Iowahawkblog Annihilates Hasan Piker: Porky Trust-Fund Trotsky Dreams of Revolution
Dems Who Backed Platner No Matter What Now Whining About Him Being Bad...
US Soccer Star Killed by Uzbek Diversity Visa Semi Driver Who Couldn’t Speak...
Hasan Piker’s Selective Amnesia: 'I Never Supported Graham Platner' (Except When He Clearl...
Dem Sen. Mark Kelly's Warning About How Trump Might Try to 'Intimidate Voters'...
Where Was This Megyn? Sudden Plea for Compassion Toward Erika Kirk After Months...
Axios Notices Platner's Silver Spoon — Months After Conservatives Reported It, Now That...
Ro Khanna's Complaint About How Many People ICE Arrested Last Week Gets Ratioed...
Court Dispatch: Grieving Erika Kirk Comforts Crying Stranger With a Tissue as Candace...
Maine Dems Learn the Hard Way: You Can’t Ghost Graham Platner When He...
Caught Red-Handed: Texas Hospital Behind Billboards Selling Birth Tourism on Mexico Border
Ditching Democracy: Scott Jennings Reminds CNN Hosts Dems Picking Power Over People to...
Scare Tactics: MS NOW’s Jen Psaki Agreed With Graham Platner That ‘Scandals’ Were...
Totally Hitlarious: Chris Murphy Worries About Dem Party’s Credibility If Platner Isn’t Pr...
Bernie’s Journey: A Vast Distance Separates Sanders’ Reactions to Brett Kavanaugh and...

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

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement