Laura Loomer Files $3 BILLION Lawsuit Against Facebook for Defamation

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They can only use evidence that proves she's a "dangerous person."

100% wrong. They only have to justify their statement in the context of broadcasting her writings for her and the decision to stop doing that.

 

[Faun]

The tech giants are about to get what they deserve. If they want to behave like publishers, then they can be subject to the same laws that publishers face. For instance, you can't go around labeling people as "haters, dangerous individual and white supremacists" without facing legal consequences.

Laura Loomer Files $3 BILLION Lawsuit Against Facebook for Defamation - Laura Loomer Official

On Tuesday, Larry Klayman, the founder of Freedom Watch and a former federal prosecutor announced the filing of a defamation lawsuit by conservative investigative journalist Laura Loomer against Facebook. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 9:19-cv-80893), alleges that Facebook and its wholly owned sister company Instagram, in banning Ms. Loomer from the social media sites, maliciously defamed her by publishing that she is a “dangerous individual” and a domestic Jewish terrorist.​

And then Facebook's lawyers bring into court all of her disgusting writings to demonstrate why they made that public conclusion. And then everyone goes home.

Nope. They can only use evidence that proves she's a "dangerous person." Saying Islam isn't compatible with Western society does no such thing.

No, but if she said something about rising up against it, which has been alleged, her posts could be reasonably considered dangerous.

 

[bripat9643]

you said it,,,WHAT THEY CONSIDER,,,

and by their actions its all politically based and not about hate,,,

LOLOL

It's their website, so yeah, they get to create their own terms of service.

There are limits to what you can put into a terms of service agreement. For instance, they can't have a condition that says they can kill you if you violate their terms of service. Nothing illegal can by put into a TOS agreement.

******* moron, Facebook is banning users, not killing them. No one ever suggested they can kill anyone. And they have every right to create their own terms of service and every right to ban users who violate them. Just as USMB has here.

Again, you're attacking an argument I never made. And you're responding with the usual inappropriate outrage.

******* moron, I attacjed your moronic argument that they can't include illegal punishments when they never did. There is nothing illegal in their TOS.

That isn't an argument. It's simply a fact. A TOS agreement cannot include any demands that would be illegal. I never made any claim one way or the other that Facebook did such a thing, moron.

See, that's one more example of where you stepped on your own dick.

 

[Darkwind]

FB to your point is already suffering bad publicity and I had never heard of Laura Loomer. If they ban someone like Ben Shapiro then all Hell will break loose.

Facebook is under no obligation to allow members to use their service to promote hate speech. And hate speech can be dangerous. We'll have to wait and see what she posted to warrant Facebook's actions si that we can then argue if it was hate speech or not.

theres no such thing as hate speech,,,

Of course there is. Hate speech is as simple as expressing hatred towards a specific group. It's not a legal term and does not present any legal consequences unless it becomes a verbal threat, but it is a thing and Facebook has a right to prohibit it on their website.

So when is Twitter and other Social Media outlets going to BAN Ohmar, Talib and AOC?

When they start promoting hate.

They do so each and every time the attack citizens of the USA who disagree with them. Before you start, they promote hate each and every time they call people names.

That is the standard you go by, is it not?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The tech giants are about to get what they deserve. If they want to behave like publishers, then they can be subject to the same laws that publishers face. For instance, you can't go around labeling people as "haters, dangerous individual and white supremacists" without facing legal consequences.

Laura Loomer Files $3 BILLION Lawsuit Against Facebook for Defamation - Laura Loomer Official

On Tuesday, Larry Klayman, the founder of Freedom Watch and a former federal prosecutor announced the filing of a defamation lawsuit by conservative investigative journalist Laura Loomer against Facebook. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 9:19-cv-80893), alleges that Facebook and its wholly owned sister company Instagram, in banning Ms. Loomer from the social media sites, maliciously defamed her by publishing that she is a “dangerous individual” and a domestic Jewish terrorist.​

Oh? What are they gonna get? She has to first prevail before she can have a hope of collecting a dime.

Will a jury find that she is a "dangerous individual" or not?

My guess is NOT, which is defamation.

Facebook tried to get cute by banning opposing views. Now they are gonna pay.

.

Dangerous is a subjective thing, it does not matter if the jury finds her dangerous, only that FB can explain why they think she is.

FACEBOOK actually DEFINED what a "dangerous individual" is. FACEBOOK took it to a whole new, NONSUBJECTIVE level.

Facebook defined a "dangerous individual” a person who is a terrorist or a mass murderer, or somebody who promotes violence.

NOW, FACEBOOK must prove it's affirmative defense that those statements were the truth or they will be held liable.

Facebook must prove that Loomer was a terrorist (not hard to define that) or a mass murderer (again, not hard to define, and likely per se defamation), or somebody who promotes violence.

In Texas, there are per se defamatory words (that is, defamatory as a matter of law). Back when I was in pretend law school, my fake professor used to state those words anytime he was giving an example (in my pretend law school torts class, which is a figment of my diseased imagination). He used to say (in my imagination), "let's suppose someone call you a murdering, illiterate, bankrupt, homosexual, communist."

I suspect that "terrorist" has gained serious legal presumptions since my fake pretend imaginary time in law school.

My understanding is that Florida law is nearly identical.

The fact that Facebook FAILED to specify exactly what she did to warrant the "dangerous individual" label left those people Facebook published that "dangerous individual" label to (practically the entire world) to ASSUME that she was a terrorist or a murderer.

Facebook can ban whomever the **** Facebook wants to ban. THAT is not the issue.

Facebook defamed Loomer when making the statement about the reason Loomer was banned.

Facebook will pay. It's only a matter of how much.

And Facebook has already opened up the floodgates of litigation. That's why they removed their "dangerous individual" policy.

.

 

[bripat9643]

The tech giants are about to get what they deserve. If they want to behave like publishers, then they can be subject to the same laws that publishers face. For instance, you can't go around labeling people as "haters, dangerous individual and white supremacists" without facing legal consequences.

Laura Loomer Files $3 BILLION Lawsuit Against Facebook for Defamation - Laura Loomer Official

On Tuesday, Larry Klayman, the founder of Freedom Watch and a former federal prosecutor announced the filing of a defamation lawsuit by conservative investigative journalist Laura Loomer against Facebook. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 9:19-cv-80893), alleges that Facebook and its wholly owned sister company Instagram, in banning Ms. Loomer from the social media sites, maliciously defamed her by publishing that she is a “dangerous individual” and a domestic Jewish terrorist.​

And then Facebook's lawyers bring into court all of her disgusting writings to demonstrate why they made that public conclusion. And then everyone goes home.

Nope. They can only use evidence that proves she's a "dangerous person." Saying Islam isn't compatible with Western society does no such thing.

No, but if she said something about rising up against it, which has been alleged, her posts could be reasonably considered dangerous.

"Rising up against it" simply means passing laws that don't allow it. Are you saying that proposing legislation makes someone a "dangerous person?"

 

[Papageorgio]

Facebook has a right to ban her, what they don’t have a right to do is defame her. So she could sue, win and never have to look at Facebook.

It’s not defamation if it’s true. And she will have to not only prove that she not a dangerous racist bigot given to hate speech, but that the Facebook banning harmed her in some financial way.

You can’t win a lawsuit without proving your damages. I can call you anything I want, but if want damages have to prove actual financial harm.

I doubt Loomer lost one thin dime from all this.

She has to prove that Facebook defamed her, that is it. She shows her profile and none of her posts violate the TOS, then Facebook is in trouble.

Carol Burnett lost no money on the defamation lawsuit against the Inquirer years ago. You have to prove libel or slander. It doesn’t have to be economic loss.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

It's their website, so yeah, they get to create their own terms of service.

There are limits to what you can put into a terms of service agreement. For instance, they can't have a condition that says they can kill you if you violate their terms of service. Nothing illegal can by put into a TOS agreement.

******* moron, Facebook is banning users, not killing them. No one ever suggested they can kill anyone. And they have every right to create their own terms of service and every right to ban users who violate them. Just as USMB has here.

Again, you're attacking an argument I never made. And you're responding with the usual inappropriate outrage.

******* moron, I attacjed your moronic argument that they can't include illegal punishments when they never did. There is nothing illegal in their TOS.

That isn't an argument. It's simply a fact. A TOS agreement cannot include any demands that would be illegal. I never made any claim one way or the other that Facebook did such a thing, moron.

See, that's one more example of where you stepped on your own dick.

It's called a strawman argument, ya ******* moron. You're claiming they can't do something no one has claimed they did. Try arguing the merits of this case, if you can.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I see she has retained the Birfer lawyer that sued to keep Obama off of the 2012 ballot.

Heh heh heh

Shocking

 

[Darkwind]

Facebook is under no obligation to allow members to use their service to promote hate speech. And hate speech can be dangerous. We'll have to wait and see what she posted to warrant Facebook's actions si that we can then argue if it was hate speech or not.

theres no such thing as hate speech,,,

Of course there is. Hate speech is as simple as expressing hatred towards a specific group. It's not a legal term and does not present any legal consequences unless it becomes a verbal threat, but it is a thing.

you mean like the hatred for white people we hear everyday???

thats just speech you hate,,,and also truth if they do hate them,,,

facts dont care about your feelings,,,

this hate speech thing is just to silence opinion,,,

Nope, it's to prevent exposure to legal liability in cases where the hate speech leads to criminal behavior.

American's don't want to live like you Russians, Tree. That's why you're not allowed to threaten people's lives, or make calls for the murder of all liberals, which we so often see on this forum. That's hate speech.

Don't speak out of question - that's Donald Trump. Everything is wonderful, he's the greatest, just ask him. All of your memes are the direction that Trump is heading. He wants no criticism from the media, no one calling him out on his lies.

"Truth is not truth" is one of his lines. "Don't believe what you see or hear" is another.

What I just highlighted is hate speech.

 

[Faun]

The tech giants are about to get what they deserve. If they want to behave like publishers, then they can be subject to the same laws that publishers face. For instance, you can't go around labeling people as "haters, dangerous individual and white supremacists" without facing legal consequences.

Laura Loomer Files $3 BILLION Lawsuit Against Facebook for Defamation - Laura Loomer Official

On Tuesday, Larry Klayman, the founder of Freedom Watch and a former federal prosecutor announced the filing of a defamation lawsuit by conservative investigative journalist Laura Loomer against Facebook. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 9:19-cv-80893), alleges that Facebook and its wholly owned sister company Instagram, in banning Ms. Loomer from the social media sites, maliciously defamed her by publishing that she is a “dangerous individual” and a domestic Jewish terrorist.​

And then Facebook's lawyers bring into court all of her disgusting writings to demonstrate why they made that public conclusion. And then everyone goes home.

Nope. They can only use evidence that proves she's a "dangerous person." Saying Islam isn't compatible with Western society does no such thing.

No, but if she said something about rising up against it, which has been alleged, her posts could be reasonably considered dangerous.

"Rising up against it" simply means passing laws that don't allow it. Are you saying that proposing legislation makes someone a "dangerous person?"

Great, show where she put that in context of legislation...

 

[bripat9643]

They can only use evidence that proves she's a "dangerous person."

100% wrong. They only have to justify their statement in the context of broadcasting her writings for her and the decision to stop doing that.

Meaningless twaddle. Only evidence that is relevant to the defamatory accusation can be presented in court.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

She shows her profile and none of her posts violate the TOS, then Facebook is in trouble.

Ha...doubtful. She has no right to post on facebook.

 

[bripat9643]

The tech giants are about to get what they deserve. If they want to behave like publishers, then they can be subject to the same laws that publishers face. For instance, you can't go around labeling people as "haters, dangerous individual and white supremacists" without facing legal consequences.

Laura Loomer Files $3 BILLION Lawsuit Against Facebook for Defamation - Laura Loomer Official

On Tuesday, Larry Klayman, the founder of Freedom Watch and a former federal prosecutor announced the filing of a defamation lawsuit by conservative investigative journalist Laura Loomer against Facebook. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 9:19-cv-80893), alleges that Facebook and its wholly owned sister company Instagram, in banning Ms. Loomer from the social media sites, maliciously defamed her by publishing that she is a “dangerous individual” and a domestic Jewish terrorist.​

And then Facebook's lawyers bring into court all of her disgusting writings to demonstrate why they made that public conclusion. And then everyone goes home.

Nope. They can only use evidence that proves she's a "dangerous person." Saying Islam isn't compatible with Western society does no such thing.

No, but if she said something about rising up against it, which has been alleged, her posts could be reasonably considered dangerous.

"Rising up against it" simply means passing laws that don't allow it. Are you saying that proposing legislation makes someone a "dangerous person?"

Great, show where she put that in context of legislation...

Show where she put anything in the context of calling for people to be assaulted.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And, as I thought, Florida law recognizes per se defamatory statements (or statements that are defamatory as a matter of law):

"Under Florida law, defamation Per Se statements falsely, and maliciously, insinuate the plaintiff is:

1. Afflicted with a terminal disease;
2. Engaged in criminal activity; or
3. Acted in a way unbecoming of his or her profession."

This all assumes that the Southern District of Florida will apply Florida law. There may be user agreement provisions that have a different "choice of law" provision.

I will look at the Complaint to see what law they are alleging should apply.

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Only evidence that is relevant to the defamatory accusation can be presented in court

Which is precisely what i described. They removed her due to their policies, subject to their interpretation of them. They merely have to show a reasonable opinion why this is so, in that context. It doesn't have to be completely, objectively, perfectly true, in everyone's opinion. You are very confused about who carries the burden, here.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

She shows her profile and none of her posts violate the TOS, then Facebook is in trouble.

Ha...doubtful. She has no right to post on facebook.

Her right to post on Facebook is irrelevant.

Facebook has no right to call her a terrorist, mass murderer, or person who promotes violence (aka a dangerous individual).

.

 

[my2¢]

I only looked at the first 2 pages of her lawsuit that was linked in OP article . Under FACTS of the case, she listed as given explanation:

We've always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology. The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today.
​

Each side will get chance to attack or defend that evaluation process. I think it will be an interesting case.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Her right to post on Facebook is irrelevant.

100% wrong. For instance, a case that she was incorrectly labeled a terrorist by a nefarious actor in our government, limiting her actions to which she has a right, would be a much different case.

 

[bripat9643]

Only evidence that is relevant to the defamatory accusation can be presented in court

Which is precisely what i described. They removed her due to their policies, subject to their interpretation of them. They merely have to show a reasonable opinion why this is so, in that context. It doesn't have to be completely, objectively, perfectly true, in everyone's opinion. You are very confused about who carries the burden, here.

No, you said that anything she posted that someone might object to can be used as evidence. For instance, if she said she supported building the wall, a lot of morons like you would find that objectionable, but it's not relevant to the defamatory accusation Facebook made. Having an opinion on the wall doesn't make a person dangerous.