Reconsideration of protection law, section 230, puts big tech on edge
2 Min Read
The nine justices will hear a case related to the November 2015 Paris attacks, and their decision, due by June 30, could have far-reaching implications for the internet's future.
-
The Supreme Court Building (AFP)
The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on a provision that has shielded tech corporations from litigation based on content uploaded on their platforms since 1996.
The nine justices will hear a case related to the November 2015 Paris attacks, and their decision, due by June 30, could have far-reaching implications for the internet's future.
The case originates from a complaint brought against Google by the relatives of Nohemi Gonzalez, one of the 130 victims of the Paris attacks.
The US citizen was studying in France when she was slain at the Belle Equipe club by ISIS militants.
Read next: Russian envoy: Evidence of US sponsoring ISIS in Afghanistan
Her family accused Google-owned YouTube of recommending videos from the group to users, thus facilitating the call to violence.
According to the family, "by recommend[ing] ISIS videos to users, Google assists ISIS in spreading its message and thus provides material support to ISIS," a legal brief said.
The federal courts dismissed the complaint on behalf of Section 230, a law that was passed while the Internet was in its infancy and has since become one of its pillars.
It is worth noting that Section 230 stipulates that in the United States, internet corporations are not considered publishers and thus have legal immunity for the content posted on their platforms.
The Gonzalez case is unique in that the complainants are isolating algorithms as the source of the injury, contending that the extremely complex recommendation systems perfected by large platforms are not covered by Section 230.
The Supreme Court passes over the great majority of cases that come before it, and hearing this one suggests a readiness to change the landmark legislation.
Some Supreme Court justices have already signaled a willingness to alter the limits on Section 230, which is more challenging given the recent reaction against big tech.
Given the schism, it appears likely that the Supreme Court will move the lines faster than Congress.
Read next: Gag rule on Palestinians continues, TikTok joins ban policy
![In a 2021 interview with Frontline by former US special representative James Jeffrey, he says he had "engaged with [HTS] via backchannels while serving in President Trump’s State Department. (Al Mayadeen English; Illustrated by Batoul Chamas)](https://alpha-en-media.almayadeen.net/media/image/2024/12/21/b4a69f2e-8682-43e4-9d37-49482b304ab3/3.png?v=2&format=webp "In a 2021 interview with Frontline by former US special representative James Jeffrey, he says he had \"engaged with [HTS] via backchannels while serving in President Trump’s State Department. (Al Mayadeen English; Illustrated by Batoul Chamas)")
