[freditup]

> [The lawsuit] asserts that by allowing Islamic State militants to spread propaganda freely on social media, the three companies provided "material support" to the group and enabled attacks such as the one in San Bernardino.

> A number of lawsuits have been filed in recent years seeking to hold social media companies responsible for terror attacks, but none has advanced beyond the preliminary phases.

Here's another recent example of this [0]. At first glance of the definition for material support [1], these lawsuits might seem (legally) reasonable. Luckily though, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act [2] makes these lawsuits fairly baseless. I can't imagine the consequences if social media providers were liable for all content posted on them... (Disclaimer: IANAL in the least)

[0]: http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-lawsuits...

[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2339A

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...