[Kattywumpus]

They're not being sued for providing a platform for free speech; they're being sued for providing material support to terrorists. Maybe it's impossible to do one without doing both, maybe it isn't. I don't know. Maybe it's just unprofitable.

If it's the deaths of your family that pay for a whole planet's free speech, you deserve to be compensated.

[notyourwork]

> If it's the deaths of your family that pay for a whole planet's free speech, you deserve to be compensated.

The way this is phrased really changed my perspective on this. Thanks.

[wand3r]

I am the original comment poster and this is a very disingenuous way to frame my argument. If the above comment influenced you please consider:

- we have a legal framework for punishing law breakers. If these killers were affecting a political message (e.g. anti-US ideals like freedom, safety) our society has police and judicial means to extract "payment" or prevent this.

- At the civil level if someone/an entity is responsible for stripping civil liberties (this case through murder) I think we must draw a reasonable line. I don't have FB and am concerned w/ Google's privacy policies; however; to pretend a platform provided material support is absurd. Where does it end? Did googling weapons, posting pro-ISIS rants; a search interface and messaging/social network really count? This is reductionist?

- Consider this precedent and then why not sue Verizon for providing the data / internet and phone connectivity? What about Apple or Toshiba for the phone and hardware?

- I see this incident as a mental health issue, that is the underlying cause-- in my opinion.

- There really isn't a "price" for freedom or human life. No amount of money would likely convince me to give up my life. The responsible party is dead, so justice doesn't feel dispensed. Financially, they may be entitled to the estate assets.

- There is a degree of unfairness. Teaching tolerance and treating mental and health issues can help avoid this. This is a tradgedy, the family is likely to have damages >a million dollars (although there is no substitute for a human life) but we can't arbitrarily transfer those costs to a non-complicit party.

TL;DR I am glad you are open to changes in perspective; my comments are my opinion (as is the parent) but that framing struck me as reductionist and a bit of a disingenuous stawman. There are no easy answers unfortunately