Facebook Sued for $1 Billion Over Intifada Page
Facebook and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg are being sued for more than $1 billion over a controversial page on the social networking site that called for violence against Jews.
The suit was filed by American attorney and activist Larry Klayman in the D.C. Superior Court on Thursday. He’s also the founder of the conservative public interest group Judicial Watch.
In the lawsuit, which was obtained by blog TechCrunch, Klayman describes himself as “an American citizen of Jewish origin” who is “active in all matters concerning the security of Israel and its people.”
He alleges that Facebook did not take down a page that called for a “Third Palestinian Intifada” soon enough and willfully kept it up in order to “further their revues and the net worth of the company.”
The page accrued more than 300,000 “likes” for its proposed May 15 uprising.
The page was removed by the company on March 29, several days after a number of people complained including Israeli Public Diplomacy minister Yuli Edelstein and the Anti-Defamation League.
A Facebook spokesman told AFP that the claims were “without merit.”
“We will fight it vigorously,” the spokesman said.
Facebook said the page was initially kept up because it “began as a call for peaceful protest,” but then became more violent.
“While Facebook has accomplished a lot of good, it can, as in this instance, be used for nefarious and evil purposes,” Klayman said in statement on his website.
”Defendants Zuckerberg’s and Facebook’s callous and greedy actions in not taking down the page, but willfully allowing it to stay up for many days, has caused huge damage, for which they must be held accountable, so as to prevent this from ever happening again. They must be not only enjoined but also hit in their purse, which is where they understand matters best.”
about time people fight back!
Even if it’s LEGALLY without merit, it may stop similar behavior for profit in the future. Good luck to Mr. Klayman.
A proud Jew
Well done!
Nemo
Dear Mr. Klayman,
It’s called the First Amendment. Deal with it. I await the motion to dismiss.
Best,
Nemo
N.B. Good luck proving that you suffered $1B in damages.
First Ammendment
I am no expert in constitutional law, but it seems reasonable to say that the first amendment will not allow a person to incite, support and call a rally to promote violent behavior.
chaim
let me ask a question! why doesn’t an arab sue facebook for the freedom of speak? it can go both ways!
Dealing with it
Dear Nemo,
You need to go back to school and study the first amendment.
Best,
Making a $1B point.
Who gets the $1 billion?
Who gets the $1Billion? Does it get divided equally between all Jews?
Who gets the money?
How much of this goes to Larry Klaymans pocket? This has nothing to do with damages or behavior that deserves punishment. It has to do with a big corporation that has a lot of money and the greed for that money to make its way into his pocket. I can assure you he will be taking “legal and counseling” fees in the millions if he would ever win – which he will not. Let him take his deep concern and sue the ISP’s that allow service to websites that spread hatred of Jewish People and others. Or maybe they are just not worth suing because there is not as much money in it…
Finally!
Dear Nemo:
Sometimes the point isnt to win – but just to fight. You show them that they can’t just do things without being held accountable – and besides you tie them up with months or years of litigation – costing a lot of money and hopefully that is enough of a deterrent from doing such things again.
Ruth the Truth
Finally indeed!!!
Law Student
The first amendment allows for freedom of speech. However, free speech doesn’t allow you to yell fire in a crowded elevator. Nor does it allow you to make credible threats against a person or group. Nor does it allow someone to incite a riot.
Thus, Facebook can be sued on the grounds that they can be accused of these above actions or at least facilitating these above actions.
An example of free speech is a person or group of people having a fan page that disagrees with the “Israeli occupation.” An example of a fan page not protected by the first amendment is a page that calls for murdering a person or group of people. That is what the intifada page did. Thus, it is not protected. If facebook is guilty of facilitating this page (which, by the way, went against their own user agreement), then they can be held accountable. But that is for a court to decide.
Also, on a side note, when people sue in cases like this and win, usually the money goes to some sort of charity. The money isn’t to fill a pocket. Rather, it is to drive a point home and be punitive to the guilty. This is a litigation case, not a criminal one.
Et tu, Nemo?
Dear everybody throwing around the First Amendment:
The First Amendment applies only to government actors. Facebook is a private company, and this is private civil action. The First Amendment has no relevance here.
Hope that helps.
The Artist Formerly Known as Et tu, Nemo
Ugh, again?
Dear “Law Student”:
First, see above. It’s pitiful to invoke your status as a law student while making ignorant statements about the law. “CONGRESS shall make no law . . . .” K?
Second, the First Amendment “would not protect a man in FALSELY shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” Key word “falsely.” Huge difference. (And “elevator”? Really?)
Please, law students, behave.
P.S. The First Amendment doesn’t “allow[] for freedom of speech”; it forbids government from “abridg[ing]” it. Subtle but important difference (albeit with no relevance here).
Impressed
@Number 11
I have never seen such an intelligent comment on crownheights.info.
Kudos to showing everyone how to write a complete sentence.
dj
Maybe if he wins, he can use the money to help Rubashkin…
beth rivkah girls in shluchots office
THIS IS CORRECT!!!!!
Nobody
To Law Student:
If the government allows someone to sue for damages over their speech, that is also an abridgement of the first amendment. Of course there are cases like that (libel for example) but those are exceptions to the First Amendment – it is not relevant that the two parties are not state actors, the court is.
Overall, the case has almost zero legal merit, most importantly because the page didn’t actually incite anything. This is just a way for Klayman to grab publicity for himself, and in that sense, he already won.