Laura Loomer Files $3 BILLION Lawsuit Against Facebook for Defamation

[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.​

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.

.

LOLOL

My favorite part was this...

As of date, Loomer has been been banned on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Periscope, PayPal, Venmo, GoFundMe, Uber, Uber Eats, Lyft, Medium, and TeeSpring.​

... at some point, even you loonies have to start to consider -- maybe she's the problem.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

.

LOLOL

My favorite part was this...

As of date, Loomer has been been banned on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Periscope, PayPal, Venmo, GoFundMe, Uber, Uber Eats, Lyft, Medium, and TeeSpring.​

... at some point, even you loonies have to start to consider -- maybe she's the problem.

considered and rejected,,,

 

[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.

.

LOLOL

My favorite part was this...

As of date, Loomer has been been banned on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Periscope, PayPal, Venmo, GoFundMe, Uber, Uber Eats, Lyft, Medium, and TeeSpring.​

... at some point, even you loonies have to start to consider -- maybe she's the problem.

All that is irrelevant. None of that proves ahe is a dangerous individual.

In Court, Facebook is going to be required to prove she is a dangerous individual. They will have nothing but her content as proof.

Read the complaint for yourself.

http://www.larryklayman.com/pdf/190708-Filed Complaint Loomer.pdf

They basically called her a fucking terrorist.

They are so fucked.

 

[Crepitus]

She can't be all that abused, I've never even heard of her.

That doesn't matter for a defamation case.

She had100,000 followers who Facebook informed that she was banned for being dangerous. It's pretty clear cut. Only question is how much Facebook will pay.

.

Nothing. It's a private platform. If she was preaching hate (what most of those idiots have been banned for) she doesn't have a case.

Preaching "hate" (aka an opposing view) and being dangerous are completely different things. They told users she was dangerous, which implies that she is violent or has incited violence.

We all know good and Goddamn well that this person was not violent. Facebook commies just didn't like her message.

They were trying to be cute with their banning bullshit, but they fucked up.

But, I think Facebook should go with the "hate speech" defense. They will be required to prove it, and what they offer will be NOTHING but political speech.

Just one "conservative" on that jury will be enough.

People are fed up with this bullshit, and now they have a chance to do something about it.

.

Opposing point of view does not equal preaching hate. She associates with know violent individuals and posts hate speech and racist videos on her page. She has no case.

Here's some of Facebook's reasons for banning her.

• Loomer appeared with McInnes in December, and more recently declared her support for far-right activist Faith Goldy, who was banned after posting racist videos to her account.

Facebook bans Alex Jones and Laura Loomer for violating its policies

 

[Dragonlady]

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.​

I'm looking forward to the suit being dismissed and Loomer having to pay Facebook's legal bills.

What a stupid bitch she is.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

She can't be all that abused, I've never even heard of her.

That doesn't matter for a defamation case.

She had100,000 followers who Facebook informed that she was banned for being dangerous. It's pretty clear cut. Only question is how much Facebook will pay.

.

Nothing. It's a private platform. If she was preaching hate (what most of those idiots have been banned for) she doesn't have a case.

Preaching "hate" (aka an opposing view) and being dangerous are completely different things. They told users she was dangerous, which implies that she is violent or has incited violence.

We all know good and Goddamn well that this person was not violent. Facebook commies just didn't like her message.

They were trying to be cute with their banning bullshit, but they fucked up.

But, I think Facebook should go with the "hate speech" defense. They will be required to prove it, and what they offer will be NOTHING but political speech.

Just one "conservative" on that jury will be enough.

People are fed up with this bullshit, and now they have a chance to do something about it.

.

Opposing point of view does not equal preaching hate. She associates with know violent individuals and posts hate speech and racist videos on her page. She has no case.

Here's some of Facebook's reasons for banning her.

• Loomer appeared with McInnes in December, and more recently declared her support for far-right activist Faith Goldy, who was banned after posting racist videos to her account.

Facebook bans Alex Jones and Laura Loomer for violating its policies

Who, this guy?

Facebook Bans Faith Goldy After HuffPost Report On White Nationalism Content | HuffPost

Every reason they gave is a matter of opinion, but none of that matters

They called her "dangerous" which was not true.

I cannot WAIT for John Paul Watson's suit.

This will be GLORIOUS.

.

 

[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.​

I'm looking forward to the suit being dismissed and Loomer having to pay Facebook's legal bills.

What a stupid bitch she is.

Hold your breath. Please.


.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Apparently, Facebook can't make upits own damn mind about what content or persons should be banned.

"Just last week, the same spokesperson told HuffPost that an explicitly white nationalist video, published to its platform by Goldy, didn’t violate the company’s rules banning the promotion or praise of white nationalist and separatist content. The spokesperson instead characterized the video ― in which Goldy calls on people of European descent to fight back against “white replacement” and describes Jews and people of color as “invaders” ― as a discussion about immigration and population statistics.

"It’s not entirely clear what led to the about-face. Previously, Facebook repeatedly declined to comment on Goldy’s content, which appeared to violate its rules barring white supremacist content, even before those rules were extended to include praise of white nationalism. The company’s reaction to her video last week appeared to be its final word on the matter, and to set some kind of precedent for other extremist profiles."


They are so fucked and I love it.

 

[Crepitus]

She can't be all that abused, I've never even heard of her.

That doesn't matter for a defamation case.

She had100,000 followers who Facebook informed that she was banned for being dangerous. It's pretty clear cut. Only question is how much Facebook will pay.

.

Nothing. It's a private platform. If she was preaching hate (what most of those idiots have been banned for) she doesn't have a case.

Preaching "hate" (aka an opposing view) and being dangerous are completely different things. They told users she was dangerous, which implies that she is violent or has incited violence.

We all know good and Goddamn well that this person was not violent. Facebook commies just didn't like her message.

They were trying to be cute with their banning bullshit, but they fucked up.

But, I think Facebook should go with the "hate speech" defense. They will be required to prove it, and what they offer will be NOTHING but political speech.

Just one "conservative" on that jury will be enough.

People are fed up with this bullshit, and now they have a chance to do something about it.

.

Opposing point of view does not equal preaching hate. She associates with know violent individuals and posts hate speech and racist videos on her page. She has no case.

Here's some of Facebook's reasons for banning her.

• Loomer appeared with McInnes in December, and more recently declared her support for far-right activist Faith Goldy, who was banned after posting racist videos to her account.

Facebook bans Alex Jones and Laura Loomer for violating its policies

Who, this guy?

Facebook Bans Faith Goldy After HuffPost Report On White Nationalism Content | HuffPost

Every reason they gave is a matter of opinion, but none of that matters

They called her "dangerous" which was not true.

I cannot WAIT for John Paul Watson's suit.

This will be GLORIOUS.

.

Don't hold your breath, none of them are going anywhere.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

.

LOLOL

My favorite part was this...

As of date, Loomer has been been banned on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Periscope, PayPal, Venmo, GoFundMe, Uber, Uber Eats, Lyft, Medium, and TeeSpring.​

... at some point, even you loonies have to start to consider -- maybe she's the problem.

All that is irrelevant. None of that proves ahe is a dangerous individual.

In Court, Facebook is going to be required to prove she is a dangerous individual. They will have nothing but her content as proof.

Read the complaint for yourself.

http://www.larryklayman.com/pdf/190708-Filed Complaint Loomer.pdf

They basically called her a fucking terrorist.

They are so fucked.

Wrong on all scores. Facebook doesn't have to prove a thing.

Loomer has to prove that Facebook's ban has harmed her financially. That if not for their ban, she would have made $3 billion.

And while we're on the subject of frivolous lawsuits, I remember when all of you were all hopped up over Nick Sandmann and his defamation suits against the WAPO, and CNN. Motions to Dismss have been filed in both cases. Sandmann got NOTHING.

Fucking right wing snowflakes run around screaming hate and spewing bile and then whining like babies when people call them out on it and refuse to tolerate their lies, their hate, and their bullshit.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That doesn't matter for a defamation case.

She had100,000 followers who Facebook informed that she was banned for being dangerous. It's pretty clear cut. Only question is how much Facebook will pay.

.

Nothing. It's a private platform. If she was preaching hate (what most of those idiots have been banned for) she doesn't have a case.

Preaching "hate" (aka an opposing view) and being dangerous are completely different things. They told users she was dangerous, which implies that she is violent or has incited violence.

We all know good and Goddamn well that this person was not violent. Facebook commies just didn't like her message.

They were trying to be cute with their banning bullshit, but they fucked up.

But, I think Facebook should go with the "hate speech" defense. They will be required to prove it, and what they offer will be NOTHING but political speech.

Just one "conservative" on that jury will be enough.

People are fed up with this bullshit, and now they have a chance to do something about it.

.

Opposing point of view does not equal preaching hate. She associates with know violent individuals and posts hate speech and racist videos on her page. She has no case.

Here's some of Facebook's reasons for banning her.

• Loomer appeared with McInnes in December, and more recently declared her support for far-right activist Faith Goldy, who was banned after posting racist videos to her account.

Facebook bans Alex Jones and Laura Loomer for violating its policies

Who, this guy?

Facebook Bans Faith Goldy After HuffPost Report On White Nationalism Content | HuffPost

Every reason they gave is a matter of opinion, but none of that matters

They called her "dangerous" which was not true.

I cannot WAIT for John Paul Watson's suit.

This will be GLORIOUS.

.

Don't hold your breath, none of them are going anywhere.

We'll see.

I will bet a Benjamin that Facebook settles quickly. They made a stupid blanket statement calling her a dangerous person, when the real reason is because she supported the Canadian dude who was banned for being a "white nationalist."

Iike I said.. We'll see.



.

 

[Crepitus]

Nothing. It's a private platform. If she was preaching hate (what most of those idiots have been banned for) she doesn't have a case.

Preaching "hate" (aka an opposing view) and being dangerous are completely different things. They told users she was dangerous, which implies that she is violent or has incited violence.

We all know good and Goddamn well that this person was not violent. Facebook commies just didn't like her message.

They were trying to be cute with their banning bullshit, but they fucked up.

But, I think Facebook should go with the "hate speech" defense. They will be required to prove it, and what they offer will be NOTHING but political speech.

Just one "conservative" on that jury will be enough.

People are fed up with this bullshit, and now they have a chance to do something about it.

.

Opposing point of view does not equal preaching hate. She associates with know violent individuals and posts hate speech and racist videos on her page. She has no case.

Here's some of Facebook's reasons for banning her.

• Loomer appeared with McInnes in December, and more recently declared her support for far-right activist Faith Goldy, who was banned after posting racist videos to her account.

Facebook bans Alex Jones and Laura Loomer for violating its policies

Who, this guy?

Facebook Bans Faith Goldy After HuffPost Report On White Nationalism Content | HuffPost

Every reason they gave is a matter of opinion, but none of that matters

They called her "dangerous" which was not true.

I cannot WAIT for John Paul Watson's suit.

This will be GLORIOUS.

.

Don't hold your breath, none of them are going anywhere.

We'll see.

I will bet a Benjamin that Facebook settles quickly. They made a stupid blanket statement calling her a dangerous person, when the real reason is because she supported the Canadian dude who was banned for being a "white nationalist."

Iike I said.. We'll see.



.

I don't bet.

 

[Dragonlady]

Nothing. It's a private platform. If she was preaching hate (what most of those idiots have been banned for) she doesn't have a case.

Preaching "hate" (aka an opposing view) and being dangerous are completely different things. They told users she was dangerous, which implies that she is violent or has incited violence.

We all know good and Goddamn well that this person was not violent. Facebook commies just didn't like her message.

They were trying to be cute with their banning bullshit, but they fucked up.

But, I think Facebook should go with the "hate speech" defense. They will be required to prove it, and what they offer will be NOTHING but political speech.

Just one "conservative" on that jury will be enough.

People are fed up with this bullshit, and now they have a chance to do something about it.

.

Opposing point of view does not equal preaching hate. She associates with know violent individuals and posts hate speech and racist videos on her page. She has no case.

Here's some of Facebook's reasons for banning her.

• Loomer appeared with McInnes in December, and more recently declared her support for far-right activist Faith Goldy, who was banned after posting racist videos to her account.

Facebook bans Alex Jones and Laura Loomer for violating its policies

Who, this guy?

Facebook Bans Faith Goldy After HuffPost Report On White Nationalism Content | HuffPost

Every reason they gave is a matter of opinion, but none of that matters

They called her "dangerous" which was not true.

I cannot WAIT for John Paul Watson's suit.

This will be GLORIOUS.

.

Don't hold your breath, none of them are going anywhere.

We'll see.

I will bet a Benjamin that Facebook settles quickly. They made a stupid blanket statement calling her a dangerous person, when the real reason is because she supported the Canadian dude who was banned for being a "white nationalist."

Iike I said.. We'll see.



.

I'll take that bet. Loomer gets nothing, which is just what she deserves.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Bookmarked

 

[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.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

She can't be all that abused, I've never even heard of her.

That doesn't matter for a defamation case.

She had100,000 followers who Facebook informed that she was banned for being dangerous. It's pretty clear cut. Only question is how much Facebook will pay.

.

Nothing. It's a private platform. If she was preaching hate (what most of those idiots have been banned for) she doesn't have a case.

Can you define hate speech?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

Kinda like that college case and the bakers a couple weeks back. President is set.

 

[WEATHER53]

She can't be all that abused, I've never even heard of her.

That doesn't matter for a defamation case.

She had100,000 followers who Facebook informed that she was banned for being dangerous. It's pretty clear cut. Only question is how much Facebook will pay.

.

Nothing. It's a private platform. If she was preaching hate (what most of those idiots have been banned for) she doesn't have a case.

Can you define hate speech?

I agree with you but I’ll try
It’s when your verbal expression to or about someone is angry, demeaning, threatening, etc.
A hate crime is by nature hateful so it’s redundant.

 

[The Professor]

when did you get to be such a snowflake? They did not defame her. Fuck, the whole country has become a punch of pussies.

Look at my earlier post on defamation.

It looks pretty open and shut.
Facebook was playing a stupid game and Facebook just won a stupid prize.

It was defamatory and published to all her followers.

Facebook WILL pay. It's a question of how much.

Nothing snowflake about kicking the shit out of a company who defames you.

.

I agree she has an open and shut case and the only question is the amount of damages she will be awarded. What some people, including Golfing Gator, don't realize is the devastating effects of the defamation.

This is how Laura Loomer describes her situation:

“Facebook banned me permanently on May 2, 2019 and declared me and others who they banned that day as “dangerous individuals.” According to Facebook’s own description of what a “dangerous individual” is, it is somebody who is a terrorist or a mass murderer, or somebody who promotes violence. I have never done any of those things and by labeling me as a “dangerous individual” and defaming me as a “dangerous individual,” Facebook already put my life in danger.”

BREAKING: Facebook Quietly Deletes Policy Encouraging Violent Threats Against 'Dangerous' Individuals - Laura Loomer Official

The above link also shows Facebook's official policy which allowed posters to threaten those deemed to be “dangerous individuals” and also allowed them to encourage others to inflict serious bodily injury or even death. Facebook has since rescinded its policy, but that will not protect them from her lawsuit. Loomer has stated she has already received death threats and fears for her life. I believe the evidence will show that Facebook targeted Loomer in an attempt to destroy her reputation and silence her solely because of her political views.

CONCLUSION: What Facebook did was unconscionable . Laura Loomer will get her well-deserved revenge. If Facebook cannot settle out of court, they will lose in court. The only question is how much is this going to cost them.

 

[bripat9643]

Not at all, but I will always support private enterprise over the government.

So do I.

I also support civil actions when social media bans an account with thousands of followers and gives the reason that the person is dangerous, which is defamation.

I hope facebook gets an assload of semen on this. I hope the jury awards every penny of that $3 billion or facebooks agrees to a settlement and changes policy.

If she wins, then facebook will not be able to ban anyone simply because of their political opinions.

nothing you would like more than for a company to be forced to be nice to you statist snowflakes.

And yet over and over and over again it is facebook that is furthering the statist goals of the democrat party. Hmmm, looks like you are indeed the progressive you claim not to be.

As is their fucking right to do, but you statist want the damn government to stop them from helping the "other side" when there is not another side.

Nothing but big government statist standing across the playground form each other calling each other names.

Its members have a right to sue it when Facebook defames them.