Authorities Consider Taking Legal Action Against Facebook Over Storm Area 51 Event (gizmodo.com) 87
Local authorities in Rachel, Nevada -- the location of a planned Aliengate festival that evolved out of a viral Facebook event -- are considering taking legal action to cover $250,000 the county plans to spend to prepare for the potential onslaught of visitors. Gizmodo reports: Matty Roberts created the "Storm Area 51, They Can't Stop All of Us" Facebook event on June 27 as a joke, but the event went viral and evolved into an actual festival -- Alienstock -- which was planned for September 19-22 at the Little A'Le'Inn in Rachel, Nevada, near the US Air Force base known as Area 51. But just a few days before the event was supposed to begin, Roberts and his partners backed out, posting on their website that they "foresee a possible humanitarian disaster in the works" and after considering "the lack of infrastructure, planning, and risk management, along with concerns raised for the safety of the expected 10,000+ attendees, we decided to transition Alienstock away from the Rachel festival towards a safer alternative." That safer alternative is an "Area 51 Celebration" happening on Thursday night at the Downtown Las Vegas Events Center.
However, Little A'Le'Inn owner Connie West has made it very clear that she still plans to host her own Alienstock, despite Roberts' attorney sending her a cease-and-desist letter ordering her to stop using the name "Alienstock" since the event at that location was canceled. Lincoln County Sheriff Kerry Lee told Gizmodo that as of Wednesday morning, people had already started arriving at A'Le'Inn. "Matty Roberts is the one that started this on Facebook. So our district attorney, his opinion is that Matty Roberts and Facebook stand to be partially to blame for this" Lee told Gizmodo. "He's already told people that this is quote-unquote 'His event.' He told some of the other event promoters that this was his event. And so I guess if it's his event and he's taken ownership of it then we know where legal action should go toward. I'm not an attorney but that is what Lincoln County district attorney is saying." Facebook is protected from legal action regarding content created by one of its users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, but it's possible that the district attorney may argue that this particular circumstance wouldn't be covered by those protections.
However, Little A'Le'Inn owner Connie West has made it very clear that she still plans to host her own Alienstock, despite Roberts' attorney sending her a cease-and-desist letter ordering her to stop using the name "Alienstock" since the event at that location was canceled. Lincoln County Sheriff Kerry Lee told Gizmodo that as of Wednesday morning, people had already started arriving at A'Le'Inn. "Matty Roberts is the one that started this on Facebook. So our district attorney, his opinion is that Matty Roberts and Facebook stand to be partially to blame for this" Lee told Gizmodo. "He's already told people that this is quote-unquote 'His event.' He told some of the other event promoters that this was his event. And so I guess if it's his event and he's taken ownership of it then we know where legal action should go toward. I'm not an attorney but that is what Lincoln County district attorney is saying." Facebook is protected from legal action regarding content created by one of its users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, but it's possible that the district attorney may argue that this particular circumstance wouldn't be covered by those protections.
Kind of premature. (Score:2)
What if no one shows up?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If, instead of Facebook, people used their cell phones to organize this, would they sue the phone company?
Not in the US (Score:2)
because phone companies have too many lobbiests to influence politicians to make the bureaucrats back off.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No idea why he went with political corruption on that one lol.
Re: (Score:2)
Sunk costs (Score:3, Interesting)
If I stared a "Burn down Notre Dam" face book page and set a date for a mass molotov coctakil flash mob would that be irresponsible for Facebook to allow to stand? uh duh.
Even if no one shows up you'd already have paid for fire crews to station themselves, police to be present.
Re:Sunk costs (Score:5, Insightful)
If I stared a "Burn down Notre Dam" face book page and set a date for a mass molotov coctakil flash mob would that be irresponsible for Facebook to allow to stand? uh duh.
Same thing bud. The mechanism people use to communicate doesn't make the mechanism the criminal. Should AT&T be held liable because terrorists used their data service to transmit calls, texts, and, emails?
if it's public yes (Score:2, Flamebait)
sure, if it's a public forum and you know what's going on. then yes. Facebook kenw about this, it was in the news. THey did nothing.
Re:if it's public yes (Score:5, Informative)
> sure, if it's a public forum
It isn't. 1A lawsuits against Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, AOL even, have failed consistently ... they aren't public forums, no matter how much you wish them to be.
> and you know what's going on.
Doesn't matter as far as CDA 230 goes. 230 permits moderation, it does not mandate it. Unless Facebook created its own content promoting the event, they're clear. And you want to keep it that way, poster-on-an-internet-service.
Re: if it's public yes (Score:2)
"1A lawsuits against Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, AOL even, have failed consistently"
Citation, please?
Re: (Score:3)
CRS Report R45650. March 27, 2019 [fas.org]
Have fun reading it. You won't, but the kicker suited to your attention span is this:
Re: (Score:2)
sure, if it's a public forum
Re: if it's public yes (Score:1)
Faceboot shills be shillin' for Faceboot
Re: (Score:2)
It very much is a public forum. It may or may not conform to specific legal definitions of that term but trust me, it's a public fucking forum.
If you want to deny that then you need to be very precise regarding the narrow definition you are seeking to use.
Re: (Score:2)
It may or may not conform to specific legal definitions of that term....
It doesn't..... again, no matter how many times an idiot says it does or wants it to.
If you want to deny that then you need to be very precise regarding the narrow definition you are seeking to use.
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible to discuss Facebook's role as a public forum while decrying its lack of legal status as a public forum.
If you think I'm an idiot for the sentence above then I'm happy to let the rest of the internet laugh at you.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Then you sue the people who organized the event. If they'd distributed information about it on fliers, would you sue the companies that made the paper and ink?
Section 230 is really pretty clear. Service providers are not responsible for what their users do on their platforms. That doesn't mean no one's responsible; it means the users themselves are responsible for any illegal acts.
This is just a case of "Go after the deep pocket", rather than "Go after the actually responsible party." (If, of course, any la
Re: (Score:2)
If no one shows up, well, that money was wasted and they choose to waste it and the want to prosecute people for trolling them, for tricking them, for making them look stupid, incompetent and incapable of telling fantasy from reality. So penalise smart people for making stupid. people look stupid.
Why the whinging, it's like Americans have become a pack of poms, whining and whinging about every fucking thing. This is an excellent policing opportunity, they'll get a arrest a bunch of people and pick up a who
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on whether the company in question moderates and otherwise exercises editorial control over the communications they facilitate. The phone company does not in any real way whereas Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and so on certainly have been doing so on a massive scale.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/18/us/dutch-nationals-area-51-trespassing-trnd/index.html/ [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Probably encouragement of large numbers of people committing illegal and dangerous activities.
Re: (Score:2)
No hint as to what the authorities have a problem with. Trademark infringement?
Side note: If Matty stated that he posted this as a joke, and then canceled the event, then Connie should be able to use the term "Alienstock". Unless Matty trademarked the joke.
Go after the deep pockets (Score:3)
...that would be Facebook!
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
so when Coachella brings in a quarter-million visitors because of a Facebook article, or Burning Man hosts crowds of 80,000 because of Facebook, we dont threaten litigation against Facebook to "cover the costs" of people with money and means to travel and lodge at these locations....
Burning Man pre-dates Google's founding by some margin. Coachella was started about the same time as Google was founded. Both long before FB was founded (hell, this happened when Zuckerberg was in grade school). So its a pretty difficult argument to make. If you had wanted to make this argument, you should have used the Fyre Festival [wikipedia.org]. That was a social media creation that ended in a huge logistical clusterfuck due to lack of experience throwing festivals (which is quite difficult and requires a long li
Re: (Score:3)
The part that amuses me is that the county posted half a dozen sheriff deputies outside the Area 51 gates. As if the military needs their protection, and can't man their gate.
Re: this just feels like a cash grab. (Score:3)
It's just an excuse for the local law enforcer thugs to get some sweet overtime pay for doing nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think that the military and local law enforcement haven't discussed and agreed an appropriate response to this?
I can see where a police presence may negate the need for military involvement and the complex politics that would cause.
Re: (Score:2)
There are no complex politics involved in defending military installations. People get arrested for trespassing on them all the time, often they get injured during the arrest.
And if they were asked by the military to provide security, now we know whose fault their expenses are, and who they should negotiate payment with.
Re: (Score:1)
It's almost as though the police have a role in preventing crime. How dare they be asked to perform that role.
Re: (Score:2)
Police sometimes try to do that, but it violates everybody's rights.
The job of police is to enforce violations of the law, and to maintain public order in an emergency, eg, direct traffic away from something dangerous.
Preventing crime is something they include in their PR, but they're not actually allowed to do anything in that area other than talk. "Drugs are bad," "Don't give your credit card information to strangers," "Dogs and security signs help reduce burglary," "Don't drink and drive," that stuff. Le
Re: (Score:2)
Police sometimes try to do that, but it violates everybody's rights.
Well doesn't that make you a fucking idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
You've got some derp on your chin. Maybe that's why you forgot to include a comment with your comment?
Re: (Score:2)
Recap: You claimed that preventing crime violates everybody's rights.
You're a fucking idiot. Get off the Internet, you're not qualified.
Re: (Score:2)
That does make sense, but in your story, the MPs would still be providing the security and there would be no utility in having 6 deputies when there have been no arrests. They'd only need to come after somebody was detained.
It prevents the military to assist the police in many cases, but it does nothing to restrict the military on a military base.
From https://www.history.navy.mil/r... [navy.mil]
The armed forces, when in performance of their military responsibilities, are beyond the reach of the Posse Comitatus Act and its statutory and regulatory supplements. Neither the Act nor its legislative history resolves the question of whether the Act prohibits the Army from performing its military duties in a manner which affords incidental benefits to civilian law enforcement officers. The courts and commentators believe that it does not. As long as the primary purpose of an activity is to address a military purpose, the activity need not be abandoned simply because it also assists civilian law enforcement efforts.
They probably could even provide transportation to the Sheriff's Office, if they were detained on the base, though it seems
Re: (Score:2)
If Los Angeles can get away with spending next to nothing on more than sixty thousand homeless people a day who contribute nothing to society but hospital bills and communicable disease, surely a day of tourism isnt going to wipe out Lincoln County.
Prop HHH, passed by LA voters 3 years ago, provides $1.2 billion for sheltering the city''s vagrants. Yeah, next to nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
I did read that, but how much of that money has been actually utilized. No, I am not trying to be a smart ass with this comment. But I thought I seen in the LA Times that the money has not been used. Or not a large part of it.
Not so fast here Facebook (Score:5, Interesting)
Facebook is protected from legal action regarding content created by one of its users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
It seems today that Facebook today is claiming First Amendment protection AS A PUBLISHER as a defense against a case brought by Laura Loomer.
You can't have it both ways, Facebook, and if you're a Publisher you lose that Section 230 immunity.
Do you left-hand lawyers know what your right-hand lawyers are doing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Not so fast here Facebook (Score:2)
Ignore Faceboot's hired shill meglon. Just read the actual law. It's short, uncomplicated, and nothing like the Big Tech PR shills are claiming.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ignore the angry man who claims that anyone who doesn't hold his views is a shill and a Nazi. Just read the actual law as he says: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
No unless, no except, and no "but only for for offensive material."
Re: Not so fast here Facebook (Score:2)
Nazi shyster rides to the defense of Faceboot - again!
Re: Not so fast here Facebook (Score:2)
Q.E.D.
Re: (Score:2)
They're lawyers. Arguing opposite positions in different courts, even simultaneously, poses no cognitive or moral dilemma for them.
Re: (Score:3)
It seems today that Facebook today is claiming First Amendment protection AS A PUBLISHER as a defense against a case brought by Laura Loomer.
What are you talking about?
This is what was said:
Facebook is protected from legal action regarding content created by one of its users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
Not only "as a publisher" is your interpretation, but you're attributing something to Facebook something that was written by a layman journalist as their own personal interpretation.
If Facebook had said that themselves, I'm pretty sure that the journalist would have surrounded that sentence with quotes, or at least, they would have said: Facebook said (which they didn't).
Besides, this is how the Communications Decency Act has been interpreted by the courts in
Re: (Score:2)
Some operators of Internet services are absolutely publishers, the argument as I understand it is how to tell them apart and why they should be different if they exercise editorial control beyond the requirements of the law WRT incitement to violence and so on. .
Re: (Score:2)
Where does it say that? [cornell.edu]. Because the sentence "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" is missing "unless you're a publisher." And the definition of "information content provider," "any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of i
Re: (Score:2)
This ^^^^^
Case law is riddled with decisions that contradict each other and/or defy common sense. Murderer acquitted, codefendant convicted of harboring a felon or some similar accessory crime (that sane people would say didn't happen if the murderer was acquitted). Murder convictions for acts against people already mortally-wounded by something/someone else. Litigants/plaintiffs/defendants saying X is in effect in one case, and X isn't in effect in another case. This is why decisions to join or separat
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I was looking forward to some popcorn moments too. But I didn't think for a moment that they'd even get close to Area 51. I'm not sure where this lowball figure of 10K came from. But in the Facebook event, something like 2 MILLION people had committed themselves to going at one point.
Having been to Burning Man multiple times, I've experienced the issues first-hand of "merely" 6-70,000 people arriving and departing a bit of the Nevada desert that is neither as remote nor inhospitable as Groom Lake. I als
Re: (Score:2)
"Having been to Burning Man multiple times, I've experienced the issues first-hand of "merely" 6-70,000 people arriving and departing a bit of the Nevada desert that is neither as remote nor inhospitable as Groom Lake. I also have a good idea of what it takes to prepare *myself* for the desert. And I'm pretty well sure that the 2 million people who were planning to show up at Area 51 don't."
Oh dear, you don't look good. You should go to the hospital. Its that-a-way, in Las Vegas. Cheery-o now.
Re: (Score:2)
No but a small crowd gathered to photograph the do not enter signs.
Re: (Score:2)
That the retards aren't gonna try and storm Area-51? Because I thought it would be hilarious to see a bunch of military guards eating their sammiches while blasting the morons with the Ultrasonic cannon [wikipedia.org] then laughing as the dumbasses "Naruto ran" in the other directions shrieking like 12 year old girls at a boy band concert.
JFC you just solved the entire problem in one post. Sell tickets to this shit, have Dana White run the show, let bookies take bets and the Gov can take a % of the profits. Nevermind the joy and laughter we'll all get by watching.
Re: (Score:2)
The current betting lines are even money for 7,500 plus abductions, and separately for 2,900 probings . . . :)
hawk
Break Things And Move Faster (Score:2)
Too many people take the advice of Zuckerberg too literally.
Rachel Nevada: (Score:5, Funny)
Rachel has a listed population of 54.
There are more janitors cleaning Facebook's legal division than there are citizens of Rachel.
This seems a bit like an overly ambitious puppy about to get smacked by a truck.
Re: (Score:2)
But yer honer, we was scared real good by that thar inter-net.
What IF? (Score:1)
What if the entire "Storm Area 51" thing was to bring test subjects near the area so they can test new non-lethal weapons on people?
Re: What IF? (Score:2)
+1 Interesting
Re: (Score:3)
What if it was a way to cull the herd by removing a significant number of idiots?
Re: (Score:2)
Same difference.
The highway (Score:2)
Sue the highway too for allowing people to get there. At minimum donâ(TM)t fix any potholes. Bad highway.
250 grand? (Score:2)
That's an awful lot of money for a few bullets. Next time hire the local militia, tell them that anything they do is legal and let nature take its course.
With a hint of luck, that's even free. Provided you cover the ammo expenses.
For what? (Score:1)
Zuckerberg's Fault (Score:1)
Hey, someone actually showed up (Score:2)
Reddit.com has many recent articles on area 51 (Score:2)
So many articles and not a one mentions any repercussions to Reddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/inter... [reddit.com]
Uhm (Score:1)
In other news... (Score:2)
Facebook is protected from legal action regarding content created by one of its users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, but it's possible that the district attorney may argue that this particular circumstance wouldn't be covered by those protections.
Facebook is arguing, to support its extensive censoring, that it is a Publisher and has control over the Facebook content. This removes the safe harbor afforded by section 230...