Suing Social Media Sites Over Acts Of Terrorism Continues To Be A Losing Bet, As 11th Circuit Dumps Another Flawed Lawsuit

from the this-isn't-making-anything-any-better dept

People suing Twitter and Facebook for acts of violence committed by terrorists have yet to talk a court into agreeing with their arguments. Utilizing federal anti-terrorism laws as a way to circumvent discussion of First Amendment and Section 230 issues has worked to a certain extent. It may not have handed any wins to plaintiffs, but it has prevented precedent that would work against these clients (and their law firms — both of them) when attempting to define “insanity” through repeated failure.

Via Eric Goldman comes another loss in court for plaintiffs attempting to sue social media companies over an act of terrorism, in this case the mass shooting in an Orlando, Florida nightclub that appears to have no ties to any organized terrorist group.

Despite being given multiple attempts to convert the complaint into something actionable, the plaintiffs failed to do so. This is largely because social media companies aren’t even indirectly responsible for acts of terrorism. More specifically in this case, the Pulse Nightclub shooting wasn’t even, legally speaking, an act of international terrorism. That means there’s no cause of action under the plaintiffs’ legal vehicle of choice, the Anti-Terrorism Act.

From the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision [PDF]:

We are deeply saddened by the deaths and injuries caused by Mr. Mateen’s rampage, but we agree with the district court that the plaintiffs failed to make out a plausible claim that the Pulse massacre was an act of “international terrorism” as that term is defined in the ATA [Anti-Terrorism Act]. And without such an act of “international terrorism,” the social media companies—no matter what we may think of their alleged conduct—cannot be liable for aiding and abetting under the ATA.

The shooter was an American citizen. He “self-radicalized” with the alleged assistance of social media platforms. He pledged allegiance to ISIS while barricading himself with hostages following the shooting. ISIS arrived shortly thereafter to claim it supported the shooting and the shooter. But there’s nothing “international” about this. And the Appeals Court isn’t willing to read the ATA as expansively as the plaintiffs choose to.

The Pulse shooting… did not transcend national boundaries in terms of the persons it was “intended to intimidate or coerce.” The plausible inference from the plaintiffs’ allegations is that a mass shooting on United States soil is meant to terrorize American citizens and residents. To come to the contrary conclusion we would have to say (or infer) that any act of domestic terrorism, anywhere in the world, is meant to intimidate or coerce all of humankind. And if that were the case, we doubt that Congress would have included this limiting language in the ATA.

Because these claims fail to carry the lawsuit, the court takes no note of the Section 230 and First Amendment implications. That’s a bit unfortunate because dismissing lawsuits under ATA and state law claims hasn’t stopped these law firms and lawyers from filing multiple, nearly identical lawsuits attempting to hold social media companies directly responsible for violent acts committed by their users.

At some point, these issues may be addressed at the federal court level. But today is not that day. And if people still believe this is indicative of Section 230’s faults, they should apprise themselves of the unavoidable fact that Section 230 does not immunize social media companies from allegations of federal law violations. Yes, it’s almost impossible to sue terrorists for violent acts, but suing social media platforms won’t actually result in justice, either.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Suing Social Media Sites Over Acts Of Terrorism Continues To Be A Losing Bet, As 11th Circuit Dumps Another Flawed Lawsuit”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
18 Comments
Scary Devil Monasterysays:

Not really surprised anymore

Given the prevailing debate about blaming social media platforms for every ill from the original sin going forward I’m not surprised at all to see every shady grifter encouraged to take a shot at making <insert platform name> pay them for any grievance real or imagined perpetrated on them by some unrelated party.

What I do not understand is the scarcity of politicians and judges willing to openly and heavy-handedly come down on such attempts. Surely they should realize that this shit will keep wasting public resources until someone’s told the children in the room that they can’t just point a finger at random people and tell them they owe them candy?

PaulTsays:

Re: Not really surprised anymore

"What I do not understand is the scarcity of politicians and judges willing to openly and heavy-handedly come down on such attempts"

For lawyers it’s not a lucrative industry, For politicians, as soon as they do it their opponents will use that to claim they are pro-terrorism and get them to lose re-election.

PaulTsays:

Re: No logic (that makes sense anyway) involved whatsoever

For lawyers at least, it makes sense. It’s clear that there’s virtually no issue with being disbarred in most places no matter how idiotic the claim is, and win or lose you get to claim those billable hours. If you can get rid of those pesky morals that tell you that you’re just taking advantage of victims, it’s apparently a great living.

Anonymoussays:

Why aren’t the power and water companies being sued for failing to terminate their utilities to this unknown entity? Why not the car manufacturer (and possibly car lease company or alternatively the mass transit company), or the company that made his shoes, or the market he got his food from?

Surely they must all have known just as much as what the social media firms knew, while materially supporting him?

The gun companies are off the hook though, because the constitution is sacred…

Anonymoussays:

Re:

Until recently, leasing companies were on the hook for accidents in New York. I think that changed 5 or 10 years ago but there was a time you could not technically lease a car in NY. Dealers/leasing companies found a work around for it. Holding the leasing company responsible was a response to those rich persons who had a chauffeur. There would be an accident and since owner would get out of any responsibility because they were not driving.

This is actually another example of mission creep on laws that get written to solve a specific problem and somewhere down the road are co-opted to be used in a situation that did not exist at the time the law was written.

PaulTsays:

Re: No logic (that makes sense anyway) involved whatsoever

For lawyers at least, it makes sense. It’s clear that there’s virtually no issue with being disbarred in most places no matter how idiotic the claim is, and win or lose you get to claim those billable hours. If you can get rid of those pesky morals that tell you that you’re just taking advantage of victims, it’s apparently a great living.

Anonymoussays:

Re:

Until recently, leasing companies were on the hook for accidents in New York. I think that changed 5 or 10 years ago but there was a time you could not technically lease a car in NY. Dealers/leasing companies found a work around for it. Holding the leasing company responsible was a response to those rich persons who had a chauffeur. There would be an accident and since owner would get out of any responsibility because they were not driving.

This is actually another example of mission creep on laws that get written to solve a specific problem and somewhere down the road are co-opted to be used in a situation that did not exist at the time the law was written.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
13:40 It's Great That Winnie The Pooh Is In The Public Domain; But He Should Have Been Free In 1982 (Or Earlier) (35)
12:06 Norton 360 Now Comes With Crypto Mining Capabilities And Sketchy Removal Process (28)
10:45 Chinese Government Dragnet Now Folding In American Social Media Platforms To Silence Dissent (14)
10:40 Daily Deal: The 2022 Ultimate Cybersecurity Analyst Preparation Bundle (0)
09:29 A Fight Between Facebook And The British Medical Journal Highlights The Difficulty Of Moderating 'Medical Misinformation' (9)
06:29 Court Ruling Paves The Way For Better, More Reliable Wi-Fi (4)
20:12 Eighth Circuit (Again) Says There's Nothing Wrong With Detaining Innocent Minors At Gunpoint (15)
15:48 China's Regulatory War On Its Gaming Industry Racks Up 14k Casualties (10)
13:31 Chinese Government Fines Local Car Dealerships For Surveilling While Not Being The Government (5)
12:08 Eric Clapton Pretends To Regret The Decision To Sue Random German Woman Who Listed A Bootleg Of One Of His CDs On Ebay (29)
10:44 ICE Is So Toxic That The DHS's Investigative Wing Is Asking To Be Completely Separated From It (29)
10:39 Daily Deal: The 2022 Complete Raspberry Pi And Arduino Developer Bundle (0)
09:31 Google Blocked An Article About Police From The Intercept... Because The Title Included A Phrase That Was Also A Movie Title (24)
06:22 Wireless Carriers Balk At FAA Demand For 5G Deployment Delays Amid Shaky Safety Concerns (16)
19:53 Tenth Circuit Denies Qualified Immunity To Social Worker Who Fabricated A Mother's Confession Of Child Abuse (35)
15:39 Sci-Hub's Creator Thinks Academic Publishers, Not Her Site, Are The Real Threat To Science, And Says: 'Any Law Against Knowledge Is Fundamentally Unjust' (34)
13:32 Federal Court Tells Proud Boys Defendants That Raiding The Capitol Building Isn't Covered By The First Amendment (25)
12:14 US Courts Realizing They Have A Judge Alan Albright Sized Problem In Waco (17)
10:44 Boston Police Department Used Forfeiture Funds To Hide Purchase Of Surveillance Tech From City Reps (16)
10:39 Daily Deal: The Ultimate Microsoft Excel Training Bundle (0)
09:20 NY Senator Proposes Ridiculously Unconstitutional Social Media Law That Is The Mirror Opposite Of Equally Unconstitutional Laws In Florida & Texas (25)
06:12 Telecom Monopolies Are Exploiting Crappy U.S. Broadband Maps To Block Community Broadband Grant Requests (7)
12:00 Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of 2021 At Techdirt (17)
10:00 Gaming Like It's 1926: Join The Fourth Annual Public Domain Game Jam (6)
09:00 New Year's Message: The Arc Of The Moral Universe Is A Twisty Path (33)
19:39 DHS, ICE Begin Body Camera Pilot Program With Surprisingly Good Policies In Place (7)
15:29 Remembering Techdirt Contributors Sherwin And Elliot (1)
13:32 DC Metro PD's Powerful Review Panel Keeps Giving Bad Cops Their Jobs Back (6)
12:11 Missouri Governor Still Expects Journalists To Be Prosecuted For Showing How His Admin Leaked Teacher Social Security Numbers (39)
10:48 Oversight Board Overturning Instagram Takedown Of Ayahuasca Post Demonstrates The Impossibility Of Content Moderation (10)
More arrow
This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it