Facebook should lose this case. It aggressively removes counter-jihad and counter-migrant invasion material, while allowing jihad terror content to remain. People are being killed. Facebook is not a neutral platform.
“Families: Hamas on Facebook, so firm must pay $1B after terror deaths,” by Cyrus Farivar, Ars Technica, July 11, 2016:
On Sunday, the families of several terrorist victims sued Facebook under an American anti-terrorism law. The victims died in multiple terrorist attacks in Israel in 2015 and 2016, and the families are seeking at least $1 billion in damages.The plaintiffs allege that the social networking giant is liable as it provides “material support” to Hamas—which the United States government considers a terrorist group—by allowing its leaders and followers to openly use the service.The case, known as Force v. Facebook, is the latest example of families attempting to use terrorism statutes as a way to shut down objectionable speech online and gain a monetary benefit for their deceased loved ones from social networks. None of the other efforts so far have been successful.
Facebook will almost certainly claim that it is not liable under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The company did not respond to Ars’ request for comment.
According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Section 230 has enabled all kinds of modern websites to exist, including Craigslist, Yelp, Facebook, and more. Lawsuits should typically be brought against the relevant speakers or authors rather than against the publishers. This argument has largely held up in court.In fact, Twitter has recently made the same argument in a related case, Fields v. Twitter, where the plaintiff was the widow of an American government contractor who was murdered in Jordan. Last month, a federal judge in San Francisco dismissed Fields, siding with Twitter, but will allow the suit to be re-filed….