Failures

by Tim Cushing


Filed Under:
terrorism

Companies:
facebook, google, twitter



Court Shuts Down Yet Another Lawsuit Against Social Media Companies Over Terrorist Attacks

from the 1-(800)-L-FIRM dept

Another Excolo Law/1-800-LAW-FIRM lawsuit against social media companies alleging terrorism support has been shown the door by a federal judge. The survivors of Pulse Nightclub shooting sued Twitter, Google, and Facebook for supposedly being at least somewhat responsible for the horrible act carried out by the shooter. The law firms attempted to dodge dismissal under Section 230 by fashioning this as a material support for terrorism complaint. Unsurprisingly, the judge -- without ever having to address the dodged Section 230 issue -- didn't find any of the plaintiffs' arguments persuasive.

The elements needed to satisfy various anti-terrorism laws simply aren't present in the complaint, and no matter how far the judge is willing to stretch the arguments, they can't be forced to cover these missing pieces. From the decision [PDF]:

Accepting for the moment that Mateen’s shooting spree satisfied parts A and B of the “international terrorism” definition, the amended complaint falls short of plausibly suggesting it fits within part C. It appears to be undisputed that the Pulse Night Club attack was carried out by a single shooter — Omar Mateen — and that both Mateen and his victims were, at the time of the attack, all located and resident in Orlando, Florida, within the United States. The plaintiffs have not pointed to any “means by which [the shooting] was accomplished” that involved acts crossing any national border; nor do they point to any persons outside the United States whom the shooting was “intended to intimidate or coerce”; and they have not pointed to any international “locale in which [the] perpetrator[] operate[d] or [sought] asylum.” The only allegations of the complaint even hinting at some trans-national connection are those concerning Mateen’s viewing of videos and Internet content that the plaintiffs contend were posted by agents of ISIS. But the complaint fails to assert any facts plausibly suggesting that the substance of those videos and other messages, or the posting of them, had anything at all directly to do with the shooting, other than that the principles espoused in them motivated Mateen to carry out the dreadful act.

Even if the shooter's influences were based in foreign countries, a purely-domestic act of terrorism cannot be considered international terrorism for the purposes of this lawsuit. Furthermore, the attempt to link the shooting directly to ISIS cannot be made without evidence, and despite the length of the complaint, the plaintiffs provide none.

There are no pleaded facts that tend to show that Mateen carried out this act under ISIS’s express direction. To be sure, even ISIS never claimed that it had any contact with Mateen or instructed him to shoot up the Pulse Night Club. And the heaps of relatively concrete facts that the amended complaint does offer — despite the immense emotional gravity of the violent and tragic global events to which they allude — do not bridge the gap between ISIS’s violent screeds and Mateen’s shooting spree. In their attempts to span the separate streams of events described in the pleadings, the plaintiffs have shown little beyond mere happenstance and possibility.

Just as futile are the claims the mere existence of ISIS-operated social media accounts somehow equate to material support for terrorism by the service providers.

There are no facts that suggest that the defendants “encouraged” Mateen to commit his crimes. Likewise, the plaintiffs do not allege that the defendants provided him with any assistance, such as instructions on how to build a bomb or obtain an assault rifle. Certainly, no one suggests that any of the defendants’ representatives were present at the scene, that they had any “relationship” with Mateen, or that they were of a mind to see this horrible event take place.

It all boils down to this: just because someone saw something on the internet that motivated them to commit an act of violence does not make the violent act the internet's fault. The blame for the act rests on the shoulders of the person who committed it, not the service providers whose services were used by terrorists to spread their message. Even if it's true social media companies could do better tracking down and removing terrorist accounts and their content, it still doesn't make them culpable for the Pulse Nightclub shooter's heinous act.

In this case, the allegations that Mateen viewed some literature and videos produced by ISIS is not sufficient to sustain any inference that either the defendants, or ISIS, or any individual or entity directly associated with ISIS, had any discernible direct involvement in the Orlando attack. Instead, the complaint suggests, at most, that the defendants merely were aware of a generalized risk that persons associated with or sympathetic to ISIS’s cause could, at some point, derive some benefit from their services, and that, at some point (by all accounts only after the attack) ISIS became aware of and expressed its approval of the attack. Those tenuous connections do not suffice to sustain the required inference of proximate cause.

With that, the case is dismissed with prejudice. The Section 230 immunity question -- raised by the defendants in their motion to dismiss -- is never addressed. But then, it really doesn't need to be. While it would be nice to have more affirmations of Section 230 immunity written into case law, the baseless anti-terrorism law allegations are more than enough to see this lawsuit join others by the same law firms in the dustbin of legal history.

Not that another loss has had any effect on Excolo Law and 1-800-LAW-FIRM. As Eric Goldman reports, the questionable business model of ringing up loss after loss is still somehow generating sustainable income.

Will that stop 1-800-LAWFIRM from filing more lawsuits? Of course not; they filed another one yesterday despite this ruling. I admire the lawyers’ doggedness even as I question their substantive and procedural expertise.

So far, not a single one of these lawsuits has survived a motion to dismiss. But it won't stop people from trying. Targets like Facebook and Twitter are too big to ignore, even if the accusations have almost zero chance of resulting in a victory for the plaintiffs and their representatives.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Gary (profile), 10 Apr 2018 @ 8:22am

    Great Firewall

    It amazes me how people actively work to turn an open internet into a walled garden where only pre-approved, safe communications are allowed.
    If suits like this gained traction, and intermediaries were held liable for the actions of ISIS and other hate groups the only sure fire way to stop bad actors is to crack down hard on free expression like China has.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2018 @ 10:09am

      Re: Great Firewall

      the only sure fire way to stop bad actors is to crack down hard on free expression like China has.

      China has its own terrorist problems, despite the existence of a censorship and surveillance system that other authoritarians can only dream of.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2018 @ 9:15pm

      Re: Great Firewall

      It amazes me how people actively work to turn an open internet into a walled garden where only pre-approved, safe communications are allowed.

      That's because something had to be done to avenge the victims. Terrorism is nothing about actual security, in the US anyway, it's all about control. These plaintiffs either saw a juicy target they couldn't resist, or just want someone to suffer for the death of the victims.

      If it's the first case, imagine how 1-800-LAWYERS-FEES could make a killing off of a successful lawsuit. Worse if they can somehow find the potential for an "East Texas" scenario.

      If it's the second case, that's the extent of the US legal system. "Did we punish someone for this?" It doesn't matter if it's the correct someone so long as someone suffers for it. Real terrorist orgs can't really be sued in court and then dragged behind a glass viewing window for their state-mandated deaths. The social media giants however are much more easily dragged before a judge, and therefore a good enough target for the plaintiffs vengeance.

      In either case, the lawsuit fullfils the original intent of the plantiffs: Throw a temper tantrum and cause more suffering because we're upset. That the internet would be reduced to TV Version 2.0, is inconsequential to that goal.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2018 @ 2:26am

        Re: Re: Great Firewall

        You missed the other reason for such cases, the corporations have money, and so can pay damages, the terrorist do not, and so cannot

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 10 Apr 2018 @ 9:17am

    'As long as we're getting paid...'

    As Eric Goldman reports, the questionable business model of ringing up loss after loss is still somehow generating sustainable income.

    So long as they can con grief-stricken and/or greedy people looking to make a buck into paying them, so long as there's a chance, if ever so slight to get a 'go away' settlement offer from a large company, and so long as they don't face any actual penalties for bringing essentially the same case over, and over, and over again... they have no reason to stop.

    They're getting paid whether they win or lose, why should they care that they're taking advantage of people and trying to screw over countless others with a dangerously stupid precedent?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Dan, 10 Apr 2018 @ 9:55am

    They're getting paid whether they win or lose,

    Are they? I'm not privy to the fee agreements (and I doubt you are either), but a case of this nature would be much more likely to be taken on a contingency fee. And in that case, I-can't-believe-it's-a-law-firm doesn't get anything when they (predictably) lose.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 10 Apr 2018 @ 10:16am

      Re:

      Given they keep getting slapped down and yet keep filing the same case over and over while I can't say for certain I strongly suspect that yes, while they'd get a bigger payday from a win or 'settlement' they are likely getting paid by their marks/clients.

      It's either that or they're desperate enough to score a 'settlement' that they're throwing money to the wind by taking cases entirely on contingency in the hopes that eventually one of these cases will get before a judge willing to buy their rubbish and whatever company they're trying to shake down will throw them some money to go away.

      Both are possible, I just consider the former more likely.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Mike Stimpson, 10 Apr 2018 @ 9:59am

    How do they get paid?

    I'm a bit unclear on this. Are they actually getting paid by the survivors? Getting paid enough to make this profitable? Or are they just hoping for a big payout, and losing money on the filings?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 10 Apr 2018 @ 10:35am

    While I'm sympathetic towards people that lost their loved ones in such events or that underwent the trauma of being involved in terroristic acts, these people that sue non-parties come out looking like greedy money-grabbing assholes.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Richard (profile), 10 Apr 2018 @ 10:42am

    History

    Since this type of attack goes right back to the 7th century it is difficult to see how any modern social media corporation could be held liable for it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.