According to a Fox News report, the lawsuit was filed in federal court in the eastern district of Michigan on Monday on behalf of the families of Tevin Crosby, Javier Jorge-Reyes and Juan Ramon Guerrero, stating that the three web platforms “provided the terrorist group IS with accounts they use to spread extremist propaganda, raise funds and attract new recruits.”
“Without Defendants Twitter, Facebook, and Google (YouTube), the explosive growth of IS over the last few years into the most feared terrorist group in the world would not have been possible,” Fox News cited the lawsuit as saying. “They create unique content by combining IS postings with advertisements in a way that is specifically targeted at the viewer. Defendants share revenue with IS for its content and profit from IS postings through advertising revenue,” the lawsuit alleged.
Via Reddit: http://indianexpress.com/article/world/is-mateen-orlando-shooting-4436893/
15 comments:
With driverless cars coming, I wonder how this will affect the huge tort industry. Of course there will be product liability lawsuits against the manufacturers and dealers who service vehicles. But, product liability lawsuits are much more difficult than just suing a drunk or negligent driver. We just bought a loaded Toyota Rav 4. It is the next big step in the move toward driverless vehicles. There are SO MANY warnings from lane deviation to automatically braking when an object or person is about to be struck. Will driverless cars do away w/ the need for a driver's license?
Why don't they sue the Muslims?
I think if they can sue that Catholic Church because of the actions of a few homosexual priests and hold the entire Catholic religion accountable for their horrible criminal actions.....why can't we can sue every mosque and radical iman for the actions of their criminal congregation who actually murder people in wholesale lots.
That's a good idea/question, Troop. Why not?
With trepidation, I will give a straight answer to a loaded question. First, correcting your question, it was/is not "a few homosexual priests" it was thousands. Just like Trump didn't win in a landslide. It is important to fact check your comments. Damn shame on a blog of friends that is necessary, but it is what it is.
Regarding suing a religion. The Catholic Church is the most hierarchical and wealthy. And, the offending priests were not just practitioners of the target of the lawsuit, they were/are employees of the religion. There are so many sects, Omars, Ayatollahs, etc. they are a difficult target. That said, being the most litigious friendly country in the world, it would seem to me, if it could be proven the imans of the local mosques preached violence, there would be grounds for a tort.
I suspected this would happen after reading the life stories of the victims and their families.
These people were relatively poor and now see a big payday.
Sad, really.
If I were an insular man whose whole world is about 10 square miles, I too would be incredulous that thousands of priests worldwide raped tens of thousands of innocent children. It is horrible to think about, much less ponder. The Catholic priesthood turned into world's largest pedophile club. There's a major reason your priest, and the priest who celebrated the funeral mass for my uncle a couple weeks ago in a small town, Vermont, Polish parish, are from Africa. The US seminaries were like the Castro district. I have first hand and professional knowledge on the subject. Of course, you will listen to the bishops who ran the pedophile club, and that spit mouth propagandist, Bill Donohue, before you would listen to facts.
Regarding suing mosques, there is nothing stopping worthy plaintiffs from suing mosques, at least in the litigious friendly US courts. The blind sheik did preach violence and would have been a good lawsuit target. But, it's an industry. Attorneys aren't going to sue if there is not any money to be won in trial or settlement. But, suing a sheik, imam, who didn't actually do the terrorist act means it's tougher for the plaintiff's attorney to win on liability. Hopefully you realize there are train loads of barristers more than happy to sue ANYONE, if there's $'s to be made. Again, the pedophile priests are employees of the church and they committed the rapes. That makes the liability issues more direct and easier. The Catholic Church was criminally negligent in protecting pedophile priests in Brooklyn and around the world. And, the Catholic Church is FILTHY rich. A simple stroll around Rome is all one needs to see that.
We've gone over all this many times previously. I know your mindset. I know it won't change. Let's just move on.
Regarding the number of pedophile priests. Back in 2014, The Holy See ADMITTED TO[Lord knows the actual numbers] defrocking and sanctioning ~2400 pedophile priests. For the mathematically challenged, that would be "thousands" of priests. And 306 electoral votes is still not a "landslide."
Mea culpa. I added incorrectly. The actual numbers provided by the Holy See add up to ~3400 pedophile priests defrocked or sanctioned, NOT 2400.
That is JUST from 2004-20014. I think that's a 10 year span if my math is correct. Ball busting myself.
nd is correct. There were thousands of pedophile priests in the RC church and the hierarchy didn't want to admit it. Other churches are also beset with weirdos who feel entitled to molest a kid but the Catholics got picked on because the popular culture needs a witch to burn and public school employees are union so they have immunity. I am quite certain that Islam is a kid-touching disaster area and that may explain a lot about their hang ups about women.
It is highly suspicious that Hollywood and Islam have not been sued out of existence yet given the opprobrium and disgust around child molestation in patriarchal hierarchies. Priorities?
There was a documentary about religious muzzles making young men dress like woman and dance for them. They had beauty contests.
Does anyone not believe Cardinal Law and many other cardinals and bishops should be doing time??
For all his liberalism, this Pope has shit on victims, just like his predecessors.
nd- I, too, worked on defense side albeit the defense of individual priests. Everyone gets a defense because the system is there for the person who is falsely accused. That line in "Reversal of Fortune" says a lot: If you're accused of child abuse suddenly you are automatically guilty to everyone and even the mailman is looking at you funny. There were at least two clients who I felt had been caught up in the nets and were absolutely not guilty. (And by that time I had become accustomed to snaking out signs of guilt; perverts are usually super sneaky.) In addition, there were a couple of clients who were undeniably guilty/liable on such a grand scale that it turned into a feeding frenzy and accusers sprung up out of nowhere to pile on the accusations. Fakerpalooza. States have repeatedly changed the statutes of limitation to accommodate what turned into a trial lawyer industry. Once was fine but people 50-60 years old bringing these cases - I can get very cynical about that. Also, it's not just the RC Church that covered up; other churches did, too. And look at public school systems; the abuse there goes back well before the 1960s. See also, Sandusky. Everyone covered for the guy.
It's a radioactive charge that no one wants to acknowledge or even be near. The RC Church was the fall guy for all of society.
Post a Comment