Abstract
Would the availability of a federal cause of action for domestic terrorism increase the risk of social media providers being held liable for facilitating domestic terrorism? Recently, there have been discussions concerning the role social media plays in acts of domestic terrorism. Many acts of domestic terrorism have been linked to the perpetrator's involvement with online groups who harbor similar goals.
There are several legislative obstacles to successfully suing a social media provider for aiding an act of domestic terrorism. One obstacle is the Antiterrorism Act of 1990 (ATA), which provides a civil remedy for international terrorism but not domestic terrorism. There has been increased discussion about the federal government's disparate treatment of domestic and foreign terrorism, with many scholars calling for the federal government to treat these acts equally. Another obstacle is the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), which shields social media providers from liability for content they did not create. Recent discussions and court decisions have indicated that changes to both the ATA and the CDA may be coming. If these threshold barriers were removed, the number of claims brought under the ATA would likely increase.
Victims may attempt to sue social media providers for aiding domestic terrorism, but one of the biggest obstacles to a successful claim is proving proximate cause. This Note discusses the scientific basis for the connection between social media use and acts of domestic terrorism and analyzes whether this connection is strong enough to prove causation on the part of the social media provider.
Recommended Citation
Chloe Berryman,
Holding Social Media Providers Liable for Acts of Domestic Terrorism,
72 Fla. L. Rev.
1329
(2020).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol72/iss6/10