Facebook, Twitter, Google cleared in Dallas shooting lawsuit A US judge says social networks cannot be held accountable for the murderous actions of their users. A district court in Dallas, Texas, dismissed with prejudice this week the idea that the major social networking sites in America harbored the sentiment that lead to the shooting and death of five Dallas police officers in July …
Yes, incident was 2016, follow the link to the article.
That case was the equivalent of suing the automobile manufacturer who made the getaway car used in a bank robbery. Since the court case was "dismissed with prejudice" it means that it was a really, really bad case. Ever since electronic social media appeared back in the late '70's people have complained that the medium (at that time, Bulletin Board Systems) was at fault for the content.
Any chance you can explain exactly what the "with prejudice" means for those of us who arent Yanks? :)
I know it means that the case must have been pretty much worthless from the start, but what's the actual take away from that phrase? No chance of the case result being appealed? All fees for both sides being dumped on the plaintiffs? The lawyers for the plaintiffs getting their licences withdrawn for being ambulance chasing maggots (ok im dreaming i know... the lawyers never get any payback)?
lglethal In the US a dismissal means the case is shut down. the judge believes that plaintive can proceed to proceed. A dismissal with out prejudiced means that you can refill the case if you have more evidence. A dismissal with prejudice means the case done, over. No matter how much new evidence you have you can not refile the case.
Hopes that helps.
Sorry but where is the tax payer money here? Did you read the same article as me? This was a private action (the families of the slain officers) against a couple of companies (Google, Facebook, twitter, etc). No government involvement at all.
Sure there was a judge there and it took place in a courthouse, but when you bring a private action you pay fees for that, so no tax payer money was involved in any way.
Perhaps you would like to try reading the article again... Fail Icon for your reading comprehension...
"Sure there was a judge there and it took place in a courthouse"
That is what I was referring to
"when you bring a private action you pay fees for that"
I wasn't aware of that detail, but are the fees actually covering all court expenses? In any case, thanks for the clarification
No Problem jmch. Unfortunately, it's pretty much impossible to answer your question. The fees required to be paid are very different in different countries, and even can vary hugely between states and court levels. To take the US case, taking something to a federal court is much more expensive then a local court.
In the UK, under a certain Claim amount the fees are fixed, so probably dont cover everything, but are designed to allow everyone to be able to access justice, not just the rich.
But on a high level case like this one, I would guess the fees would be relatively high and probably would cover the actual costs...
In the US you don't just pay for the initial fee at that level. You pay a fee ever time you file a motion with the court. Texas apears to be much cheaper than my home state of California, but unlike California you have to pay a fee for every piece of evidence you want to enter to the court.
http://www.txcourts.gov/supreme/practice-before-the-court/fees/
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
