Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications Social Networks The Courts Facebook Google Government Network Networking Software The Internet Twitter Wireless Networking News Technology

Twitter, Facebook and Google Sued For Facilitating Paris Attacks (thenextweb.com) 156

Posted by BeauHD from the flagged-for-offensive-content dept.
An anonymous reader writes: Reynaldo Gonzalez is suing Twitter, Facebook and Google for facilitating the spread of "extremist propaganda" after alleging the three companies "knowingly permitted" ISIS to recruit, raise money and spread its message across each of the respective platforms. His daughter, Nohemi, was among the 130 killed when religious extremists attacked Paris last year. In the court documents, Gonzalez goes on to say that religious extremists would not have the infrastructure to get their message to the masses without the three companies and their social networks. While each company does have moderators that review content, The Next Web notes that it's a statistical impossibility to maintain that any company of such a size can review, or even find, all instances of offensive content. Google is also being faced with a lawsuit from the Space Data Corporation of Chandler, Arizona, which claims the tech giant stole the idea behind its Wi-Fi-emitting balloon network, Project Loon.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Twitter, Facebook and Google Sued For Facilitating Paris Attacks More

Twitter, Facebook and Google Sued For Facilitating Paris Attacks

Comments Filter:

  • "Statistical impossibility" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Thursday June 16, 2016 @08:09PM (#52332693) Homepage Journal
    No it isn't impossible. The companies just don't want to INVEST their money to moderate or curate their content. You can be damned sure they do curate some of their content. These companies have hundreds of billions of dollars in CASH. They could do it if they wanted to, but they don't want to. They could hire 100,000 people to do it. They don't want to spend their money. But it isn't impossible, they just need to change the way they do business.

    • Subject of Comment (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16, 2016 @08:22PM (#52332763)

      They'd throw an AI at it at best, and then have to hire a significantly smaller staff of people to look over complaints. Wouldn't be surprised if the AI twitter bots can be re-purposed for this.

      Here is the thing though. Even if they could, would they want to? If they are shown to specifically filter certain content, wouldn't they make themselves more liable for the things that slip by? It'd be better to just ask users to report content that violates their terms of service, than to search it out themselves with fervor.

      What this person wants, or will get if these companies getting stuck with responsibility will be the death of organized (as in a single place) free speech. It will fall to smaller groups and likely be a return to something like it was pre-MySpace, where people had their own sites catered to their own community. Much harder to track those down. Groups like these exist for things, such as drug trades or illegal porn, more specifically on the dark net.

      For an example of what has been done in the past, think of the KKK or the Neo-Nazis. They aren't repressed by the governments like many would like, because if they are, then they'd be harder to track and likely act out a lot more. They calm their national terrorist groups by allowing them to speak publicly.

      To one of the greatest quotes in history, "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

      • Re: Subject of Comment (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Ooh I love when Dr Who said that in Star Trek

      • These, and more:

        Why not sue any and all hardware manufacturers?

        How about any and all ISPs?

        Twitter, Facebook and Google ain't shit without those.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by stdarg ( 456557 )

          But as noted in the summary "each company does have moderators that review content."

          Once upon a time, that meant that they were giving up rights to be considered a common carrier with no liability for what is carried.

          Now people want it both ways... Twitter has a "Trust and Safety Council" that goes around banning people who express certain viewpoints to provide "safe spaces" for the groups du jour they want to protect.

          So why don't they have a better anti-terrorism group? It's a fair question once they choos

          • Personally, I think all this shit is within the scope of gubmint anti-terror policy.

            People who are out to make dollars aren't the best people to fight crime.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        What this person wants, or will get if these companies getting stuck with responsibility will be the death of organized (as in a single place) free speech.

        That doesn't appear to be what they want at all. I don't have the actual text of the suit, but TFA says the allegation is that they "knowingly" facilitated ISIS. The principal is generally that companies handling use content are protected as long as they take action when notified, so there is no real requirement for them to police their networks themselves.

        Of course TFA could be wrong.

      • wouldn't they make themselves more liable for the things that slip by?

        Yes and no. In the world of PR yeah, it would totally bite if you were actively filtering and something slipped by. In the legal world, no. It's not like Facebook or Twitter enjoy some sort of public utility freedom, they're a business just like any other. McDonald's has security in their restaurants but no one is suing them if someone walks in and empties round after round into folks shoving hamburgers and nuggets into their face. At some point, it's obvious that you can't stop every single thing, not

    • Re:"Statistical impossibility" (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fustakrakich ( 1673220 ) on Thursday June 16, 2016 @08:29PM (#52332783) Journal

      Content is none of their business. The correct track to follow, as always, is to trace the money that facilitated the Paris, and all the other attacks. But, it is always much easier to scapegoat the internet, in order to bring about popular demand that it be controlled.

      • I'm with ya on this.

        How about we get the fucking military community to handle this shit. Edward Snowden says they're in there.

        Sue those bastards.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Bollocks. Try posting a nude image. Try posting a song. Try posting a movie clip. They *do* monitor content. They even have automated DMCA violation detection systems. But hey, that is the big bucks they don't want to offend. But when it comes to this it's all 'nah, freedom of speech'. That is just plain bullshit and you know it.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      No it isn't impossible. The companies just don't want to INVEST their money to moderate or curate their content. You can be damned sure they do curate some of their content. These companies have hundreds of billions of dollars in CASH. They could do it if they wanted to, but they don't want to. They could hire 100,000 people to do it. They don't want to spend their money. But it isn't impossible, they just need to change the way they do business.

      Let's look at the math (using order of magitudes)

      Just for facebook, there are 1 billion users. While the number is apparently closer to 2, let us use 1 post per day. So 1 billion posts per day to review. For 100,000 people, that means 10,000 posts to review per day. That means a review period of (around) 3 seconds per post. Plus, you really need to have (at least) 3 people review the posts (to insure the reviewers are not "in on it"), so maybe 1 second per post. So, no, not impossible. Just impractic

      • You're counting posts only.

        Do we know on average, how many comments each post gets?

        How many images?

        How about private messages, should those be human reviewed as well? :)

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Censorship is worse than anything that could be communicated.

      • Right now we have people dead and following tensions which leads to more radicalization. This already lead to rise of nationalism in Europe and last time it ended with tens of millions dead. So... tell me again how censorship is the worst.

        • Right now we have people dead and following tensions which leads to more radicalization. This already lead to rise of nationalism in Europe and last time it ended with tens of millions dead. So... tell me again how censorship is the worst.

          Censorship means whoever decides what gets censored controls public opinion by basically controlling perceive reality beyond people's immediate sensory range. That, in turn, basically lets them control public opinion and thus nullify any resemblance to democracy, and at t

          • I wonder how you feel about privacy laws. That is clear case of censorship and should be stopped. How about libel and fraud? Surely, anyone can communicate anything to anyone in any circumstances, right?

        • Well if gun manufactures and sellers can't be held to account for the dissemination of weapons used in murders then I don't see how communications providers can be held responsible for the part they unwittingly played in the facilitation of crimes.

          Would be a bit of a double-standard, don't you think?

          Not to mention unreasonable.

          • Gun manufactures? Perhaps not (although compelling could be made). More appropriate example would be gun sellers. Say, for example, you sell guns in a village and one of the villagers tells you that Joe Smith has been telling everyone he meets that he is going to kill the barber. You go and investigate and surely enough, you overhear him saying that to random people. Later that evening Joe comes to your shop and tries to buy a gun. Do you sell it?

            As for Twitter and Facebook, they were informed that radicali

        • I suppose we can tear up the Constitution and declare our country a fascist dictatorship and spit on the men and women who fought for our freedoms for over 200 years. We can then require people to ask the government for permission to speak and the government will tell them what they can and cannot say during this speech. If you want to post on the internet you will need to ask the government for permission to post and they will give you guidelines on what you can and cannot say. After all, what is stopping

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Z80a ( 971949 )

      While its possible to remove the terrorists from google, Twitter, facebook etc.. you only move to where they will talk to some heavily encrypted chat system (or some abandoned sonic fetish phpbb forum), and obviously you end getting several "false positives" in the process.

      Also with the terrorists visible its easier to infiltrate someone on the group and get em to meet on some place where the whole fucking army will be waiting.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by samantha ( 68231 ) *

      You really really don't want this. It would END the internet as you know it if all content was the responsibility of every ISP and webapp that had any user supplied content. Calling for this is insane.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by stdarg ( 456557 )

        The companies are already doing it, that was in the summary. Google Twitter's "trust and safety council" for instance.

        The result of this lawsuit would ideally be that these companies start providing more open platforms again. Twitter provides tools to let users block other users.. that should be enough. Why do they have a team that goes around censoring certain viewpoints at all? And once they start doing that, it is fair to ask why they're going after people who are mean to feminists (for instance) rather

        • Ironically despite drumpf's personal attacks on opponents via Twitter, he hasn't received a single terms of service violation notice from Twitter when others have been banned from Twitter and other platforms for doing what he does? The people of Twitter love that drumpf brings all kinds of people onto Twitter and they get free advertisement from his posts but anyone else who isn't drumpf would have their account terminated for violating their terms of service. Sounds like fair censorship doesn't it?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by xtsigs ( 2236840 )

      It is easier for the companies to say it is impossible than to face the real question: should there be these limits on free speech, and, if so, how do they go about deciding those limits. There is no way these companies are going to keep everyone happy no matter what they do, and unhappy people hurts business. The solution that best preserves the bottom line is to claim inability to act.

      • Censoring these terrorists will lead to other groups wanting to censor speech. For example many people want to eradicate porn from the internet. Some religious groups want to ban other religious groups from posting online and groups who are critical of their religious group. Drumpf would love to be able to censor members of the media and his critics who talk about his failed business ventures and drumpf university that a lot of former students claim is a fraud and are trying to sue him for ripping them off.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by xtsigs ( 2236840 )

          There should be no reasonable expectation that the government will censor Facebook anymore than that Drumpf will be able to censor the media. The 1st amendment rights of free speech are well established. Facebook is being pressured by some public opinion to censor itself, which comes down to censoring its own customers. It has nothing to do with government censorship. This is a very different question with a very different set of dynamics and ethical concerns.

    • Yes, and the phone companies could listen to every call and read every text and examine every web page visited and then inform law enforcement about anything that seems "suspicious", so maybe he should be suing them instead? Oh, and how about putting cameras and mics in every room in every building in the whole world, and then hiring people to watch and listen to everybody all the time, 'cause it's better to be safe than sorry? Anybody who objects to THAT must have something to hide!

    • These companies have hundreds of billions of dollars in CASH

      Errrr no they don't. Heck there are many single people in America with more cash on hand than all of Twitter.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by fnj ( 64210 )

        Les sanglots longs
        Des violons
        De l'automne
        Blessent mon cur
        D'une langueur
        Monotone.

        And there's always:

        One six four three ... two eight seven two ... five five three nine ...

    • These companies have hundreds of billions of dollars in CASH

      And how would it impact their cash flow if they started the War on Drugs--sorry, War on Secret Handshakes? Would their cash reserves dwindle until they could no longer operate, much less carry out a big censorship network for specific, highly-targeted contexts without impacting their non-terrorist users? Would they have to apply 4 times the advertising? Could they do it without charging users for search?

      A lot of people see cash piles and turn continuous, on-going expenses into one-time costs, then clai

    • ...they just need to change the way they do business.

      I don't want these companies censoring me or anyone else. The sooner we have completely protected private speech, the sooner democracy will return

      I know I can't always say what I want to people I know, because I can't imagine how my most private discussions will be perceived by some unknown 3rd parties.

  • 1. This is just a bad idea from the point of view of freedom of speech. I'd rather know if there are nutjobs out there, in increasing numbers, advocating shitty things.

    2. If Jihadists can't post in obvious places, they'll go to non-obvious ones. Do we really need these assholes learning how to run dark-web sites?

    3. This will prevent truly *fabulous* events like this one, just today:
    http://www.techly.com.au/2016/... [techly.com.au]

    As funny as that last story is, note that the Anonymous hacker in question also managed t

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ADRA ( 37398 )

      Hey, there's a very large gulf between actively supporting nutjobs (not censoring content) and not taking preventative measures about people curating all content generated. If someone's reported for hate speech or advocating violence, I'm all for having their accounts banned and IP's barred (potentially) based on a company's discression. Free speech be damned, hate is hate. Don't like it? Use another service. If they're savy hackers, they can get around the limitation. Nobody's saying these limitations coul

      • I'm all for having their accounts banned and IP's barred

        It could be argued that from a political perspective you're full of shit.

        From a technical one you certainly are [noip.com].

      • Free speech be damned, hate is hate.

        And power is power. It corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It doesn't matter what your intentions were for creating the machinery of censorship, once it's operational it can be used by Joe Nazi just as easily to filter out any messages which disagree with his worldview or propaganda.

        But even if they aren't an outright Nazi, whoever controls the flow of information has some kind of political leaning and agenda, because everyone does. You're giving that perso

  • Statistically impossible or paid to think lazily (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    With over 100 billion dollars in the bank, they cannot hire a hundred thousand people and have them look through the newly posted information?

    ABC's mediawatch noted that facebooks advertising platform is so good, it can literally sell a specific ad to a specific human because we have posted our lives there.

    If we can advertise that well, cant we find a single video of a american islamist pointing out that the gun laws make it trivial for a person to perform brainless slaughter like we've witnessed a few days

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by samantha ( 68231 ) *

      That is not the point. Only and idiot would want every piece of content vetted before it could be published and want to experience the huge chill of ISPs and webapps and companies scared stiff of being sued for any and all claims against content as their responsibility. I can't believe there are people in slashdot of all places that don't get this.

    • With over 100 billion dollars in the bank, I could hire a hundred thousand people ... and pay them for five years. Then the whole system would collapse for lack of money to pay salaries, unless I started charging users for that, yeah.

      Where do they get 10 million dollars of cash flow to pay all these salaries?

  • no fan of these companies, but freedom of speech should be absolute on principle.
    as long as a person does not engage in actual violence, or a legal crime. he/she should be able to do whatever they want(including violent speech).

    but these companies have already given up on freedom of speech. they have set up and use, censors and moderators, against those who are not actually violent and are not criminals .

    in this case also, they seem to defend by pointing out impracticality of monitoring their platforms, rat

    • Re:absurd lawsuit and abandoning principles (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Megol ( 3135005 ) on Thursday June 16, 2016 @08:32PM (#52332797)

      You _are_ free to speak limited only by the laws of your country. But what you are talking about is forcing private entities to allow your speech to be broadcast - which is bullshit.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Calydor ( 739835 )

        Laws allowing free speech can be equated to alloing you to yell things from the rooftops or the town square.

        Today, Facebook and Twitter ARE those rooftops and town squares. That's the whole problem with saying that companies don't have to allow any kind of speech with which they disagree for whatever reason.

        • From your own rooftop? Sure. Unless disturbing peace, of course. Your point seems to be “Since Walmart now is the de facto public space, local guards can't toss me out for preaching”.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by stdarg ( 456557 )

            In this case, as noted in the summary, Twitter et al already have moderators but they're selectively applied.

            In the Walmart analogy it would be like if they were allowing Black Lives Matters to have protests but kicking out All Lives Matter or Blue Lives Matter or whatever.

            Then it becomes a case of discrimination.

    • Re:absurd lawsuit and abandoning principles (Score:4, Interesting)

      by h33t l4x0r ( 4107715 ) on Thursday June 16, 2016 @08:58PM (#52332911)
      I would actually give up my freedom of speech if it meant the corporations had to as well. Because my speech isn't doing much to help and theirs is doing plenty to fuck things up.
      • I hear North Korea is nice this time of year...
        • That's cute. Look, I'm not saying that freedom of speech isn't a good thing, but when the Supreme Court decides to bundle it with freedom to bribe politicians, and nothing short of a constitutional amendment will change that, then maybe it's time to throw away the baby with the bathwater.
      • You can! Just move to the UK, North Korea, the EU, China, Canada, or a host of other wonderful places that are implementing your wet dream! Leave the messy free speech to those of us who wish to enjoy it and the consequences.

    • no fan of these companies, but freedom of speech should be absolute on principle.
      as long as a person does not engage in actual violence, or a legal crime. he/she should be able to do whatever they want(including violent speech).

      but these companies have already given up on freedom of speech. they have set up and use, censors and moderators, against those who are not actually violent and are not criminals .

      in this case also, they seem to defend by pointing out impracticality of monitoring their platforms, rather than standing by principle of not monitoring at all.

      Actually I see it being easier than that. You don't monitor every site, you monitor the site they sell your post/data to, Flurry.com (Google) being one.

      www.rovio.com/ (Angry Birds) used to have a TOS that explained just how this worked (value in your personal data). It was a pretty good read, none of this broad "we sell your info", but what and to who.

      If you've ever played Angry Birds you were quite the asset to rovio.com, and they are in no way unique in this practice.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      no fan of these companies, but freedom of speech should be absolute on principle.
      as long as a person does not engage in actual violence, or a legal crime. he/she should be able to do whatever they want(including violent speech).

      I hope you realize that you're not thinking things through here. You're basically going all-in on freedom, just because, and not realizing that there are consequences to that. Well, you do, but then a sentence later, you back out.

      If freedom of speech is absolute, then you're only going to be ignoring the consequences of speech. Fortunately, you aren't quite lost in the notion, since you identify that violence is wrong, and recognize that crimes can be established.

      That means you can recognize that some b

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by fnj ( 64210 )

        Does someone who calls for another to be harmed, get blood on their hands when another person does it?

        No. Let me repeat that. No, no, no. A thousand times no. If he actively assists the commission of the act, purposefully furnishes the means for the act, something like that, THEN we can talk.

    • It's pointless to argue the rights and wrongs of the matter; this guy is just going through the 8 stages of grief: Disbelief, Denial, Bargaining, Guilt, Anger, Depression, Acceptance, and Looking for a Payday.

  • Sue paper mills? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MickyTheIdiot ( 1032226 ) on Thursday June 16, 2016 @08:38PM (#52332821) Homepage Journal

    How about copy machine manufactures since they there is still paper propaganda?
    How about sue video camera manufacturers?
    How about Adobe for building Premier?

    How far does "facilitating" go?

    The reason that only "social media" is being sued is because "social media" is currently the in thing.

    • You're missing the point. Don't split hairs about which tool or technology is somehow responsible for what a mass murderer chooses to do. This is just like lawyers looking to make a fast buck by suing the manufacture of the rifle that the Sandy Hook killer stole from it's owner (his mom) after he killed her in her bed. Yeah, that's the rifle manufacturer's fault. That same loon was maintaining extensive spreadsheets recording the details of previous mass killers' handiwork. Why not sue Microsoft for allowin

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You're missing the point. Don't split hairs about which tool or technology is somehow responsible for what a mass murderer chooses to do. This is just like lawyers looking to make a fast buck by suing the manufacture of the rifle that the Sandy Hook killer stole from it's owner (his mom) after he killed her in her bed. Yeah, that's the rifle manufacturer's fault.

        Nope, we're reasonably accepting that the Rifle Manufacturer isn't at fault for that. (At least until some means of identifying the owner securely is implemented). They're still responsible for the Rifle they manufactured though. Including its performance and capabilities.

        Lawyers aside, maybe the public has some thoughts on that. After all, we're the ones who have to pay for it. Maybe we work on misfire prevention devices, maybe we can work towards user recognition systems. Maybe we just put a notice

      • Mod this up. UP UP
    • The key point is not the fabrication but the distribution. If the post office was distributing that propaganda under the form of paper without vetting it, in some countries they could be sued. If the radio was airing Daesh propaganda without vetting it they would be sued (and probably arrested). Same with TV. But since this is the internet Facebook and co get a free pass to republish the user self made content. Whether one find that good or not, depends on one's culture. But this is not about free speech, b

      • If the post office was distributing that propaganda under the form of paper without vetting it, in some countries they could be sued.

        Where? In sensible countries the mail operator is a common carrier, which expressly obliges them to carry any thing from any person, so long as no actual law is being broken.

  • And the phone company! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Thursday June 16, 2016 @08:43PM (#52332851)
    Don't forget them. How about the city? They provided the roads used by the terrorists!

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      While I tend to agree with the sentiment, the major difference is that Twitter, Facebook, and Google have taken it upon themselves to moderate the content on their platforms. The phone company doesn't terminate your conversation based on the content of your phone call. Once you start actively censoring the content on your site, you have to take some responsibility for the content you leave up on your site.

      This is why phone companies aren't held responsible for illegal activities/transactions that occur usin

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by EzInKy ( 115248 )

      Social media companies scan the content of data that passes their way. This nullifies any argument that they are "innocent" common carriers. If they can scan for what to advertise, they can scan for malicious intent.

  • "Religious Extremists?" Really?

  • Boeing? Toyota? Hanes? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by somenickname ( 1270442 ) on Thursday June 16, 2016 @09:02PM (#52332939)

    Blaming a small handful of online (and rich) entities for any kind of terror attack is absurd. In general, no single company facilitates a terrorist attack. As far as I'm aware, no one sued Boeing for 9/11. As far as I'm aware, no one has sued Toyota for the rise of ISIS. Taking it a step further, no one has sued clothing manufacturers for allowing terrorists to blend in with the rest of society. No one has sued the doctors that might have treated terrorists. No one has sued local construction companies for building the roads/subways that the terrorists have used. And on and on and on.

    I think it's deplorable that people are trying to make a quick buck in the courts on the backs of innocent victims.

    • Agreed, the man desperately sues whatever's around and will certainly be disallowed in court, facing an army of shark lawyers. But who here will go through that real ordeal, losing what is the most precious thing to a father, his own daughter? The man is desperate and sues everything more or less close to that dreadful death. He will lose in court, but that's not the most important thing to him, he has to fight, to struggle. The lawsuit is the reflect of a huge sentiment of injustice.

      • The lawsuit is an interesting example of the differences between the Middle East and the West. In the Middle East, when innocent people are killed en masse, terrorists are born. In the West, when innocent people are killed en masse, frivolous platitudes and lawsuits are born. I don't know how you defeat an enemy that grows after every attack you make on them. But, looking at the direction our society is going, it's pretty obvious that people have figured out how to defeat us. Just instill enough fear t

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Kjella ( 173770 )

          This man's kid got brutally killed by a terror organization continuing to spread propaganda and recruitment material, I'd call that a valid excuse for being angry and irrational kicking in every direction. Now if this guy actually won that'd be a different story, but the legal system is going to say "we sympathize wth your loss, but no". In fact, if it wasn't so grim he'd be laughed out of court. I'm not sure how that would be "devolving" anything, would it be more "evolved" if he went postal in a mosque? B

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by EzInKy ( 115248 )

      These companies are dedicated to sifting through the data that passes through the networks. Sure, they don't it now to target ads, but if they can target ads certainly they can target terrorists!

  • It's required for me to access the UseNet, and I only have access to the groups My ISP has allowed.

    A newsgroup for any discussion you can think of, only one binary subject is not allowed/illegal, I assume text as well.

    Also Missing is TOR and it hasn't been forgotten, another one that has no chance of a payday.

  • Except the real problem. The media's coverage in the last week makes me paraphrase Raiders:
    "That story only had one side to it; are you absolutely sure?"
    "Yes."
    "Their staff is too big."
    "They're digging in the wrong place!"

  • Very clever choice of words. Make sure to ignore the "M" or "I" word, lump everyone together.
    • Come on, you know that Buddhists and Presbyterians and Quakers and Sikhs have, in just the last year, slaughtered just as many villages full of people and taken just as many sex slaves as various flavors of orthodox Muslims have. Or not, actually.
    • A forbidden phrase in the US: Christian Terrorists.

      So it's not terrorism when anti-abortion activists assassinate doctors or firebomb clinics. Really?

      Or when a bunch of armed militants occupy a federal facility and threaten the lives of local and federal law enforcement officers. None of those involved had any terrorism related charges brought against them. They face weapons charges, felony conspiracy, and destroying government property. No terrorism charges at all.

      What if the armed occupiers had been

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by quenda ( 644621 )

        So it's not terrorism when anti-abortion activists assassinate doctors or firebomb clinics.

        Of course. But look at the numbers. 11 dead from Abortion clinic attacks total - 7 in the 1990s. That's just an average morning in Baghdad.
        America, uniquely among developed countries, has a large number of religious nutters. The average American is unsure of evolution while even the Pope believes in it. But the various sects manage to mostly respect one another and get on peacefully. The US is the most violent developed Western country (not by a massive margin) but religious violence is a minuscule part

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • It knowingly created oxygen that was used to keep terrorists alive.

  • So, the choice is beween having savages in your midst or having rights, and they choose savages!

  • I'm not really sure how people first started thinking lawyers can protect us from everything.

    Probably not during the Viking or Cold War eras ...

    I don't see regulations on Facebook defeating ISIS.
  • They don't have to recruit through the internet. They could easily do this in person by visiting schools and other places to meet potential recruits. Many gangs and white supremacist groups have used this technique to recruit people log before the internet existed. What is stopping terror groups from doing the same?

Slashdot Top Deals

The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.

Close