US Supreme Court leaves protections for internet companies unscathed
Send a link to a friend
[May 19, 2023]
By Andrew Chung
(Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court handed internet and social media
companies a pair of victories on Thursday, leaving legal protections for
them unscathed and refusing to clear a path for victims of attacks by
militant groups to sue these businesses under an anti-terrorism law.
The justices in a case involving Google LLC's video-sharing platform
YouTube, both part of Alphabet Inc, sidestepped making a ruling on a bid
to weaken a federal law called Section 230 of the Communications Decency
Act that safeguards internet companies from lawsuits for content posted
by users.
They also shielded Twitter Inc in a separate case from litigation
seeking to apply a federal law called the Anti-Terrorism Act that
enables Americans to recover damages related to "an act of international
terrorism."
In both cases, families of people killed by Islamist gunmen overseas had
sued to try to hold internet companies liable because of the presence of
militant groups on their platforms or for recommending their content.
The justices in a 9-0 decision reversed a lower court's ruling that had
revived a lawsuit against Twitter by the American relatives of Nawras
Alassaf, a Jordanian man killed in a 2017 attack during New Year's
celebration in a Istanbul nightclub claimed by the Islamic State
militant group.
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2023/May/19/images/ads/current/powell_sda_PROMGRAD_2023.png)
In the case involving YouTube, the justices returned to a lower court a
lawsuit by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a college student from
California who was fatally shot in an Islamic State attack in Paris in
2015. The justices declined to address the scope of Section 230,
concluding they did not need to take that step because the family's
claims appeared likely to fail given the Twitter case decision.
Section 230 provides safeguards for "interactive computer services" by
ensuring they cannot be treated for legal purposes as the "publisher or
speaker" of information provided by users.
Calls have come from across the ideological and political spectrum -
including Democratic President Joe Biden and his Republican predecessor
Donald Trump - for a rethink of Section 230 to ensure that companies can
be held accountable for content on their platforms. This case marked the
first time the Supreme Court had examined Section 230's reach.
'SAFEGUARD FREE EXPRESSION'
"Countless companies, scholars, content creators and civil society
organizations who joined with us in this case will be reassured by this
result," said Google General Counsel Halimah DeLaine Prado. "We'll
continue our work to safeguard free expression online, combat harmful
content and support businesses and creators who benefit from the
internet."
Critics have said Section 230 too often prevents platforms from being
held accountable for real-world harms. Many liberals have condemned
misinformation and hate speech on social media. Many conservatives have
said voices on the right are censored by social media companies under
the guise of content moderation.
[to top of second column]
|
![](../images/051923PIX/news_y10.jpg)
Visitors take photos in front of the
U.S. Supreme Court, where today, written opinions in pending, argued
cases, are expected to be issued, in Washington, U.S., May 18, 2023
REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2017/Jul/22/images/ads/current/rohlfs_lda_072017.png)
The massacre at Istanbul's Reina nightclub killed Alassaf and 38
others. His relatives accused Twitter of aiding and abetting the
Islamic State by failing to police the platform for the group's
accounts or posts in violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act.
Gonzalez's family argued that YouTube provided unlawful assistance
to the Islamic State by recommending the group's content to users.
In their brief ruling, the justices wrote that they "decline to
address the application of (Section 230) to a complaint that appears
to state little, if any, plausible claim for relief."
"Even with the best moderation systems available, a service like
Twitter alone cannot screen every single piece of user-generated
content with 100% accuracy. Imposing liability on such services for
harmful content that unintentionally falls through the crack would
have disincentivized them from hosting any user-generated content,"
said Chris Marchese, an attorney with NetChoice, a technology
industry group that counts Twitter, Meta Platforms Inc and Google as
members.
The Twitter case hinged on whether the family's claims sufficiently
alleged that the company knowingly provided "substantial assistance"
to an "act of international terrorism" that would allow the
relatives to maintain their suit and seek damages under the
anti-terrorism law.
After a judge dismissed the lawsuit, the San Francisco-based 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed it to proceed, concluding that
Twitter had refused to take "meaningful steps" to prevent Islamic
State's use of the platform.
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who authored the Supreme
Court's ruling, said the allegations made by the plaintiffs were
insufficient because they "point to no act of encouraging,
soliciting or advising the commission" of the attack.
"These allegations are thus a far cry from the type of pervasive,
systemic and culpable assistance to a series of terrorist activities
that could be described as aiding and abetting each terrorist act,"
Thomas added.
In the Twitter case, the 9th Circuit did not consider whether
Section 230 barred the family's lawsuit. Google and Facebook, also
defendants, did not formally join Twitter's appeal.
(Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; 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.
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2023/May/19/images/ads/current/hartsburggrain_sda_PROMGRAD_2023.png) |