Networks: Supreme Court will judge responsibility of big techs – 02/22/2023 – Tech

University student Nohemi Gonzalez, 23, was studying in Paris in November 2015 when she was one of 130 victims of a series of coordinated terrorist attacks on the French capital.

The following year, Gonzalez’s stepfather, Jose Hernandez, sued Google and other technology companies, alleging that the companies radicalized users who became terrorists. According to him, the big techs would be legally responsible for the damage inflicted on his family. The young woman’s mother, her stepfather and siblings eventually joined the process.

These arguments were heard at the US Supreme Court this Tuesday (22). And its lawsuit, with Google now the sole defendant, could have potentially seismic ramifications for the social media platforms that have become conduits of communication, commerce and culture for billions of people.

The lawsuit appeals against a federal law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects online platforms like Facebook, Instagram and Google’s YouTube from lawsuits over content posted by their users or their decisions to remove content.

The case gives Supreme Court justices the opportunity to limit the application of that legal shield or eliminate it entirely, leaving companies liable for what users post and legal action for defamation, discriminatory advertising and extremist propaganda.

A day after hearing Gonzalez’s case against Google, the court is scheduled to hear a second technology lawsuit, the Twitter case against Taamneh, which will rule on whether the social network contributed to terrorism.

What the Supreme Court decides on the cases will add to a fierce battle around the world over how to regulate online speech. Many governments claim that social media has become a breeding ground for hate speech and misinformation. Some have been demanding that platforms remove these posts. But in the United States, the First Amendment makes it difficult for Congress to do the same.

Critics of Section 230 say it allows tech companies to avoid liability for damages facilitated under their supervision. But advocates argue that without the legal shield, companies will remove more content than ever before to avoid lawsuits, stifling free speech.

YouTube and other platforms claim that they triage these videos and remove many of them. But in 2018, research based on a tool developed by Mr. Farid found that some Islamic State videos were online for hours, including one encouraging violent attacks on Western nations.

Facebook and Twitter were dropped as defendants in the lawsuit in 2017, the same year Gonzalez’s mother, stepfather and siblings joined the plaintiffs. Last year, a federal appeals court ruled that Google would not have to face the claims of members of the Gonzalez family because the company was protected under Section 230.

In May, lawyers for the Gonzalez family asked the Supreme Court to intervene. By recommending content to users through algorithms, the lawyers argued, YouTube was essentially engaging in its own form of speech, which was not protected under Section 230.

Gonzalez’s father and the Twitter plaintiffs declined to comment through their attorney, Keith Altman. Altman said the courts had “pushed the boundaries” of the Section 230 legal shield to the point where it was “unrecognizable”. A lawyer for other members of the Gonzalez family did not respond to a request for comment. The lawyer who will defend both cases before the Supreme Court, Eric Schnapper, also declined to comment.

Google denied the Gonzalez family’s arguments under Section 230. It said the Gonzalez family’s claims that Google supported terrorism are based on “vague allegations” and “speculative” arguments.

In Congress, efforts to reform Section 230 stalled. Republicans, buoyed by accusations that internet companies are more likely to take down conservative posts, have proposed tweaking the law. Democrats said platforms should remove more content when it spreads misinformation or hate speech.

Instead, courts have begun to explore the limits of how the law should be applied.

In a case in 2021, a federal appeals court in California ruled that Snap, the parent company of Snapchat, could not use Section 230 to avoid a lawsuit involving three people who died in a car accident after using a filter. from Snapchat that displayed the user’s speed.

Last year, a federal judge in California said that Apple, Google and Facebook’s parent company Meta could not use the legal shield to prevent some claims from consumers who said they were wronged by casino apps. A federal judge in Oregon also ruled that the law did not protect Omegle, the chat site that randomly connects users, from a lawsuit claiming an 11-year-old girl met a predator through its service.