0 Pulse survivors sue Twitter, Google, Facebook; claim companies support ISIS

ORLANDO, Fla. - Sixteen survivors of the deadly 2016 Pulse nightclub shooting are suing tech giants Google, Twitter and Facebook, claiming the companies “provided support and resources to … ISIS,” according to a court document released Thursday.

>> Read more trending news

The suit, filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, claims the companies "have knowingly and recklessly provided the terrorist group ISIS with accounts to use its social networks as a tool for spreading propaganda, raising funds and attracting new recruits."

"This material support has been instrumental to the rise of ISIS and has enabled it to carry out, or cause to be carried out, numerous terrorist attacks," the lawsuit claims.

Pulse survivors file lawsuit against Twitter, Google and Facebook https://t.co/yBIh4d1MJM — WFTV Eyewitness News (@WFTV) April 5, 2018

Attorneys for the Pulse survivors are using the Anti-Terrorism Act, enacted in 1992 and amended in 2016 by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, to pursue the suit. The complaint is based on the companies providing “the infrastructure which provides material support to ISIS” and not on the content of ISIS’s social media posts.

"Despite extensive media coverage, complaints, legal warnings, petitions, congressional hearings and other attention for providing its online social media platforms and communications services to ISIS, prior to the Orlando attack, (the) defendants continued to provide these resources and services to ISIS and its affiliates, refusing to actively identify ISIS Twitter, Facebook and YouTube accounts, and only reviewing accounts reported by other social media users," according to the lawsuit.

"The explosive growth of ISIS over the last few years into the most feared terrorist group in the world would not have been possible" without the companies, the suit claimed.

The plaintiffs seek damages and a declaration from the court that the companies have and are continuing to violate the Anti-Terrorism Act.

The man behind the June 12, 2016, attack at Pulse nightclub, Omar Mateen, was killed by law enforcement officers on the night of the attack. The shooting left 49 people dead and 58 others injured.

Mateen’s wife, Noor Salman, was found not guilty last week on charges of obstruction of justice and providing material support to a terrorist organization.

WFTV.com contributed to this report.

© 2019 Cox Media Group. </s> [WASHINGTON] The US Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that foreign corporations cannot be sued in American courts for human rights abuses overseas, refusing to revive a lawsuit claiming Jordan-based Arab Bank Plc helped finance militant attacks in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

The 5-4 decision left in place a lower court ruling that had thrown out a lawsuit brought by some 6,000 plaintiffs, including survivors and relatives of non-US citizens killed in attacks, filed under a 1789 US law called the Alien Tort Statute that accused Arab Bank of being the "paymaster" to militant groups.

Only in recent years have plaintiffs sought to bring human rights claims under that obscure law.

The plaintiffs accused Arab Bank of deliberately financing terrorism, including suicide bombings and other attacks. They said Arab Bank used its New York branch to transfer money that helped Hamas and other Islamist militant groups fund attacks and reward families of the perpetrators between 1995 and 2005.

The lead plaintiff in the Arab Bank case was Joseph Jesner, whose British citizen son was killed at age 19 in a 2002 suicide bombing of a bus in Tel Aviv. The bank said in court papers that the US government has called it a constructive partner in the fight against terrorism financing.

In a 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court did not resolve the corporate liability question when it ruled in favor of Royal Dutch Shell Plc over a lawsuit claiming the company was complicit in a crackdown on protesters in Nigeria.

That 2013 ruling narrowed the Alien Tort Statute's reach, saying claims must sufficiently "touch and concern" the United States to overcome the presumption that the law does not cover foreign conduct.

In a separate case involving US citizens and brought under a different law, a New York jury in 2014 found Arab Bank liable for facilitating two dozen militant attacks in Israel. </s> The US Supreme Court on Tuesday ended one of two major Arab Bank cases, closing off any path for suits in US courts by foreign victims of overseas terrorism against banks with a US footprint.



The ruling said that foreign corporations such as Jordan’s financial juggernaut, Arab Bank, cannot be sued in American courts for allegations that they helped to finance terrorist attacks in Israel and the Palestinian territories.





In April 2017, the landmark anti-terrorism financing suit, which was presumed dead, was surprisingly resuscitated by the US Supreme Court agreeing to hear the appeal.That preliminary decision by the court led to speculation that if the plaintiffs won, the case could lead to a flood of anti-terrorism financing lawsuits by foreigners (including Israelis) against foreign financial entities (including those banking for Palestinian terrorist groups) that do business in the US.This would have changed the face of international banking and affected US diplomacy in a variety of unpredictable ways.But with Tuesday’s 5-4 vote, the decision left in place a lower court ruling that had previously thrown out the lawsuit brought by some 6,000 plaintiffs, including survivors and relatives of non-US citizens killed in attacks, filed under the 1789 US law called the Alien Tort Statute that accused Arab Bank of being terrorist groups’ “paymaster.”Only in recent years have plaintiffs sought to bring such cases under the obscure law.The plaintiffs accused Arab Bank of deliberately financing terrorism, including suicide bombings and other attacks. They said Arab Bank used its New York branch to transfer money that helped Hamas and other Islamist terrorist groups fund attacks and reward families of the perpetrators between 1995 and 2005.The lead plaintiff in the Arab Bank case was Joseph Jesner, whose British citizen son was killed at age 19 in a 2002 suicide bombing of a bus in Tel Aviv.The bank said in court papers that the US government has called it a constructive partner in the fight against terrorism financing.In a 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court did not resolve the corporate liability question when it ruled in favor of Royal Dutch Shell Plc over a lawsuit claiming the company was complicit in a crackdown on protesters in Nigeria.That 2013 ruling narrowed the Alien Tort Statute’s reach, saying claims must sufficiently “touch and concern” the United States to overcome the presumption that the law does not cover foreign conduct.But the justices had left the door open to future cases where the financial entity is on US soil and the case represents a US national interest – say, eliminating financial havens for terrorist financing.Then in September 2014, the plaintiffs won in the other major case against Arab Bank. Unlike Tuesday’s case of foreigners, the plaintiffs who sued the Arab Bank in the other case were US citizens. Their win came in the first public trial of a major bank on charges relating to terrorist attacks – specifically those in Israel during the Second Intifada.There were a series of mixed rulings and appeals following the US plaintiffs’ win in the trial court, and eventually Arab Bank signed a reportedly $1 billion confidential settlement.That gave hope to the foreigners suing Arab Bank in the second case connected to Tuesday’s ruling.However, the court indicated that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently demonstrate that the foreign entity they were suing had a large enough US footprint and had a sufficient role, even if passive, in facilitating terrorism.This closes off the path for Israelis or anyone else harmed by terrorism to go after large financial institutions in the Middle East or elsewhere in the world, which look the other way when their clients are funding terrorism.Reuters contributed to this story. </s> WASHINGTON: The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that foreign corporations cannot be sued in American courts for human rights abuses overseas, refusing to revive a lawsuit claiming Jordan-based Arab Bank Plc helped finance militant attacks in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

The 5-4 decision left in place a lower court ruling that had thrown out a lawsuit brought by some 6,000 plaintiffs, including survivors and relatives of non-U.S. citizens killed in attacks, filed under a 1789 U.S. law called the Alien Tort Statute that accused Arab Bank of being the "paymaster" to militant groups.

The court ruled along ideological lines, with its five conservatives in the majority and its four liberal justices dissenting.

Only in recent years have plaintiffs sought to bring human rights claims under that obscure law.

The plaintiffs accused Arab Bank of deliberately financing terrorism, including suicide bombings and other attacks. They said Arab Bank used its New York branch to transfer money that helped Hamas and other Islamist militant groups fund attacks and reward families of the perpetrators between 1995 and 2005.

Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote Tuesday's opinion, said the "relatively minor connection between the terrorist attacks at issue in this case and the alleged conduct in the United States" illustrates the problems of extending liability to foreign corporations.

Noting that the case has caused significant diplomatic tension with Jordan, a U.S. ally, Kennedy said that the "political branches are in a better position" to extend that liability if they so choose.

In a dissenting opinion, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that barring suits against foreign companies ensures that they "remain immune from liability for human rights abuses, however egregious they may be."

The lead plaintiff in the Arab Bank case was Joseph Jesner, whose British citizen son was killed at age 19 in a 2002 suicide bombing of a bus in Tel Aviv. The bank said in court papers that the U.S. government has called it a constructive partner in the fight against terrorism financing.

In a 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court did not resolve the corporate liability question when it ruled in favour of Royal Dutch Shell Plc over a lawsuit claiming the company was complicit in a crackdown on protesters in Nigeria.

That 2013 ruling narrowed the Alien Tort Statute's reach, saying claims must sufficiently "touch and concern" the United States to overcome the presumption that the law does not cover foreign conduct.

In a separate case involving U.S. citizens and brought under a different law, a New York jury in 2014 found Arab Bank liable for facilitating two dozen militant attacks in Israel.

The Supreme Court, in another case involving U.S. litigation concerning an attack overseas, ruled on Feb. 21 that Americans injured in a 1997 suicide bombing in Jerusalem cannot seize ancient Persian artifacts from a Chicago museum to satisfy a US$71.5 million court judgement against Iran. The plaintiffs had accused Iran of complicity in that attack.

The justices on April 2 refused to consider reinstating a US$655.5 million jury award won against the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization by 11 American families over militant attacks in Israel.

In another case, the justices on March 5 declined to take up Iranian government-owned Bank Melli's appeal of a lower court ruling that allowed victims of militant attacks allegedly backed by Iran to seek millions of dollars in compensation from the bank. </s> The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that foreign corporations cannot be sued in American courts for human rights abuses overseas, refusing to revive a lawsuit claiming Jordan-based Arab Bank Plc helped finance militant attacks in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

The 5-4 decision brought to an end a lawsuit brought by some 6,000 non-U.S. citizen plaintiffs, including survivors and relatives of people killed in attacks, filed under a 1789 U.S. law called the Alien Tort Statute that accused Arab Bank of being the "paymaster" to militant groups.

The court ruled along ideological lines, with its five conservatives in the majority and its four liberal justices dissenting.

Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said the "relatively minor connection between the terrorist attacks at issue in this case and the alleged conduct in the United States" illustrates the problems of extending liability to foreign corporations.

In ruling for the bank, the court for the second time in five years curbed the ability of plaintiffs to sue corporations in U.S. courts under the Alien Tort Statute for human rights violations occurring abroad. Other foreign-based companies to have faced such suits include Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Nestle SA and Daimler AG.

"Arab Bank is pleased with the court's decision, which ends this litigation and affirms the bank's belief that there is no basis to hold corporations liable under international law," the bank said in a statement.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs could not immediately be reached for comment.

The ruling delivered a blow to human rights lawyers but left open the possibility of U.S. corporations being sued under the Alien Tort Statute in limited circumstances.

Paul Hoffman, who represents plaintiffs in such disputes, said a current case in which Indonesian villagers sued U.S.-based Exxon Mobil Corp for alleged human rights abuses carried out by security forces working for the company should be unaffected by Tuesday's ruling.

Hoffman said Kennedy "went out of his way to avoid a categorical ruling" shielding U.S. corporations.

The plaintiffs accused Arab Bank of deliberately financing terrorism, including suicide bombings and other attacks. They said Arab Bank used its New York branch to transfer money that helped Hamas and other Islamist militant groups fund attacks and reward families of perpetrators between 1995 and 2005.

Noting that the case has caused significant diplomatic tension with Jordan, a U.S. ally, Kennedy said the "political branches are in a better position" to extend that liability if they so choose.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent that barring suits against foreign companies ensures they "remain immune from liability for human rights abuses, however egregious they may be."

The lead plaintiff in the Arab Bank case was Joseph Jesner, whose British citizen son was killed at age 19 in a 2002 suicide bombing of a bus in Tel Aviv. The bank said in court papers the U.S. government has called it a constructive partner in the fight against terrorism financing.

In its previous 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court did not resolve the corporate liability question when it ruled in favor of Shell over a lawsuit claiming the company was complicit in a crackdown on protesters in Nigeria.

That 2013 ruling narrowed the Alien Tort Statute's reach, saying claims must sufficiently "touch and concern" the United States to overcome the presumption that the law does not cover foreign conduct.

In a separate case involving U.S. citizens that was brought under a different law, a New York jury in 2014 found Arab Bank liable for facilitating two dozen militant attacks in Israel.

That ruling was overturned on appeal in January. </s> US House allows 9/11 victims to sue Saudi, bill heads to Obama

The House of Representatives passed legislation Friday that would allow victims of the 9/11 attacks and their relatives sue foreign governments suspected of backing acts of terrorism against the United States.

The bill -- approved in the House by a voice vote some four months after its Senate passage -- is strongly opposed by the government of Saudi Arabia, the home nation of 15 of the 19 hijackers in the September 11, 2001 attacks.

It now heads to President Barack Obama's desk, just days before the 15th anniversary of the attacks. The White House has signaled its opposition to the measure.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi join members of the House of Representatives on the steps of the US Capitol for a ceremony marking the anniversary of the September 11th attacks ©Win McNamee (Getty/AFP) </s> WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that an Arab bank cannot be held financially liable for a decade of terrorist attacks against Israel under an obscure 1789 law.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the 5-4 decision, in which the court's conservative justices joined. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, along with her three liberal colleagues.

The decision was a blow to some 6,000 foreign victims, including survivors and relatives, of suicide bombings and other attacks in Israel and the Palestinian Territories from 1996 to 2005.

Many of those victims claimed that Jordan-based Arab Bank used a New York branch to help finance terrorists from Hamas and other groups and to funnel martyr's payments to the families of suicide bombers.

Their challenge cited the Alien Tort Statute, passed by the first U.S. Congress nearly 230 years ago, which gives U.S. courts jurisdiction over crimes committed overseas "in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States."

American victims of 22 Middle East terrorist attacks won a jury verdict in 2014 under a different law not available to foreign citizens. That case remains on appeal.

During oral argument in October, some justices questioned whether corporations can be liable at all under the statute. Others wondered whether the terrorist attacks had a sufficient connection to the United States. Still others worried about causing friction with international allies.

Chief Justice John Roberts said the law was passed to avoid "foreign entanglements," not add to them. Justice Samuel Alito said a ruling for the victims could lead to more lawsuits raising foreign policy concerns. Justice Neil Gorsuch said lawmakers in 1789 meant for the statute to be directed only at U.S. defendants.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, based in New York, ruled in 2015 that the centuries-old law cannot be used against corporations.

The bank, which operates in nearly 30 countries, contended in court papers that it is not responsible for attacks on "foreign plaintiffs seeking relief against a foreign defendant for injuries caused by foreign actors on foreign soil."

The Justice Department took a compromise position, arguing that the case "has been a source of international friction," assistant solicitor general Brian Fletcher said during oral argument.

Yossi Zur, an Israel who lost his 16-year-old son Asaf to a bus bombing that killed 17 people, told USA TODAY last year that financing terrorism "is as bad as pulling the trigger or exploding the bomb.

"Our view is that terror is a long chain of evil," he said. "Financing terrorism is the most important link in the chain, because without money there wouldn't be any terrorism."

More: EU court says it was wrong to end Hamas terror listing

More: In blasting Iran, Trump woos Israel and Saudi Arabia

More: What would it take to jump-start Israeli-Palestinian peace talks? </s> A Syrian refugee who made headlines after he took a selfie with German Chancellor Angela Merkel is suing Facebook for its alleged failure to remove photos falsely linking him to terrorism.

19-year-old Anas Modamani took the pic of himself with Merkel in September 2015 at a refugee shelter in Berlin.

That image, along with others taken by press agencies, was widely used by media outlets and social media users to comment on Germany's response to the refugee crisis.

However, in at least three different cases his image was doctored by trolls in order to falsely link him to terrorism and crimes.

Modamani was mistakenly identified as one of the men responsible for the bomb attack at Brussels Airport last year. His image was Photoshopped on to a photo of the truck used in the Christmas market terror attack in Berlin along with the words "Es sind Merkels Tote" ("They are Merkel's dead"). And he was accused of being one of seven men who tried to set a homeless man on fire in Berlin.

Modamani disabled his Facebook account and hired attorney Chan-jo Jun to take a case seeking an injunction "to prevent Facebook from publishing the slanderous image of the Syrian refugee Anas Modamani in the context of terrorist attacks."

In the video below, the lawyer said the original post about the homeless arson case had been shared by around 500 people, and likely to have been seen by 25,000 to 50,000 people.

This isn't the first time Chan-jo Jun has taken on Facebook. In November 2016 he initiated an investigation against Mark Zuckerberg and other Facebook executives for failing to remove hate speech even once it was aware of the violations of German law.

Regarding Modmani, a Facebook representative said: "We received a takedown request from Mr Jun alleging that a specific item of content on our platform violates Mr Modamani's right of personality. Access to that reported content was quickly disabled, so we do not believe there is any basis for him to seek an injunction." </s> on Friday dropped its lawsuit against the U.S. government that had sought to block the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to identify who is behind a Twitter account critical of the Trump administration’s immigration policies, according to a court filing.

That came after the Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection division withdrew its summons to the social-media company demanding the information, according to Twitter’s federal court filing.

Twitter had sued the Trump administration Thursday over attempts by the DHS and U.S. Customs and Border Protection to discover the identity of the user or users behind @ALT_USCIS, which has criticized the immigration policy of the current administration since it was created in January 2017.

In a tweet Friday, ALT_USCIS thanked Twitter and the ACLU for their support in fighting the government’s probe.

The lawsuit, which Twitter filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, had alleged that the DHS tried to use a “limited-purpose investigatory tool” to find out who is behind the account in question.

“The rights of free speech afforded to Twitter’s users and Twitter itself under the U.S. Constitution include a right to disseminate such anonymous or pseudonymous free speech,” the company said in the lawsuit.
Sixteen survivors use anti-terror legislation to sue Google, Twitter and Facebook, alleging the firms "provided support and resources" to the Islamic State.