to a court. It's
amazing to me that people even still try.

There's social media liability insurance you can get just incase someone tries
to drag you into a frivolous lawsuit. The cases all get thrown out, but not
before potentially $20-50k in legal bills. The insurance is really just there
to cover the legal bills until the plaintiff pays it back after dismissal
(which can take a while).

If you run a hosting service or a small social network and don't have enough
money to hire a staff lawyer, definitely check out getting some liability
insurance to protect yourself from crap like this. It runs about $100/mo for a
$5k deductible up to $1 million in coverage, but those numbers probably vary a
lot.

------
rdtsc
That's an interesting one. It seems like it wouldn't work at first but then
thinking about more maybe there is something there.

These companies want to position themselves as the new media, the gatekeepers
of "truth" so to speak. That's why they are pushing "Fake News" and moderating
it, classifying it etc. It is basically a strategy to fill the void left by
the older mass media companies, which are seen as failing an unable to
manufacture consent effectively. So in a way they are signaling "Come to us
now, we'll advertise your stuff and mark you competitors ideas as fake". It's
a good move really. From a business standpoint, can't blame them there.

I am trying to conduct a mental experiment and imagine what would happen if
say CNN gave al-Baghdadi a few minutes here and there to express his views. Or
letting the local KKK chapter air their ideas once in a while. Many would
agree CNN then might be complicit in inciting violence for example and would
share a bit of responsibility. So if these other companies what to play
"gatekeepers of truth" game they should also be responsible too?

------
bitmapbrother
Yet another frivolous lawsuit in the land of the USA.

------
jeancl
There were quite a few comments about the dishonest culture of the Indian
bodyshops on the Infosys thread yesterday. And today I wake up to an Uber
criminal probe and Facebook, Google and Twitter getting sued.

So as a student all I want to know, is how do I tell I am not working for the
"let's do whatever it takes" assholes.

