U.S. House Speaker Tells London the Truth
It's a MYSTERY! New York Times Can't Figure Out Why the Crime and...
Texas Congressional Hopeful Learns How Voters (Even Friends) React to Her Being an...
MS NOW’s Nicolle Wallace Mistakes Hysteric Knavery for ‘Historic Bravery’ in Minneapolis P...
NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani Reveals ‘Free Childcare’ Plan That Includes Illegal Aliens (of...
Church-Invader Nekima Levy Armstrong Rushes to Democrat-Friendly CNN After Release by Acti...
Anti-ICE Activists Protest JD Vance at His Minnesota Hotel. There's Just One Problem
One Year of Trump Winning: VIP SALE, FINAL HOURS!
Libs Eat Up Fake 'ICE-Scared-Off-My-Carrot-Pickers' Hoax – Because Orange Man Bad
Hypocrisy Alert: Gavin Newsom's Team Drops Homophobic AI Memes on Gay Treasury Sec....
A Viral Reel of Leftist Meltdowns Shows What Happens When Rage Replaces Reason
Government Bureaucratic Incompetence Is a Fatal Pandemic, and It's Time To Stop the...
MN Church Protest Leader's Haul: Huge Haul from 'Anti-Poverty' Scam, Sends Kids to...
Jordan Alleges Jack Smith Spied On More Than 12 GOP Lawmakers and the...
CNN Host Crushes Jack Smith: Lies Exposed As D.C. Elites Panic

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