Court Says It's Not Tortious Interference To Report Your Account Or Ask Twitter To Ban You

from the 230-wins-again dept

Laura Loomer, professional troll, these days seems most well known for all the internet platforms that have banned her:

Loomer is banned from Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Medium, Paypal, Venmo, GoFundMe, Uber and Lyft for violating their terms of service, in many cases by using hateful and Islamophobic speech.

That is a pretty impressive list right there. She's apparently trying to run for Congress to use that as an argument for why she should be let back onto these platforms, but so far that's not working either. She's also been suing companies for kicking her off the platform, which seems like a good way to get many lessons in how Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act works. In one such lawsuit, she also sued CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, arguing that CAIR's "reporting" of her Twitter account to Twitter violated all sorts of laws.

Spoiler alert: it did not. It does not violate any law whatsoever to report an account to Twitter.

The court dismissed a variety of claims for procedural reasons, leaving just a claim of "tortious interference of a business relationship," but that has also been dismissed for a bunch of reasons. First: the lack of any actual business relationship that CAIR could have possibly interfered with. Loomer and her lawyer argued that there was a business relationship between Loomer and her followers, and, separately, between Loomer and Twitter, but the Court was quick to issue a big fat "nope" to both ideas. First, the "business relationship" between Loomer and her followers:

With respect to the relationship between Loomer and her Twitter followers, the Court finds that Loomer has failed to establish an actual business relationship with identifiable customers.... As the Florida Supreme Court has made clear time and again, an action for tortious interference with a business relationship does not lie where the business relationship alleged is one with the “community at large” as opposed to one with identifiable customers.... Here, Plaintiffs fail to identify discernable customers and instead allege a business relationship with Loomer’s Twitter community at large.

Specifically, Loomer contends that Defendant tortiously interfered with the business relationship between Loomer and her Twitter followers by convincing Twitter to ban Loomer from its platform. While the Court accepts all well-pleaded allegations as true, Loomer’s relationship with her Twitter followers—no matter how economically beneficial such a relationship may have been—is a relationship with the community at large, not with identifiable customers.... Given that Loomer’s alleged business relationship with her followers does not sufficiently identify customers, Plaintiffs fail to satisfy the first prong of a claim for tortious interference with a business relationship.

What about her "business relationship" with Twitter? That, too, does not actually exist:

Similarly, with respect to Loomer’s alleged business relationship with Twitter, Plaintiffs have pleaded nothing to suggest Loomer and Twitter had a business relationship as “evidenced by an actual and identifiable understanding or agreement which in all probability would have been completed if the defendant had not interfered.”... For starters, Count II of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is devoid of any allegations suggesting the existence of a business relationship between Loomer and Twitter. Still, at the Hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that Defendant interfered with Loomer’s right to use Twitter as a platform. However, when pressed to identify the nature of the business relationship between Loomer and Twitter, and Plaintiffs’ corresponding legal rights pursuant to that relationship, Plaintiffs could not do so. Put simply, no business relationship can be inferred merely from Loomer’s decision to use Twitter, and Defendant cannot be found liable for tortious interference with a business relationship where no business relationship has been established.

The court then goes even further and points out that even if Loomer could demonstrate a business relationship with Twitter (which she could not), it wouldn't matter anyway, thanks to CDA 230:

Moreover, even if Plaintiffs had established a business relationship between Loomer and Twitter, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S.C. § 230(b)(1)-(2), insulates internet providers, such as Twitter, from exactly the kind of liability Loomer now seeks to impose upon Defendant. Under the CDA, Twitter cannot be held liable for its decision to exercise traditional editorial functions, such as moderating content on its platform. Mezey v. Twitter, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-21069-KMM, 2018 WL 5306769, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 19, 2018). Here, Plaintiffs seek to hold Defendant liable for just that.

At the Hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that by urging Twitter to ban Loomer, Defendant had interfered in Loomer and Twitter’s business relationship. However, even accepting as true Plaintiffs’ proposition that Defendant reported Loomer’s account and convinced Twitter to ban Loomer, doing so does not create a cause of action for tortious interference with a business relationship. Plaintiffs’ suggestion that the mere reporting of a Twitter user—however insistent such reporting may be—is sufficient to constitute tortious interference in a business relationship between Twitter and the targeted user is, to put it mildly, nonsensical. A cause of action for tortious interference simply cannot exist each time an individual reports another Twitter user. And at the Hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel could not overcome this line-drawing problem. Put simply, Plaintiffs cannot use a claim of tortious interference with a business relationship as an end-run around the CDA’s explicit prohibition that Twitter cannot be held liable for its decision to moderate content on its platform.

Why, yes, the argument is nonsensical, and that's probably why the court needed just six quick pages to dismiss the lawsuit.

Filed Under: cda 230, content moderation, laura loomer, section 230, tortious interference
Companies: cair, twitter


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 4:40am

    When someone signs on to Twitter, they agree to a system where people can report content, and Twitter makes its own decisions so there's no interference as the underlying act is not tortious.

    Now when an SJW mob wants to "cancel" someone that's a different story. Doxing people can also be considered a fair-housing violation or interference with a rental contract.

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

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 21 Nov 2019 @ 5:19am

      Now when an SJW mob wants to "cancel" someone that's a different story.

      Oh, do explain this novel legal argument, because if all that comes down to is “reporting someone’s Twitter account”, I fail to see how it would be any better than the (losing) argument Loomer made.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 7:13am

        Re:

        He should have ended his comment with

        And no I will not be answering any questions

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

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 21 Nov 2019 @ 8:37am

        Re:

        The use of "SJW" usually means that he's part of an echo chamber that hates people telling them not to crap on other people for being different, yet takes great offence when people retaliate to their attacks.

        He probably means that whatever blog/radio show/podcast/site he favours has been told to tone down their racism and homophobia a tad by their advertisers and he doesn't like having to treat "those people" as human beings.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 6:29am

      Re:

      "Doxing people can also be considered a fair-housing violation or interference with a rental contract."

      It can?
      Please explain in detail exactly how these are considered, in a legal sense, to be violations of fair housing and/or rental contract.
      In addition, I would be interested in any court cases involving this subject. There is legal precedence in support of you claim, right?

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

      • icon
        Bergman (profile), 21 Nov 2019 @ 7:32am

        Re: Re:

        Generally it isn’t. But that also means that if a Black Lives Matter member can be badgered out of their home just as legally.

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

        • icon
          James Burkhardt (profile), 21 Nov 2019 @ 9:13am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Generally it isn’t. But that also means that if a Black Lives Matter member can be badgered out of their home just as legally.

          The reason to ask the question it can is to have the person explain the legal theory being presented. Confirming Green AC's skepticism over the claim that Doxxing could be considered "fair-housing violation or interference with a rental contract" doesn't move that discussion forward - and your commentary on BLM suggests an assumption that Green AC would assume that somehow a supporter of BLM (do they actually have a 'membership'? I didn't think they were an organization, but a movement) wouldn't be suseptible to issues of Doxxing, which is most definitely not in evidence.

          Combined those 2 factors suggest a subtle but hostile troll.

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

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 21 Nov 2019 @ 8:35am

      Re:

      "Now when an SJW mob"

      It's always my experience that when people use this term unironically they have assertions that are not worth listening to.

      I'm yet to see an exception to that rule.

      "Doxing people can also be considered a fair-housing violation or interference with a rental contract."

      Although, I'd love to hear your tortured reasoning for this one.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 8:55am

        Re: Re:

        There are a lot of ways to inject race, religion, disability, or other statuses into rental stuff that is a violation of human rights and fair housing requirements.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 9:25am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Ok, no argument there - but how is this related to dox?
          That was the original question.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 9:31am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Step 1) Gather dox to find people's protected statuses

            Step 2) Put it up in the landlords or other housing providers face if you think you can play on any prejudices they might have

            Step 3) ?????????

            Step 4) Be an egregious douche bag/Profit

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 9:34am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              You assume the landlord is a bigot?

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 9:42am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I was actually assuming the doxer was a bigot

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 11:10am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Ok, but if the landlord does not do anything with the said info provided by the doxxer, how is that then a fair-housing violation or interference with a rental contract?

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

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 11:16am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    If you ever find yourself in that situation I suggest you get a lawyer and sue the doxer in a friendly jurisdiction. You may get a pile of money.

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

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 22 Nov 2019 @ 1:38am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  So, what does that have to do with doxing? Are you saying that an otherwise law abiding landlord will just break fair housing laws if enough people tell him to?

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

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 22 Nov 2019 @ 1:37am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "There are a lot of ways to inject race, religion, disability, or other statuses into rental stuff that is a violation of human rights and fair housing requirements."

          There are. What does that have to do with doxing?

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 5:52pm

        Re: Re:

        And to think a few months ago, John Smith's argument against Section 230 was a fearful suggestion that your daughter/sister/female relative might have a landlord who might attempt to look up information on her to hit on her, therefore Section 230 needs to die. You know... because all landlords might be incel douchebags.

        And now he's complaining that doxing allows people to be assholes towards landlords. Because... reasons. Never mind that had his original scenario been a thing, landlords could very well then sue people for being prejudiced towards them... because of the scenario John Smith decided to propose.

        I like to think that John Smith has a Gordian knot in the cavity where his brain is supposed to be. A Gordian knot of putrefied horseshit.

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

    • icon
      Toom1275 (profile), 21 Nov 2019 @ 9:39am

      Re:

      Doxing people can also be considered a fair-housing violation or interference with a rental contract.

      I've seen that claim fail in court.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 10:40am

      Re:

      Can an old impotent fuckwit learn new tricks?

      It would appear so.

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

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 22 Nov 2019 @ 8:34am

      Re:

      Now when an SJW mob wants to "cancel" someone that's a different story.

      Yeah, a fictional story. Cancel culture basically doesn't exist.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szybEhqUmVI

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

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 21 Nov 2019 @ 4:57am

    So... how's that working out for you so far then?

    From the source article:

    She acknowledged in a fundraising email that she is using her congressional campaign in part to return to Twitter and Facebook, according to the Daily Beast.

    I can't imagine how that admission might end up biting her... 'Why yes, I am running for public office in part to force platforms to host me again after I got booted for violating their TOS', but I don't see what that could possibly have to do with my latest lawsuit trying to force them to host me again.'

    I can’t wait to see the reactions of Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey as they have to reinstate a ‘dangerous individual’ to their platforms,” Loomer wrote.

    Well, given so far they haven't, and one court so far has given your laughable claims a well-deserved 'nope' might need to wait a bit to see any such thing.

    Looks like yet another individual who not only feels they are owed the use of someone else's platform, regardless of what the owner may want, but that 'free speech' is shorthand for 'consequence-free speech'(at least when it comes to their speech).

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

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 21 Nov 2019 @ 5:22am

      Loomer is one of those types of snowflakes who believe in “free speech for me, but not for thee” — i.e., they’re all too happy to say mean things about other people, but the moment anyone says anything mean about the snowflakes, we see articles about lawsuits that should never have gone past the filing stage.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 7:11am

      Re: So... how's that working out for you so far then?

      Is she owed a presence on those platforms if she gets elected?

      Given the recent arguments that politician's social media accounts may be public platforms where they cant block individuals, an argument could be made that the platforms shouldn't be able to block the politicians from those platforms.

      Then again Crazy As A Loomer probably is not the best test case for this.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 9:18am

        Re: Re: So... how's that working out for you so far then?

        an argument could be made that the platforms shouldn't be able to block the politicians from those platforms.

        And that argument would fail. There is no law that says a platform is required to host speech. Twitter could ban Trump's account right now if they wanted to, and there's nothing he could do about it. They don't because it brings eyeballs.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 9:42am

          Re: Re: Re: So... how's that working out for you so far then?

          Don't be too sure that he can do nothing while in office, as he could abuse his position of power to set the dogs at the DOJ, and get his cronies in congress to hold inquiries into the company, until either they do what he wants or go bust.

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

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 21 Nov 2019 @ 6:12pm

        Re: Re: So... how's that working out for you so far then?

        Is she owed a presence on those platforms if she gets elected?

        No. Political office comes with a number of perks, but 'guaranteed account on a social media platform not owned by the government' is not one of them.

        Given the recent arguments that politician's social media accounts may be public platforms where they cant block individuals, an argument could be made that the platforms shouldn't be able to block the politicians from those platforms.

        As the AC above noted, this argument would fail. Politicians, as government actors, are limited in what they can do by the constitution, such that if they are making use of a platform for government business/discussions they aren't allowed to prohibit members of the pubic from interacting with them on it.

        The private companies providing those platforms however are under no obligation to continue providing them, nor to provide them in the first place, and as such could kick a politician off and/or refuse to let them use the service in the first place if they desired.

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

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 21 Nov 2019 @ 5:27am

    The judge stated it best...

    "and the targeted user is, to put it mildly, nonsensical."

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 5:41am

    snowflakes and SJW's

    Dear Community,

    Could we please stop it with these pejorative labels. It doesn't help the discussion, IMO.

    Meanwhile, its just loomed on Loomer that she's be 230'd by the CDA.

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

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 6:04am

      Re: snowflakes and SJW's

      Dear tiny part of the community,
      No. We will use any and all pejoratives that we wish and their offending people is literally the point. When we can't come up with a valid response, we use words that we find hurtful. Buzzwords like this can be used to filter out comments based on the mentality, or lack thereof, behind them. Ok Boomer is only a valid response when communicating with certain undersea vehicles but when we see it being spread as a meme, we are able to tell that that person is a vapid waste of space. Encourage the use of terms like this, it helps society ID the morons as quickly as possible.

      P.S. That joke bombed.

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

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 21 Nov 2019 @ 6:33am

        When we can't come up with a valid response, we use words that we find hurtful.

        “They use words like ‘facts’ and ‘reality’ and ‘citation needed’.” — the trolls, probably

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 7:33am

          Re:

          I can't imagine anyone actually being offended by being called an SJW. It's used to stifle conversation and using it against someone is an expression of idpol in that the so-called SJW can't possibly understand the plight of others and is merely virtue signaling (another buzzword) their progressiveness because they have to be faking it. Chuds who use SJW pejoratively don't understand that compassion and empathy for people in the out-group can be genuine.

          We all know who the biggest snowflakes are anyway: the ones who can't take OK, boomer

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 7:48am

            Re: Re:

            Ok, millenial.

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

            • identicon
              TFG, 21 Nov 2019 @ 8:08am

              Re: Re: Re:

              I've always found it odd that there's a generation that is labeled "The Greatest Generation." Always makes you think that whoever named it was part of that group, and had an outsized opinion of their peer group.

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

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 21 Nov 2019 @ 8:51am

                Re: Re: Re: Re:

                A quick check on Wikipedia informs that it was coined in the 90s by someone who slightly preceded the boomers. The naming is pretty straightforward - a combination of being the people who were born during the Great Depression and went on to fight in WWII, although taking credit for all that as a generation is pretty rich. Especially since by definition, most first gen Nazis were also of that generation.

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 9:32am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  The age old tradition of trashing the latest generation for their alleged faults and taking offense when given same.

                  I am beginning to think it is a political ploy intended to divide and conquer. I'm not sure it will help them this time.

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 10:01am

                Re: Re: Re: Re:

                No argument there

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 10:44am

        Re: Re: so triggered by being reminded of your mortality

        Whatever boomer.

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

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 1:06pm

          Re: Re: Re: so triggered by being reminded of your mortality

          As we get older and wiser we come to realize that 10 years ago we didn't really know anything despite thinking at the time that we knew everything. 10 years after that the same is true. Rinse and repeat. The older you get the more you realize how little you actually know.

          You 20-somethings can keep ignoring the wisdom of your elders but some day you will look back and realize what a prick you were for making comments like "whatever boomer". And when you're 50+ and your kids are saying "ok boomer" but with your generational label you'll finally understand.

          For the pedants: Yeah, I know 50+ isn't "boomer", that's 55-73.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 2:58pm

            Re:

            “You 20-somethings can keep ignoring the wisdom of your elders”

            Oh like atomic bombs, the current state of the environment and US gun laws?

            Whatever old man. Your “wisdom” has done enough damage to the planet. Now step aside so we can fix the mess you made. Have the good grace to shut up and go out quietly.

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

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 4:07pm

              Re: Re:

              If you honestly believe that your generation isn't going to commit it's very own flavor of atrocities then you're fooling only yourself. And you just demonstrated exactly what I said earlier. Your children and grandchildren will say exactly what you just said, 20 years from now.

              Now sit down, child, and shut up while the adults deal with things.

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 5:57pm

                Re: Re: Re:

                Now sit down, child, and shut up while the adults deal with things.

                That's certainly worked out so far, hasn't it?

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 9:29pm

                Re: Re: Re:

                Hey old man. I’m in my fourth decade. You assumed wrong. The whatever should have tipped you off. My generation has been picking up after yours since we were born. As for the adults. We are them. Now take your own advise and go quietly into the night, before we chuck you into a shitty rat infested rest home with the other impotent old fuckwits.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 3:40pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: so triggered by being reminded of your mortality

            You 20-somethings can keep ignoring the wisdom of your elders…

            Wisdom from your elders…

            “Don't trust anyone over 30”

                        ——November 1964   (Jack Weinberg speaking in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle.)

             

            Weinberg is the person who coined the saying "Don't trust anyone over 30" . . . Weinberg tells the story like this:

                 “I was being interviewed by a newspaper reporter, and he was making me very angry. It seemed to me his questions were implying that we were being directed behind the scenes by Communists or some other sinister group. I told him we had a saying in the movement that we don't trust anybody over 30.…”

            On November 15, 1964, the Chronicle printed the story . . . The saying then went viral.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 4:08pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so triggered by being reminded of your morta

              I'm not sure what you were trying to say but I don't think it's what you actually just said.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 6:01pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: so triggered by being reminded of your mortality

            As we get older and wiser we come to realize that 10 years ago we didn't really know anything despite thinking at the time that we knew everything. 10 years after that the same is true. Rinse and repeat. The older you get the more you realize how little you actually know.

            And... how does being condescending to the younger generation contribute to a solution, exactly?

            Knowing that you lack knowledge is one thing, but if you're using it to openly admit that you made mistakes, and therefore shouldn't be held responsible for them, but celebrated for being blatant enough to admit it... that's not something worth celebrating.

            It's especially not something worth celebrating when mistakes made in ignorance is something older generations regularly give younger generations grief over.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 6:16pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so triggered by being reminded of your morta

              It's because condescension towards anyone younger is how they've always done things.

              Previous generations have always worked under the assumption that not asking questions, doing as you're told and "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" is how anything gets done, dreams are achieved and upward mobility occurs. Attributing fault to someone else or circumstances outside your control is unheard of.

              Which is why when the younger generation is faced with rising costs of living, a shrinking pool of resources to be divided between an even larger pool of younger working people, a constant devaluation of college degrees, etc - the response is even more blaming.

              You could be running a gig economy job. You could be homeless in an endlessly expensive housing situation. You could be replaced by someone less qualified just because them not holding a degree means companies would rather hire them and pay lower than market rate.

              But it's always "eat less avocado toast" with these assholes. Because obviously gig economy workers have the disposable income to afford whatever hipster lifestyle they think all millennials must be having.

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2019 @ 7:20am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so triggered by being reminded of your m

                It is of interest watching Captains of Industry wrinkle their foreheads in confusion due to millennials not purchasing houses or procreating .
                Certainly this is not due to a lack of living wages or a sense of personal responsibility.

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

  • icon
    Thad (profile), 21 Nov 2019 @ 6:44am

    OK Loomer.

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

  • icon
    Norahc (profile), 21 Nov 2019 @ 7:02am

    Guess she should have filed rhe case in the Internet Court of Butthurt.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 10:47am

    Oh No

    Did she insult the terrorists and/or their pedo prophet?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2019 @ 11:31am

      Re: Oh No

      perhaps more like encouraging hatred and possibly violence toward any coreligionists (broadly speaking) in Islam, or anyone who might be taken as possibly having an Islamic faith. most people have no problem with even violent words and actions against actual terrorists.

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

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 21 Nov 2019 @ 12:01pm

    dont we hire folks..

    Like this..
    That are supposed to know the laws??

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


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

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.