Abdul El-Sayed Says Keep the Name Abdulrahman Out of Your Damn Mouth If...
Trump Brushes Off Would-Be Assassin Who Was Staking Out His Los Angeles Golf...
SO Genuine! Francesca Hong's Slam on Thanksgiving Clearly Wasn't Polling Well for Her...
'I Think That's Daft': Ross Douthat Politely BODIES Yale Professor on Who Knows...
Schumer Loses Control As Abdul El-Sayed's Victory Deconstructs the Democrat Party
Elizabeth Warren Does a Rake Stomp While Complaining About 'Landlords Jacking Up the...
Amy Klobuchar Gets Absolutely Booed Off Stage for Border & Cop Lies —...
Jumpin' for Jihad: Chris Murphy Is 'All In' for Fake Doctor and Terrorist...
Tim Walz Might Want to Thank Fellow 'Manly Man' James Talarico for Eclipsing...
Mighty Big Threats From a Small Man: El-Sayed Warns Mike Rogers He Has...
NRSC Dares to Use Dem Candidate’s Actual Legal Name; Bulwark Writer Declares It...
NRSC Already Has an Ad Out About Abdul El-Sayed and It's BRUTAL (There...
'Stop Talking': Advice for Francesca Hong Reminiscent of Kamala Campaign
Hasan Piker Goes Nuclear After El-Sayed’s MI Primary Win: Calls Foes 'Islamophobic Pieces...
Mamdani Tries to Do a One-Eighty After Proof of Residency to Shop Comment...

Families of Orlando nightclub terror attack victims sue social media outlets for providing support to ISIS

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.

Advertisement

The suit alleges the three companies provided the terrorist group ISIS with the means “to spread extremist propaganda, raise funds, and attract new recruits.”

https://twitter.com/ghostofanation/status/810976572261814272

Fox News reports:

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.

Advertisement

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.

https://twitter.com/brentsmrs/status/810977196395393024

https://twitter.com/FigmentsB/status/810980280508895232

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos