Could the Supreme Court Destroy Social Media Before July 1? Awaiting the Section 230 Decision

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling before the end of June on two related cases both of which challenge the right of social media sites to publish content that is considered to aid and abet international terrorist groups However recognizing the conservative court39s views it39s possible the decisions may extend beyond the narrow scope of the two cases to fully end Section 230 and open Twitter TikTok YouTube Facebook and other social media to far greater legal liability for content published by usersSection 230 was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 a law that regulated online pornography It was introduced by Sen Ron Wyden and former Rep Chris Cox to protect tech companies from becoming legally liable for their users39 content if they opted to moderate it by treating them as distributors rather than publishersThe cases before the Court are Gonzalez vs Google and Twitter vs Taamneh As reported by Oyez quotNohemi Gonzalez a US citizen was killed by a terrorist attack in Paris France in 2015 The day afterwards the foreign terrorist organization ISIS claimed responsibility by issuing a written statement and releasing a YouTube video Gonzalez39s father filed an action against Google Twitter and Facebook claiming among other things that Google aided and abetted international terrorism by allowing ISIS to use its platform specifically YouTube quotto recruit members plan terrorist attacks issue terrorist threats instill fear and intimidate civilian populationsquot Specifically the complaint alleged that because Google uses computer algorithms that suggest content to users based on their viewing history it assists ISIS in spreading its message Gonzalez claimed that all three platforms were also liable for aiding and abetting international terrorism by failing to take meaningful or aggressive action to prevent terrorists from using its services even though they did not play an active role in the specific act of international terrorism that actually injured Gonzalez The district court granted Google39s motion to dismiss the claim based on Section 230 and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmedquotThe question to the Supreme Court on appeal is quotDoes Section 230c1 of the Communications Decency Act immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content providerquotPlatforms such as social media sites discussion forums and online marketplaces are generally not held liable for usergenerated content including defamatory obscene or harmful content The law also allows these platforms to moderate and remove content they find objectionable without being held liable for content that remains on their platform This provision has been crucial for the growth and development of the internet as we know it today allowing for the creation of usergenerated content platforms and promoting free speech onlineHowever there have been growing calls to repeal or amend Section 230 in recent years particularly over concerns that it allows online platforms to avoid responsibility for harmful content such as hate speech disinformation and illegal activities Some politicians and advocacy groups have argued that Section 230 enables platforms to neglect their duty to moderate content and protect users from harmful online behaviorIf Section 230 were to be repealed or significantly amended online platforms would likely face greater legal liability for usergenerated content which could lead to increased costs and reduced innovation in the tech industry It could also result in platforms overcensoring content to avoid legal liability potentially limiting free speech onlineHere39s what Wikipedia says about Section 230quotNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content providerquotSection 230c2 further provides quotGood Samaritanquot protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the good faith removal or moderation of thirdparty material they deem quotobscene lewd lascivious filthy excessively violent harassing or otherwise objectionable whether or not such material is constitutionally protectedquotquotSection 230 was developed in response to a pair of lawsuits against online discussion platforms in the early 1990s that resulted in different interpretations of whether the service providers should be treated as publishers or alternatively as distributors of content created by their users Its authors Representatives Christopher Cox and Ron Wyden believed interactive computer services should be treated as distributors not liable for the content they distributed as a means to protect the growing Internet at the timequotSection 230 was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act CDA of 1996 a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 formally codified as part of the Communications Act of 1934 at 47 USC amp167 230 After passage of the Telecommunications Act the CDA was challenged in courts and was ruled by the Supreme Court in Reno v American Civil Liberties Union 1997 to be unconstitutional though Section 230 was determined to be severable from the rest of the legislation and remained in place Since then several legal challenges have validated the constitutionality of Section 230The repeal or amendment of Section 230 will have farreaching implications for the Internet and online platforms

Click to Make Your 2025 Contribution to Support the MediaVillage Education Foundation

Could the Supreme Court Destroy Social Media Before July 1? Awaiting the Section 230 Decision

Author

Publish date

Channel

Jack Myers

Jim Lecinski | Clinical Marketing Professor | The Insomnia Cookies Case - The GOST Model Taught at Northwestern - By Mike Linton

More Videos:

Click to Make Your 2025 Contribution to Support the MediaVillage Education Foundation

Could the Supreme Court Destroy Social Media Before July 1? Awaiting the Section 230 Decision

Enjoying This Commentary? There's More to Love

Jack Myers

TAGS:

Jim Lecinski | Clinical Marketing Professor | The Insomnia Cookies Case - The GOST Model Taught at Northwestern - By Mike Linton

The payment was successful

Cookies