News, Culture & Society

Case dismissed against social media by Pulse nightclub victims’ families

A Detroit federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed against Facebook, Google and Twitter by families of patrons killed in the 2016 Orlando, Florida, nightclub massacre.

On Friday, US District Judge David Lawson dismissed the case filed in December 2016 by the families of Tevin Crosby, Juan Ramon Guerrero Jr and Javier Jorge-Reyes. 

The families claimed in the lawsuit that the gunman Omar Mateen was radicalized by propaganda found through social media, including the three platforms.

On Friday, a Detroit federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed in December 2016 against Facebook, Google and Twitter by the families of Tevin Crosby, Juan Ramon Guerrero Jr (pictured) and Javier Jorge-Reyes - patrons killed in the June 2016 Orlando, Florida, nightclub massacre

On Friday, a Detroit federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed in December 2016 against Facebook, Google and Twitter by the families of Tevin Crosby (left), Juan Ramon Guerrero Jr (right) and Javier Jorge-Reyes – patrons killed in the June 2016 Orlando, Florida, nightclub massacre

The families claimed in the lawsuit that the gunman Omar Mateen was radicalized by propaganda found through social media, including the three platforms (Pictured, victim Javier Jorge-Reyes)

The families claimed in the lawsuit that the gunman Omar Mateen was radicalized by propaganda found through social media, including the three platforms (Pictured, victim Javier Jorge-Reyes)

The families of the victims were seeking an undisclosed amount of money under a federal law allowing the estates of terrorist attack victims to sue anybody who  provided ‘material support’ to the terrorists, reported The Detroit News.

‘Most technology experts agree that defendants could and should be doing more to stop ISIS from using its social network,’ the lawsuit said. 

On June 12, 2016, Mateen walked into Pulse nightclub around 2am and opened fire, killing 49 people and wounding 58 others.

In telephone conversations with a 911 operator and a police negotiator, Mateen pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. After a three-hour standoff with a SWAT team, he was killed.

In his ruling, Lawson found no legal claim that the companies were liable and should have done more to stop the Islamic State from using their platforms.

Lawson dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the plaintiff cannot bring action on the same claim in the future.

In telephone conversations with a 911 operator and a police negotiator, Mateen (pictured) pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. After a three-hour standoff with a SWAT team, he was killed

In telephone conversations with a 911 operator and a police negotiator, Mateen (pictured) pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. After a three-hour standoff with a SWAT team, he was killed

In telephone conversations with a 911 operator and a police negotiator, Mateen (left and right)) pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. After a three-hour standoff with a SWAT team, he was killed

On June 12, 2016, Mateen walked into Pulse nightclub (pictured) around 2am and opened fire, killing 49 people and wounding 58 others

In his ruling, US District Judge David Lawson found no legal claim that the companies were liable and should have done more to stop the Islamic State from using their platforms (Pictured, security video showing Mateen entering Pulse nightclub)

In his ruling, US District Judge David Lawson found no legal claim that the companies were liable and should have done more to stop the Islamic State from using their platforms (Pictured, security video showing Mateen entering Pulse nightclub)

‘There are many conclusions that can be drawn from the facts alleged in the amended complaint about the ethics and moral responsibility of those maintaining social media sites, including the defendants,’ the ruling reads.

‘But because the plaintiffs have not pleaded facts that plausibly establish legal claims for which relief can be granted, the Court will grant the motion and dismiss the case.’ 

A similar lawsuit against Twitter was dismissed in 2016. 

In that case, a San Francisco federal judge agreed with Twitter that the social media site could not be held accountable because federal law protects service-providers that merely offer platforms for speech, without creating the speech itself, reported The Canoe.



Read more at DailyMail.co.uk


Comments are closed.