U.S. Supreme Court torn over challenge to internet firms' legal shield
Send a link to a friend
[February 22, 2023]
By Andrew Chung and John Kruzel
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday expressed
uncertainty over whether to narrow a legal shield protecting internet
companies from a wide array of lawsuits in a major case involving
YouTube and the family of an American student fatally shot in a 2015
rampage by Islamist militants in Paris.
The justices heard arguments in an appeal by the family of Nohemi
Gonzalez, a 23-year-old student at California State University, Long
Beach who was studying in France, of a lower court's dismissal of a
lawsuit against Google LLC-owned YouTube. Google and YouTube are part of
Alphabet Inc.
The Supreme Court for the first time in this case is scrutinizing the
scope of a much-debated 1996 federal law called Section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act, which protects internet companies from
liability for content posted by their users. In dismissing the lawsuit,
the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals relied upon
Section 230.
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2017/Jul/22/images/ads/current/rohlfs_lda_072017.png)
The justices signaled concern about the potential consequences of
limiting immunity for internet companies and the difficulty in figuring
out where to draw that line while also expressing skepticism that these
businesses should be shielded for certain types of harmful or defamatory
content.
"These are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet," liberal
Justice Elena Kagan said of the court's members, eliciting laughter in
the courtroom.
Kagan and conservative colleague Justice Brett Kavanaugh both suggested
Congress might be better suited to adjust legal protections for internet
companies if warranted.
The lawsuit accused Google of providing "material support" for terrorism
and claimed that YouTube, through the video-sharing platform's computer
algorithms, unlawfully recommended videos by the Islamic State militant
group, which claimed responsibility for the Paris attacks that killed
130 people, to certain users. The recommendations helped spread Islamic
State's message and recruit jihadist fighters, the lawsuit said.
Kagan told a lawyer for the Gonzalez family, Eric Schnapper, that
algorithms are widely used to organize and prioritize material on the
internet and asked: "Does your position send us down the road such that
(Section) 230 really can't mean anything at all?"
Schnapper replied no and added, "As you say, algorithms are ubiquitous.
But the question is, 'What does the defendant do with the algorithm?'"
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2023/Feb/22/images/ads/current/ldn_sda_BUSINESSDIRECTORY_PROMO_2023.png)
ANTI-TERRORISM LAW
The lawsuit was brought under the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act, a federal law
that lets Americans recover damages related to "an act of international
terrorism."
Google and its supporters have said a win for the plaintiffs could
prompt a flood of litigation against platforms and upend how the
internet works. The case is a threat to free speech, they added, because
it could force platforms to stifle anything that could be considered
remotely controversial.
[to top of second column]
|
![](../images/022223PIX/news_a29.jpg)
Beatriz Gonzalez and Jose Hernandez, the
mother and stepfather of Nohemi Gonzalez who was fatally shot in the
2015 Paris attacks, stand outside the U.S. Supreme Court after
justices heard arguments in Gonzalez v. Google in Washington, U.S.,
February 21, 2023 REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2015/May/02/images/ads/current/guzzardo_lda022609.png)
The justices wondered whether YouTube should lose immunity if the
algorithms that provide recommendations are "neutral" or used to
organize content based on users' interests.
"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, using
initials for the Islamic State group.
Justice Samuel Alito asked Lisa Blatt, the lawyer representing
Google: "Would Google collapse and the internet be destroyed if
YouTube, and therefore Google, were potentially liable for hosting
and refusing to take down videos that it knows are defamatory and
false?"
Blatt responded, "Well, I don't think Google would. I think probably
every other website might be because they're not as big as Google."
The justices struggled with where to draw the line in potentially
eroding Section 230 protections.
Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether Section
230 should apply given that recommendations are provided by YouTube
itself.
"The videos just don't appear out of thin air, they appear pursuant
to the algorithms," Roberts said.
Kagan wondered about a website delivering defamatory content to
millions of its users.
"Why should there be protection for that?" Kagan asked.
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2023/Feb/22/images/ads/current/graue_lda_ENCOREpreowned_020723.jpg)
Section 230 protects "interactive computer services" by ensuring
they cannot be treated as the "publisher or speaker" of information
provided by users.
Critics have said Section 230 too often prevents platforms from
being held accountable for real-world harms. Liberals have
complained of misinformation and hate speech on social media while
conservatives have said voices on the right are censored.
President Joe Biden's administration urged the Supreme Court to
revive the lawsuit by Nohemi Gonzalez's family.
A ruling is due by the end of June.
The justices on Wednesday will hear arguments in a related case over
whether Twitter Inc can be held liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act
for aiding and abetting an "act of international terrorism" by
allegedly failing to adequately screen its platform for the presence
of militant groups.
(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)
[© 2023 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |