The Supreme Court ruled today that tech companies are not responsible for terrorist content posted on their platforms.
The lawsuit, launched by the family of a victim of a 2017 ISIS attack, argued that Twitter, Facebook and Google should be held responsible for allowing the terrorist organization to use their platforms in its terrorist efforts.
However, the court unanimously ruled that the suit could not proceed.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the unanimous court in Twitter v. Taamneh, made it clear that social media platforms are not to blame, even if nefarious actors use those platforms for illegal and sometimes terrible purposes.
The argument presented by the victim’s family, that tech companies should be held responsible for the alleged failure to prevent ISIS from using these platforms, lacked the necessary link between the tech companies and the terrorist attack to establish liability.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a brief concurring opinion, stressed that the court’s opinion was limited in significant respects. He suggested that other cases with different allegations and records could lead to different conclusions.
Impact of the case Gonzalez v. Google
Following the Twitter ruling, the Supreme Court took up Gonzalez v. Google, a lawsuit brought by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old American woman killed in a 2015 ISIS attack on a cafe parisian
The Gonzalez family argued that Google, through its ownership of YouTube, aided ISIS recruitment by allowing the terrorist group to post videos on YouTube that incited violence and sought to recruit potential ISIS members.
The family also claimed that Google’s algorithms were recommending ISIS videos to users.
The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit previously held that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which shields technology companies from liability for content posted by users, protected these recommendations.
However, in light of Twitter’s decision, the Supreme Court overturned that ruling and remanded the case for reconsideration.
The court refrained from ruling on the scope of Section 230, suggesting that this issue was best left to Congress or a future case.
Some members of Congress are thinking hard about reforming Section 230, as they believe it offers too much protection to tech giants.
The office of Senator Mark Warner, a vocal critic and advocate of Section 230 reforms, released a statement to Search Engine Journal about the Gonzalez v. Google decision.
He characterizes Section 230 as old and outdated, arguing that it is a “Get Out of Jail Free Card” for big business.
“For years, I’ve been saying that Congress needs to take action to address the blanket protection that Section 230 provides to technology companies. This antiquated statute has outlived its usefulness and provided the largest platform companies with a” Get out of jail free card’, as their sites are used by scammers, stalkers and violent extremists.
Senator Warner, however, makes it clear that he does not believe that reforming Section 230 will open the floodgates for massive liability claims against platform companies.
“Reforming Section 230 does not mean that platforms will automatically be subject to massive liability claims; victims will still have to prove their case in court.”
To sum up
These cases collectively highlight the ongoing debate about the responsibility of tech companies to moderate user-generated content and the extent to which they can be held responsible for harmful content shared on their platforms.
Supreme Court decisions indicate that, at least for now, a direct connection between the actions of technology companies and specific acts of terrorism is necessary to establish legal liability.
However, the court’s comments suggest that different circumstances could lead to different results.
sources: SCOUTS
Featured image generated by the author via Midjourney.
[ad_2]
Source link
