![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/Evil-Grin.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
There is little question that Faceplant and Twitler have abused Section 230, and Congress is looking into how to correct this. Big Tech is trying to bribe their way out of it of course. However, there is a teensy weensy fly that has just nosedived into Facebook\u2019s soup, the Texas Supreme Court. Here are the details from Fox Business<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n The Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday that Facebook can be held liable if sex traffickers use the platform to prey on children. <\/b><\/p>\n The state court ruled that Facebook is not a “lawless no-man\u2019s-land” and could be held accountable following three Texas-based lawsuits that involved teenage sex traffic victims, the Houston Chronicle<\/a> first reported.<\/strong><\/p>\n Hoping over to the Houston Chronicle<\/b><\/a> story, it seems that several people have gone after Faceplant for basically aiding in sex trafficking.<\/p>\n The Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday in a Houston case that Facebook is not a \u201clawless no-man\u2019s-land\u201d and can be held liable for the conduct of pimps who use its technology to recruit and prey on children. <\/b><\/p>\n The ruling came in a trio of Houston civil actions involving teenage trafficking victims who met their abusive pimps through Facebook\u2019s messaging functions. They sued the California-based social media juggernaut for negligence and product liability, saying that Facebook failed to warn about or attempt to prevent sex trafficking from taking place on its internet platforms.<\/b><\/p>\n Well, I don\u2019t think that Mark Zuckerberg, or his management team are going to be to thrilled with that ruling. However, as the infomercials like to say, \u201cBut wait! There\u2019s more!!\u201d<\/p>\n The suits also alleged that Facebook benefited from the sexual exploitation of trafficking victims.<\/b><\/p>\n That one is going to hurt big time, and it makes me wonder if handcuffs could be in Zuckerberg\u2019s future? Time will tell of course, but in the meantime, the civil suits are moving forward.<\/p>\n The justices said trafficking victims can move forward with lawsuits on the grounds that Facebook violated a provision of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code passed in 2009. <\/b><\/p>\n Facebook lawyers argued the company was shielded from liability under Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which states that what users say or write online is not akin to a publisher conveying the same message. Essentially, they said, Facebook is immune to these types of lawsuits.<\/b><\/p>\n Yeah, small problem with that, and it\u2019s Faceplant\u2019s habit of censoring or banning conservatives. Since they\u2019ve been censoring content they don\u2019t agree with, it opens them up to liability. Of course Faceplant doesn\u2019t see it that way. Pity for them the court disagrees.<\/p>\n The majority wrote, \u201cWe do not understand Section 230 to \u2018create a lawless no-man\u2019s-land on the Internet\u2019 in which states are powerless to impose liability on websites that knowingly or intentionally participate in the evil of online human trafficking.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n \u201cHolding internet platforms accountable for the words or actions of their users is one thing, and the federal precedent uniformly dictates that Section 230 does not allow it,\u201d the opinion said. \u201cHolding internet platforms accountable for their own misdeeds is quite another thing. This is particularly the case for human trafficking.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n There are several women who were teens when the events took place. Basically it was a classic \u201cGrooming\u201d operation. However, one of the girls who was later rescued reported everything to Faceplant. It looks like they did nothing about it.<\/p>\n Another plaintiff was 14 in 2017 when a man contacted her on Instagram, another Facebook property. The pimp in this instance lured her with \u201cfalse promises of love and a better future.\u201d She said the easy access to her through social media made it possible for the man to traffic her, using Instagram to advertise her as a prostitute and set up \u201cdates,\u201d during which she was raped numerous times. After the teen was rescued from his operation, traffickers kept using her profile to lure in other minors, according to the ruling. In this case the family says the girl\u2019s mother reported what had happened to Facebook and the company never responded. <\/b><\/p>\n This one is what makes me think that there are potential criminal charges that could be made against both Faceplant and Zuckerberg. Of course, I\u2019m not a prosecutor and I don\u2019t play one on TV. I also didn\u2019t sleep in a Holiday Inn last night either.<\/p>\n Annie McAdams, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said it was a groundbreaking decision. This is the first case to beat Facebook on its argument that it had immunity under Section 230, she said. <\/b><\/p>\n \u201cWhile we have a long road ahead, we are grateful that the Texas Supreme Court will allow these courageous trafficking survivors to have their day in court against Facebook,\u201d McAdams said. She said with the help of an anti-trafficking provision under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code called Chapter 98, \u201cWe believe trafficking survivors in Texas can expose and hold accountable businesses such as Facebook that benefit from these crimes of exploitation.\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n The arrogance of Big Tech is massive. If they had even attempted to correct these issues, or contacted the victims, they might have some standing under Section 230. The fact that they ignored repeated reports of problems, on top of their blatant censorship of Conservatives and people posting information on the Covid-19 panicdemic that didn\u2019t toe the party line, is going to sink them.<\/p>\n A Facebook spokesperson said in a statement that the company is considering possible next steps. <\/b><\/p>\n \u201cSex trafficking is abhorrent and not allowed on Facebook,\u201d the official said. \u201cWe will continue our fight against the spread of this content and the predators who engage in it.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n