Law protecting Internet companies under threat
2023.02.21 14:02
Law protecting Internet companies under threat
By Ray Johnson
Budrigannews.com – In a significant case involving YouTube and the family of an American student who was shot and killed during a Parisian rampage in 2015 by Islamist militants, U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday expressed uncertainty regarding whether to reduce a legal shield that shields internet companies from a wide range of lawsuits.
The family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old California State University, Long Beach student who was studying in France, appealed a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit against YouTube, which is owned by Google LLC. The justices heard arguments in the appeal. Alphabet includes YouTube and Google (NASDAQ:). Inc.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco cited a federal statute known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which shields internet service providers from responsibility for user-posted content, in its decision to dismiss the lawsuit. The Supreme Court is examining the scope of Section 230 for the first time in this case.
The justices asked questions that showed that they were worried about what might happen if they limited internet companies’ immunity or didn’t know where to draw the line. They also showed that they didn’t think these companies should be protected from certain kinds of harmful or defamatory content.
The liberal Justice Elena Kagan said of the court members, “These are not the nine greatest experts on the internet,” which caused laughter in the courtroom.
The family claimed that YouTube’s computer algorithms had improperly recommended to some users videos by the Islamic State militant group, which claimed responsibility for the 130 deaths in the Paris attacks. According to the lawsuit, the recommendations helped recruit jihadist fighters and spread the Islamic State’s message.
Eric Schnapper, a Gonzalez family attorney, was questioned by Kagan, who stated that algorithms are frequently used to organize and prioritize content on the internet. Does your position lead us down a path where (Section) 230 really has no bearing?”
Schnapper countered, “As you say, algorithms are everywhere,” by saying no. However, the inquiry is “What does the defendant do with the algorithm?” noting that YouTube was being sued for recommending videos from the Islamic State.
Under the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act, a federal law that permits Americans to recover damages related to “an act of international terrorism,” the company was accused of providing “material support” for terrorism.
If the algorithms that provide recommendations are “neutral” or used to organize content based on users’ interests, the justices questioned whether YouTube should lose its immunity.
“I’m trying to get you to explain to us how something that is standard on YouTube for virtually anything that you have an interest in suddenly amounts to aiding and abetting because you’re in the ISIS category,” Justice Clarence Thomas told Schnapper, referring to the Islamic State group by its initials.
Justice Samuel Alito posed the following question to Google’s attorney, Lisa Blatt: If YouTube and Google were held liable for hosting and refusing to remove videos that it knows are defamatory and false, would Google collapse and the internet be destroyed?
“Well, I don’t think Google would,” was Blatt’s response. Because they aren’t as big as Google, I think probably every other website is.
Additionally, the justices questioned the limits of Section 230 protections.
Given that YouTube itself makes recommendations, conservative Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether Section 230 should be applied. The recordings don’t simply show up out of nowhere, they seem in accordance with the calculations,” he said.
A website that distributed defamatory content to millions of its users raised questions for Kagan.
“Why should that be protected?” you might ask. Roberts inquired.
Google and those who back it have said that if the plaintiffs win, it could lead to a lot of lawsuits against platforms and change the way the internet works. Similar technology is used by many social media companies and websites to provide users with relevant content like job listings, search engine results, music, and movies.
They added that the case poses a threat to free speech because it could force platforms to suppress anything even remotely controversial.
“Interactive computer services” are safeguarded by Section 230 by preventing them from being treated as the “publisher or speaker” of user-provided information. Experts in the field of law point out that in the event that the safeguards provided by Section 230 are reduced, businesses might resort to additional legal defenses.
The law, according to critics, frequently prevents platforms from being held accountable for actual damages. On social media, a lot of liberals have criticized false information and hate speech. According to numerous conservatives, under the guise of content moderation, social media companies censor voices on the right.
The administration of President Joe Biden has called for the reform of Section 230 and asked the Supreme Court to rehear the lawsuit filed by Nohemi Gonzalez’s family, including her mother Beatriz Gonzalez and stepfather Jose Hernandez, against YouTube, claiming that YouTube provided “material support” to Islamic State.
In 2021, the 9th Circuit ruled that the lawsuit was barred by Section 230 because it sought to hold Google accountable for the Islamic State’s content and the group’s content was not treated differently by Google’s algorithms than any other content created by users.
