The families of three men shot by Omar Mateen during his terror attack on the Orlando nightclub Pulse in June have filed a lawsuit against Twitter, Facebook, and Google for helping radicalize Mateen and for providing material support.
— Paula Reid (@PaulaReidCBS) December 20, 2016
The suit alleges the three companies provided the terrorist group ISIS with the means “to spread extremist propaganda, raise funds, and attract new recruits.”
— Fox News (@FoxNews) December 19, 2016
— ghost (@ghostofanation) December 19, 2016
At the heart of the lawsuit is the interpretation of a provision tucked deep inside the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 called Section 230.
The language of Section 230 states that “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.” In layman’s terms, this basically means that sites like Facebook or YouTube are not liable for what their users post on their sites.
As tempting as it is to sympathize with the friends and families of those killed in the mass shooting, a lawsuit against social media providers because of a terrorist’s actions is an awfully slippery slope.
Social media companies have enough trouble policing themselves; YouTube, for example, already thinks Dennis Prager’s PragerU videos and Christina H. Sommers’ Factual Feminist videos are “inappropriate.” Imagine them being handed the standing excuse that they could be sued for, say, giving conservatives a platform to spread their “hate speech” or promote firearms ownership.
— Jan Whittlesey (@brentsmrs) December 19, 2016
— MyVoteCounted (@TruckerWifeLife) December 19, 2016
— Verks (@verks) December 19, 2016
Oh please, sue the FBI for not arresting him when they interviewed him.
— Marcos Garnica (@GARNICA_78) December 19, 2016
— b julyan (@FigmentsB) December 19, 2016