Laura Loomer Files Defamation Suit Against Facebook For Calling Her 'Dangerous' When Booting Her From The Platform

Defamation

from the [makes-popcorn-but-not-a-whole-lot-of-it] dept

Having failed to convince a federal court that multiple social media services are engaged in a First Amendment-thwarting conspiracy against far right sideshows like Laura Loomer, Larry Klayman is back with another federal lawsuit featuring his new favorite plaintiff. It’s a defamation lawsuit that attempts to portray moderation explanations by Facebook as malicious statements meant to destroy Loomer’s reputation.

Perhaps the best way to explain this lawsuit is to let Larry Klayman explain it in his own words:

Today, Larry Klayman, the founder of Freedom Watch and a former federal prosecutor announced the filing of a defamation lawsuit by conservative investigative journalist Laura Loomer against Facebook. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 9:19-cv-80893), alleges that Facebook and its wholly owned sister company Instagram, in banning Ms. Loomer from the social media sites, maliciously defamed her by publishing that she is a “dangerous individual” and a domestic Jewish terrorist.

Seems pretty straightforward, although it’s difficult to see anything anyone says about Laura Loomer damaging her reputation. Klayman’s press release says he’s demanding 5% of Facebook’s net worth for his client — bringing the theoretical payday to over $3 billion. Saying this is “standard” for calculating punitive damages doesn’t make this a standard damages request.

But there’s more. Klayman is not content to let the facts do the talking. His press release offers plenty of speculation as well. And it’s not just regular speculation. It’s speculation riddled with spelling and grammatical errors. Never write angry, folks.

Loomer has been a strong advocate not just for conservative causes, but also to stem the growing anti-Semitism in Congress and threat of Islamic terrorism. In this regard, she was banned by Facebook and Instagram by simply revealing the truth. Facebook and its CEO and founder Jeff Zuckerberg is a self-hating leftist Jew sympathetic of Islamic extremism. Klayman sued Zuckerberg and Facebook years ago for allegedly furthering a Palestinian Infitada calling for and which resulted in the death of Jews.

Have fun with that paragraph, commenters. It has since been corrected on Klayman’s site, but those errors will live on forever at every website that publishes unaltered press releases as “news.”

Anyway, the lawsuit is standard Klayman stuff, complete with an unsympathetic plaintiff. Unsympathetic plaintiffs need their rights defended and their grievances addressed, but it’s tough to claim reputational damage when you’re a self-sabotaging font of ignorance and bigotry.

The filing [PDF] claims Facebook defamed Loomer when it banned her from the platform. The initial statement by Facebook isn’t defamatory and is merely an expression of its opinion of her dubious contributions to the public discourse.

In a statement released and published widely to the public in this district, nationally and internationally, Defendant Facebook explained their purported and false justification behind Ms. Loomer’s ban:

We’ve always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology. The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today.

In other words, Facebook moderators believe Laura Loomer is a promoter or perpetrator of violence and/or hate and had violated Facebook’s rules once too often. Therefore, her accounts were banned. This is a statement of opinion that Klayman is attempting to portray as an unjustified and deliberate misrepresentation of Loomer and her posts.

In issuing the ban against Ms. Loomer, Defendant Facebook and its sister publication Instagram publicly designated her as “dangerous,” which publication was widely disseminated in this district, nationally and internationally.

Facebook offered more clarification on this moderation decision, which is also presented as defamatory, even though it isn’t.

A spokesperson for Defendant Facebook represented and published that:

… such factors [for designating an individual as “dangerous”] include whether the person or organization has ever called for violence against individuals based on race, ethnicity, or national origin; whether the person has been identified with a hateful ideology; whether they use hate speech or slurs in their about section on their social media profiles; and whether they have had pages or groups removed from Facebook for violating hate speech rules.

While this statement appears pretty straightforward, Klayman clouds the issue by digging into Facebook’s Community Standards. In doing so, Klayman attempts to put words into Facebook’s mouth.

According to Defendant Facebook’s own posted Community Standards, “Dangerous Individuals and Organizations” are defined as “organizations or individuals involved in the following: Terrorist activity, Organized hate, Mass or serial murder, Human trafficking, [or] Organized violence or criminal activity.”

Ms. Loomer does not fall, or come close to falling, within any of the defined groups set forth by Defendant Facebook.

Facebook did not say Loomer was a dangerous individual as defined by the Community Standards. It only stated why it had banned her from the platform, and gave its reasons for doing so — none of which included portraying Loomer as a violent criminal.

In defense of Loomer and to counter Facebook’s appraisal of Loomer, Klayman mysteriously offers up a random tweet by his client.

In fact, Ms. Loomer uses social media to call out anti-Semitism, Islamic terrorism, political violence, and violence against homosexuals, as just one example once having tweeted:

Ilhan is pro Sharia Ilhan is pro- FGM Under Sharia homosexuals are oppressed & killed. Women are abused & forced to wear the hijab. Ilhan is anti Jewish.

Ok then. Because of this assessment and banning, Facebook has apparently done $3 billion in damage to Loomer’s otherwise unsullied reputation.

Plaintiff Loomer has been severely harmed and damaged by these and other false and misleading statements by Defendant Facebook, because they subjected her to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, and disgrace, and the threat of severe bodily injury or death by those who are now lead to believe that she is dangerous and a domestic terrorist against Muslims in particular. Muslims and other extremists thus are now prone to retaliate against her and her life is in mortal danger.

Plaintiff Loomer has been severely damaged by these false and misleading statements because they damaged Plaintiff Loomer’s reputation and good will and severely harmed financially in her profession and business as a conservative investigative journalist, as well as personally.

While I don’t doubt that Loomer being banned from Facebook and Instagram had a negative effect on Loomer’s various schemes and self-promotion, it’s a stretch to say it caused $3 billion in damage to her reputation and her livelihood. The lawsuit says Loomer’s been subjected to “hatred, distrust, ridicule, content, and disgrace” since Facebook booted her, but come on: Loomer was being “subjected” to all of that long before Facebook pulled the plug.

Facebook is free to make whatever moderation decisions it wants. At least that’s not what’s being sued over this time. But trying to construe statements accompanying moderation decisions as defamation is going to be a tough sell. It needs a good salesperson to pitch it to federal judges. Unfortunately, Larry Klayman is the kind of salesperson who tends to get uninvited long before the product demonstration can even begin.

Filed Under: content moderation, defamation, jeff zuckerberg, larry klayman, laura loomer, mark zuckerberg, section 230
Companies: facebook