Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Facebook Social Networks The Courts Politics Your Rights Online

Facebook, Zuckerberg Sued For $1 Billion Over Intifada Page 350

Posted by timothy
from the no-seriously-he-really-did dept.
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from ZDNet: "Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, has filed a lawsuit against Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg for their role in furthering a 'radical' Facebook Page called 'Third Palestinian Intifada,' which openly advocated another uprising against the citizens of Israel. The complaint reserves the right to be amended into a class action suit and prays for compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $1 billion. ... As a quick refresher, Facebook originally said it would not remove the page but would monitor it instead. The company later pulled the page after discussions degraded into violence and hatred."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook, Zuckerberg Sued For $1 Billion Over Intifada Page

Comments Filter:
  • Fail (Score:3, Insightful)

    by YodasEvilTwin (2014446) on Friday April 01, 2011 @08:41PM (#35691424) Homepage
    This will be tossed out instantly. #1: Where does the amount come from? #2: This random idiot can't sue on behalf of "society" or whatever the hell he's doing. The government, or possibly victims if any violence did occur, would have to do that. #3: I'd bet the farm that there's no proof. #4: Is not blocking hate speech a crime/tort? I don't think so.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by LostCluster (625375) *

      It's an attempt to apply Israeli values to the American Facebook site and that's just not going to stick in an American court, and an Israeli court has no nexus to force Facebook to care about its result. They should be happy the page was pulled and go home.

      • by rtb61 (674572)

        It is nothing more that a publicity hound seeking more public attention. A failed Israeli Senate candidate (really US but he definitely demonstrates far greater loyalty to Israel) is trying to gain attention for another political run and to ensure future cash flows of billions of dollars from the US treasury to Israel.

        He just got a bit confused in this instance about where the money is coming from a US company rather than the US government.

        The main reason for Facebook to not take down the page, censors

      • by Sun (104778)

        It's an attempt to apply Israeli values to the American Facebook site and that's just not going to stick in an American court, and an Israeli court has no nexus to force Facebook to care about its result. They should be happy the page was pulled and go home.

        Just to set the record straight, I don't see such a claim succeeding in Israel either. While Israel does have laws prohibiting speech if it advocates violence, those are criminal laws (i.e. - you cannot sue yourself), and cases of anyone being successfully prosecuted with those laws are extremely rare. The Israeli laws have a mixed record of what to do when a site is sued for content uploaded by site's users, but the general consensus is that this is harder to sue in Israel than in the US. Lastly, filing a

    • It will fail, but not even for the (valid) reasons you state. It is simply a publicity stunt, it's not an attempt to win a trial.

      The complaint can be downloaded http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/pdf/110331-Fbook-Complaint.pdf [freedomwatchusa.org] [pdf] but it's really just a poorly written collection of innuendo and personal slurs. No judge would bother giving it a second glance, except the clown who allegedly wrote it. It is as much about the completely irrelevant case the same clown is pursuing against the Islamic center plan

  • Come on, FFS (Score:4, Insightful)

    by warp_kez (711090) on Friday April 01, 2011 @08:46PM (#35691450)

    Enough already, they are not even funny to begin with. Seriously, April Fools is overrated and the domain of the inferior intellect.

  • oh we're posting real stories now? In all seriousness, this lawsuit is frivolous.
  • by calmofthestorm (1344385) on Friday April 01, 2011 @08:54PM (#35691464)

    ...except for people I disagree with.

    "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
    -- H.L.Mencken

  • Anyone can sue anyone for any reason at any time. I could sue a random stranger in the grocery store for kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. If a verdict was awarded, this might actually mean something.
  • This guy being the founder of the 'Freedom Watch' ? exactly whose freedom is he watching ?
    • "Freedom Watch"? Isn't that the title of a Fox Business Network (the minor league farm club of Fox News Channel) which is hosted by a guy they call "judge" despite the fact his only experience in that role was the one-and-done season show "Power of Attorney" where used OJ Simpson lawyers argued "People's Court"/"Judge Judy" style cases.

      • by nedlohs (1335013)

        If you ignore the 7 years as a NJ Superior Court Judge, then yes that was his only experience. That would be just a little dishonest though.

  • Oh, no... (Score:4, Funny)

    by telekon (185072) <canweriotnow@NoSpAM.gmail.com> on Friday April 01, 2011 @11:05PM (#35691878) Homepage Journal
    Usually my allergy to stupid becomes more manageable around on Friday around 5pm Eastern... This just sent it flaring up again.
  • by mr100percent (57156) on Saturday April 02, 2011 @12:58AM (#35692152) Homepage Journal

    If Facebook is going to ban one side's speech, let's see them do the same for the others. And yet Facebook pages with such titles as "mavet laaravim" (Death to the Arabs) abound...

  • by Caraig (186934) * on Saturday April 02, 2011 @03:04AM (#35692382)

    When they said they would not pull it, but would monitor it, they opened themselves up for litigation. This is the sort of thing that's allowed common carriers at least the illusion of immunity from persecution over what goes through their networks. As soon as Facebook said they would monitor it, that was a statement that they are not a common carrier. By "monitoring" it, they assumed responsibility for it.

    Bad move on their part, no matter what you might think of the subject.

  • Facebook originally said it would not remove the page but would monitor it instead. The company later pulled the page after discussions degraded into violence and hatred.

    Facebook allowing free speech, only removing things once they get to the TOS (and law)-breaching point of hate-speech? It it still April 1st over there? o_O

  • I think they should also sue the ISP used to discover/watch said page, and then also the manufacturers of both the server hardware as well as of the computer used to view it.
  • by Fuzzums (250400) on Saturday April 02, 2011 @06:18AM (#35692786) Homepage

    it's totally all right to, for example, steal more and more land from the Palestinians...

    When will the extremists on both sides stop frustrating every step towards a solution...

We can predict everything, except the future.

Working...