The case in Supreme Court today will contest Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The section provides immunity to websites from lawsuits that arise due to content posted by a third party|Morriswa|CC BY-SA 3.0
The Supreme Court (SC) will hear oral arguments to a landmark case today that could potentially change the way the internet works, affecting Big Tech companies, social media and content creators.
The case
The lawsuit Gonzalez v. Google is filed by the parents of Nohemi Gonzalez, who died in the 2015 ISIS attacks in Paris.
The plaintiff blames Google’s YouTube for promoting terrorism-related content on their platform that aided in recruiting people for the Islamic State terrorist group that eventually led to the Paris attacks.
Section 230
The Communications Decency Act of 1996 has Section 230 that provides immunity to websites from lawsuits that arise due to content posted by a third party.
What to expect?
In the SC case today:
- Google will hold the stance that according to Section 230, YouTube is not liable for the videos posted on it.
- The plaintiff says YouTube’s algorithm, which is coded by its employees, is responsible for pushing content suggestions to users. It, in turn, led to the 2015 Paris attacks and their daughter’s death.
Google has already won the case in lower courts. But if the SC decides to side with Gonzalez, it would be a win for both Democrats and Republicans, who have long wanted Section 230 gone, because:
- Section 230 allows Big Tech companies to shrug off their responsibilities related to hate speech, misinformation and other problematic content on their platforms.
- Tech companies censor content they don’t like citing Section 230.
Another case
The SC will hear another similar case on Wednesday, Twitter v. Taamneh, which alleges social media helped ISIS in terror attacks by allowing terrorism-related content posted on it.