Google faces Supreme Court in a case that could decide the future of Section 230
Google is one of the world's most powerful and influential companies, with a virtual monopoly on search and online advertising. But this week, the tech giant is facing a major legal challenge that could fundamentally reshape the landscape of online speech and content moderation.
Google will defend the protection of statute known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which immunizes internet companies from lawsuits over content posted by third parties.
Open arguments before the nine justices are scheduled to begin this week. Reynolds v. Google, LLC" and it was filed in 2018 by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a young woman who was killed in a terrorist attack in Paris in 2015.
The lawsuit alleges that Google's platforms, including YouTube, facilitated the radicalization of the attackers by allowing them to access extremist content and communicate with each other. The plaintiffs claim that Google should be held liable for the attack because it allegedly failed to remove extremist content and failed to detect and report suspicious activity on its platforms.
Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old American college student, died in a hail of bullets fired by Islamist militants as she sat at a bistro called La Belle Epoque, part of a rampage of shootings and suicide bombings that killed 130 people in the French capital.
Gonzalez and Hernandez allege that YouTube’s algorithm even boosted the videos by recommending them to some users.
They are asking the Supreme Court to rewrite Section 230 — dubbed “the Magna Carta of the internet” — so that tech companies that allow malicious content to proliferate online can be held liable.
Google succeeded in lower courts by arguing that it is protected by Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. The law is often seen as a guard because it prevents platforms from being sued for hosting harmful user posts, a measure credited with paving the way for tech titans to reap financial windfalls.
Congress has bipartisan support for rewriting Section 230, which prohibits “interactive computer services” from being treated as the “publisher or speaker” of information provided by outside users.
Liberals allege that tech firms have used the statute to allow the unfettered spread of disinformation. At the same time, conservatives say that internet companies have abused the law to curtail right-leaning speech.
According to court papers, YouTube’s automated algorithms that generate recommended videos for users in effect “provided material assistance to, and had aided and abetted, ISIS” — a violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act. The Anti-Terrorism Act allows Americans to sue in court in hopes of recovering damages related to an “act of international terrorism.”
“It’s very important for the law to change,” Beatriz told Reuters, adding that a ruling in her favor would benefit not just her family but “all people who have been suffering these attacks, everywhere.”
“It’s very important for the law to change,” Beatriz told Reuters, adding that a ruling in her favor would benefit not just her family but “all people who have been suffering these attacks, everywhere.”
“This case truly could reshape the internet for the next generation,” Chander
The Supreme Court decided last fall to hear the case. Many legal scholars believe that Justice Clarence Thomas likely led the push to review the case. The conservative justice had previously suggested in court statements and opinions that the federal courts’ current interpretation of Section 230 could be too broad, the Wall Street Journal reported.
