Laura Loomer Files $3 BILLION Lawsuit Against Facebook for Defamation

[Snouter]

1 Faun + 1 Golfing Gator = 1 retard. Do the math folks!

 

[debbiedowner]

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.​

So is she now going to sue Trump because she was invited to the tech summit?

https://theslot.jezebel.com/laura-loomer-is-very-upset-she-wasnt-invited-to-trumps-1836286989

Sounds like one of these people that live their life off lawsuits and never bother to get a real job.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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.

Not just the Democrat party but the Socialist/Marxist/Communist regimes all over the world. Look at what Facebook is doing for China.

Facebook Gave Data Access to Chinese Firm Flagged by U.S. Intelligence

 

[mdk]

Ms. Loomer was terribly upset she wasn't invited to President Trump's social media: “It’s just absolutely disgusting how poorly this summit was planned and how blatant the act was to keep banned individuals out. I cannot believe that every single banned person was out of the summit."

 

[RealDave]

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.​

The truth hurts.

I love it.

The Trump supporting flame throwers spew trheir shit all over the internet & then run crying when the favor is returned.
You asssfucks need to grow the fuck up & try the truth instead of believing the Loomers & Limbaughs.

No wonder you are all dumber than shit.

If I own a newspaper, I don't have to print your shit.

I hope there is a counter suit & the dumb bitch loses everything.

 

[Terri4Trump]

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.​

Loomer is awesome

 

[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.

doesn't matter if its a private company a company isnt allowed to misrepresent its product or service if Face book says decision made are done with out bias that they are impartial all you have to do is prove that decisions made are done with bias that they are not impartial

these Tech giants like Facebook cant tell its consumers one thing and then act differently just like manufactories cant put a made in the US tag on products made in China

It's a private company, they are under no constraints to be impartial. They could have banned her for no reason if they wanted to. Instead the banned her for hate speech, a clear violation of their TOS. She has no case.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

With all due respect
NFW will they pay $3bn

To settle, no.

If they are stupid enough to take this to trial. It is absolutely possible.

With all due respect.

.

Trial will take...5 yrs min with all the appeals?

Lawyers cost big bucks That's how trump won cases No one could afford the lawyers for long periods of time ,so they settled

Off topic.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Trial will take...5 yrs min with all the appeals?

Maybe, but that was not the question.
mYou get one "conservative" person on that jury and they are never going home without every single penny of what the plaintiff asks.

People are pissed about this shit. They will want Facebook to suffer.

Facebook was being a dick. They were stupid about it and pissed off a lot of people.

But, it may take a long time before plaintiff gets paid. Or not, when Facebook wants to rid itself of bad publicity and wants to avoid as many duplicate suits as possible.

.

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.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Trial will take...5 yrs min with all the appeals?

Maybe, but that was not the question.
mYou get one "conservative" person on that jury and they are never going home without every single penny of what the plaintiff asks.

People are pissed about this shit. They will want Facebook to suffer.

Facebook was being a dick. They were stupid about it and pissed off a lot of people.

But, it may take a long time before plaintiff gets paid. Or not, when Facebook wants to rid itself of bad publicity and wants to avoid as many duplicate suits as possible.

.

If they settle that will open the flood gates for all the other whiny bitches.

Not necessarily if it is sealed but FB can keep this in court for years.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

She seems very much like the person that has been married 6 times...but it is always the ex’s fault.

 

[TRFjr]

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.

doesn't matter if its a private company a company isnt allowed to misrepresent its product or service if Face book says decision made are done with out bias that they are impartial all you have to do is prove that decisions made are done with bias that they are not impartial

these Tech giants like Facebook cant tell its consumers one thing and then act differently just like manufactories cant put a made in the US tag on products made in China

It's a private company, they are under no constraints to be impartial. They could have banned her for no reason if they wanted to. Instead the banned her for hate speech, a clear violation of their TOS. She has no case.

they are if they claim they are which Facebook and many other tech giants have under oath to congress

So all Loomer has to do is prove their decision was done with bias that they weren't impartial and not very hard to do with its record

A company isnt allowed to misrepresent its product or service they cant claim they are unbias that they are impartial and not be just like a manufacturer cant put a made in US tag on products made in China
Its called consumer protection
you against consumer protection? you against consumers not getting what a company claims they are getting?

 

[mdk]

I loved her teary whine after she was banned about how her life was over and what was she supposed to do for money? lol. I guess I know the answer to the latter: file dead end lawsuits.

 

[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.

doesn't matter if its a private company a company isnt allowed to misrepresent its product or service if Face book says decision made are done with out bias that they are impartial all you have to do is prove that decisions made are done with bias that they are not impartial

these Tech giants like Facebook cant tell its consumers one thing and then act differently just like manufactories cant put a made in the US tag on products made in China

It's a private company, they are under no constraints to be impartial. They could have banned her for no reason if they wanted to. Instead the banned her for hate speech, a clear violation of their TOS. She has no case.

they are if they claim they are which Facebook and many other tech giants have under oath to congress

So all Loomer has to do is prove their decision was done with bias that they weren't impartial and not very hard to do with its record

A company isnt allowed to misrepresent its product or service they cant claim they are unbias that they are impartial and not be just like a manufacturer cant put a made in US tag on products made in China
Its called consumer protection
you against consumer protection? you against consumers not getting what a company claims they are getting?

Facebook doesn't produce a product. They provide a platform. You must abide by certain rukes to use their platform. Is you don't, they can remove you.

It's really just that simple. I already provided Facebook's partial list of TOS violations. She has no case.

 

[TRFjr]

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.

doesn't matter if its a private company a company isnt allowed to misrepresent its product or service if Face book says decision made are done with out bias that they are impartial all you have to do is prove that decisions made are done with bias that they are not impartial

these Tech giants like Facebook cant tell its consumers one thing and then act differently just like manufactories cant put a made in the US tag on products made in China

It's a private company, they are under no constraints to be impartial. They could have banned her for no reason if they wanted to. Instead the banned her for hate speech, a clear violation of their TOS. She has no case.

they are if they claim they are which Facebook and many other tech giants have under oath to congress

So all Loomer has to do is prove their decision was done with bias that they weren't impartial and not very hard to do with its record

A company isnt allowed to misrepresent its product or service they cant claim they are unbias that they are impartial and not be just like a manufacturer cant put a made in US tag on products made in China
Its called consumer protection
you against consumer protection? you against consumers not getting what a company claims they are getting?

Facebook doesn't produce a product. They provide a platform. You must abide by certain rukes to use their platform. Is you don't, they can remove you.

It's really just that simple. I already provided Facebook's partial list of TOS violations. She has no case.

they provide a service same difference
doesn't matter what their TOS says if that TOS isnt applied and enforced with out bias or impartiality which they claim it is they are in violation of misrepresenting their service

 

[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.

doesn't matter if its a private company a company isnt allowed to misrepresent its product or service if Face book says decision made are done with out bias that they are impartial all you have to do is prove that decisions made are done with bias that they are not impartial

these Tech giants like Facebook cant tell its consumers one thing and then act differently just like manufactories cant put a made in the US tag on products made in China

It's a private company, they are under no constraints to be impartial. They could have banned her for no reason if they wanted to. Instead the banned her for hate speech, a clear violation of their TOS. She has no case.

they are if they claim they are which Facebook and many other tech giants have under oath to congress

So all Loomer has to do is prove their decision was done with bias that they weren't impartial and not very hard to do with its record

A company isnt allowed to misrepresent its product or service they cant claim they are unbias that they are impartial and not be just like a manufacturer cant put a made in US tag on products made in China
Its called consumer protection
you against consumer protection? you against consumers not getting what a company claims they are getting?

Facebook doesn't produce a product. They provide a platform. You must abide by certain rukes to use their platform. Is you don't, they can remove you.

It's really just that simple. I already provided Facebook's partial list of TOS violations. She has no case.

they provide a service same difference
doesn't matter what their TOS says if that TOS isnt applied and enforced with out bias or impartiality which they claim it is they are in violation of misrepresenting their service

You're grasping at straws.

 

[TRFjr]

doesn't matter if its a private company a company isnt allowed to misrepresent its product or service if Face book says decision made are done with out bias that they are impartial all you have to do is prove that decisions made are done with bias that they are not impartial

these Tech giants like Facebook cant tell its consumers one thing and then act differently just like manufactories cant put a made in the US tag on products made in China

It's a private company, they are under no constraints to be impartial. They could have banned her for no reason if they wanted to. Instead the banned her for hate speech, a clear violation of their TOS. She has no case.

they are if they claim they are which Facebook and many other tech giants have under oath to congress

So all Loomer has to do is prove their decision was done with bias that they weren't impartial and not very hard to do with its record

A company isnt allowed to misrepresent its product or service they cant claim they are unbias that they are impartial and not be just like a manufacturer cant put a made in US tag on products made in China
Its called consumer protection
you against consumer protection? you against consumers not getting what a company claims they are getting?

Facebook doesn't produce a product. They provide a platform. You must abide by certain rukes to use their platform. Is you don't, they can remove you.

It's really just that simple. I already provided Facebook's partial list of TOS violations. She has no case.

they provide a service same difference
doesn't matter what their TOS says if that TOS isnt applied and enforced with out bias or impartiality which they claim it is they are in violation of misrepresenting their service

You're grasping at straws.

no its you thats failing to understand either on purpose or you lack of basic comprehension skills so I will give a simplistic example

lets say this site US message board in their TOC says no cussing and we will enforce that rule with out bias we will be impartial
a bunch of right leaning members cuss a bunch of left leaning members cuss all the left leaning members get banned none of the right leaning members do

was US message board being unbias being impartial? no they weren't there for they misrepresented their survive because they weren't being unbias they weren't being impartial they lied they misrepresented the service they provided

 

[Faun]

Trial will take...5 yrs min with all the appeals?

Maybe, but that was not the question.
mYou get one "conservative" person on that jury and they are never going home without every single penny of what the plaintiff asks.

People are pissed about this shit. They will want Facebook to suffer.

Facebook was being a dick. They were stupid about it and pissed off a lot of people.

But, it may take a long time before plaintiff gets paid. Or not, when Facebook wants to rid itself of bad publicity and wants to avoid as many duplicate suits as possible.

.

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.

 

[Faun]

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.

doesn't matter if its a private company a company isnt allowed to misrepresent its product or service if Face book says decision made are done with out bias that they are impartial all you have to do is prove that decisions made are done with bias that they are not impartial

these Tech giants like Facebook cant tell its consumers one thing and then act differently just like manufactories cant put a made in the US tag on products made in China

It's a private company, they are under no constraints to be impartial. They could have banned her for no reason if they wanted to. Instead the banned her for hate speech, a clear violation of their TOS. She has no case.

they are if they claim they are which Facebook and many other tech giants have under oath to congress

So all Loomer has to do is prove their decision was done with bias that they weren't impartial and not very hard to do with its record

A company isnt allowed to misrepresent its product or service they cant claim they are unbias that they are impartial and not be just like a manufacturer cant put a made in US tag on products made in China
Its called consumer protection
you against consumer protection? you against consumers not getting what a company claims they are getting?

Facebook doesn't produce a product. They provide a platform. You must abide by certain rukes to use their platform. Is you don't, they can remove you.

It's really just that simple. I already provided Facebook's partial list of TOS violations. She has no case.

Without knowing what she posted to lead to this, we don't know if she has a case or not.

 

[progressive hunter]

Trial will take...5 yrs min with all the appeals?

Maybe, but that was not the question.
mYou get one "conservative" person on that jury and they are never going home without every single penny of what the plaintiff asks.

People are pissed about this shit. They will want Facebook to suffer.

Facebook was being a dick. They were stupid about it and pissed off a lot of people.

But, it may take a long time before plaintiff gets paid. Or not, when Facebook wants to rid itself of bad publicity and wants to avoid as many duplicate suits as possible.

.

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,,,