Judge Dismisses Case against Facebook, Google, and Twitter over Shooting
Get Legal Help Today
Secured with SHA-256 Encryption
UPDATED: Feb 16, 2019
It’s all about you. We want to help you make the right legal decisions.
We strive to help you make confident insurance and legal decisions. Finding trusted and reliable insurance quotes and legal advice should be easy. This doesn’t influence our content. Our opinions are our own.
Editorial Guidelines: We are a free online resource for anyone interested in learning more about legal topics and insurance. Our goal is to be an objective, third-party resource for everything legal and insurance related. We update our site regularly, and all content is reviewed by experts.
A San Francisco federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Facebook, Google, and Twitter filed by victims and family members of victims of the 2015 mass shooting in San Bernardino, California.
As NPR reported, fourteen people were killed and 22 were injured when Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik shot up a holiday office party for Farook’s colleagues who worked for San Bernardino County.
According to the LA Times, the couple became “self-radicalized” by reading radical Islamic literature online.
On the day of the shooting, Malik went on Facebook and pledged allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
ISIS later claimed responsibility for the massacre, even though it apparently had no actual contact with the killers.
A week after the attack, James Comey (then the director of the FBI) testified to the US Congress that social media had helped to radicalize the shooters, and that they were at least partly inspired by ISIS.
The plaintiffs filed suit in 2017, claiming that Facebook, Google, and Twitter
have knowingly and recklessly provided the terrorist group ISIS with accounts to use its social networks as a tool for spreading extremist propaganda, raising funds and attracting new recruits.
The suit also claimed that
Without defendants Twitter, Facebook and Google (YouTube), the explosive growth of ISIS over the last few years into the most feared terrorist group in the world would not have been possible.
In dismissing the lawsuit, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler ruled that although the social media companies were “generally aware that ISIS used their services,” there was no evidence that the companies “intended to further” terrorist actions.
Previous cases against social networking companies and other internet services providers (ISPs) have been dismissed because of laws which make ISPs immune for actions by their users in most cases.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 provides immunity from liability for providers of an “interactive computer service” who publish information provided by third-party users:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs of the following test to gain the benefit of the immunity:
- The defendant must be a “provider or user” of an “interactive computer service” (such as a social networking site).
- The plaintiff’s cause of action must treat the defendant as the “publisher or speaker” of the harmful information at issue.
- The information must be “provided by another information content provider,” such as a user of the service. The defendant must not be the party directing posting the harmful information at issue.
Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), ISPs are also usually not liable for intellectual property infringement by their users.
The lawyer for the plaintiffs in the San Bernardino case has stated that he plans to file an appeal.