Section 230 and the Supreme Court

By: Grace Truslow

 

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 created a distinction between publishers of information and social media companies. Under Section 230, social media companies are passive hosts of information, protecting them from liability on the substance of content hosted by their sites. Last week, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in Gonzalez v. Google LLC and Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh that could potentially change the future of Section 230 and the existing flexibility that social media companies are granted in content moderation and recommendation algorithms. While Section 230 provides social media platforms a level of immunity but also incentivizes removal and moderation of material that is excessively violent or lewd. These cases challenge the idea that social media platforms are passive hosts of information and assert that through recommendation algorithms these platforms aided and abetted terrorism.

In Gonzalez v. Google LLC, the plaintiffs are family members of Nohemi Gonzalez, an American studying abroad and killed in the 2015 ISIS terrorist attacks in Paris. They are suing Google, the owner of YouTube, under the Anti-Terrorism Act, arguing that in a contemporary landscape where companies make money off of advertising rather than subscriptions as in 1996, platforms are incentivized to keep users online longer through recommending similar content, including in the instance of terrorist propaganda. Google has denied wrongdoing and pointed its investments in content moderation in combating extremism online. The decision that the Court comes to could maintain the status quo, place platforms under greater legal scrutiny, or “break the internet” in its current form through a repeal of 230. Some briefs such as from the ACLU filed advocate for leaving Section 230 in place in the libertarian interest of maintaining the internet as a place for decentralized flows of information. Social media companies have advocated for the maintenance of recommendation algorithms for the purpose of the personalized user experience. Reformists for Section 230 would like to see a reduction in liability protections for dangerous content that is promoted by algorithms. While the overturning of Section 230 is very unlikely, these cases will prompt conversations about the relationships between algorithms and liability, free spread of information and content moderation, and statutory and self-regulation.

 

 

Sources:

Barnes, R., Lima, C., & Oremus, W. (2023, February 22). Supreme Court seems cautious on Google case that could reshape internet. The Washington Post. Retrieved February 27, 2023, fromhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/21/google-supreme-court-gonzales-isis/

Department of Justice's review of Section 230 of the communications decency act of 1996. The United States Department of Justice. (2021, January 20). Retrieved February 27, 2023, from https://www.justice.gov/archives/ag/department-justice-s-review-section-230-communications -decency-act-1996

Granick, J. S. (2023, February 24). Is this the end of the internet as we know it?: ACLU. American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved February 27, 2023, from https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/section-230-is-this-the-end-of-the-internet-as-we-kno w-it

Ryan-Mosley, T. (2023, February 24). Four ways the Supreme Court could reshape the web. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved February 27, 2023, from https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/02/27/1069146/four-ways-supreme-court-reshape-w eb-section-230-gonzalez-taamneh/

Totenberg, N. (2023, February 21). Supreme Court showdown for google, Twitter and the Social Media World. NPR. Retrieved February 27, 2023, from https://www.npr.org/2023/02/21/1157683233/supreme-court-google-twitter-section-230

Wheeler, T. (2023, February 2). The Supreme Court takes up Section 230. Brookings. Retrieved February 27, 2023, from

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2023/01/31/the-supreme-court-takes-up-section-230 /

Image Source:

https://www.thewrap.com/supreme-court-scotus-section-230-congress-political/

Previous
Previous

The Philosophy of Prisoner's Rights Retention

Next
Next

Mexico and Potential Electoral Law Reforms