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

By The Media Ecologist Archives
Cover image for  article: Could the Supreme Court Destroy Social Media Before July 1? Awaiting the Section 230 Decision

The Supreme Court may soon radically alter the rights of social media and the economics of political advertising by ending section 230 protections. Section 230 is a federal law that provides immunity for website platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube from legal liability for online information provided by third parties. It also protects web hosts from liability for editing or restricting access to objectionable material whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.

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 court's views, it's 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 users.

Section 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 users' content if they opted to moderate it by treating them as distributors rather than publishers.

The cases before the Court are Gonzalez vs. Google and Twitter vs. Taamneh. As reported by Oyez, "Nohemi Gonzalez, a U.S. 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. Gonzalez's 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 -- "to recruit members, plan terrorist attacks, issue terrorist threats, instill fear and intimidate civilian populations." 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 Google's motion to dismiss the claim based on Section 230, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed."

The question to the Supreme Court, on appeal, is, "Does Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider?"

Platforms such as social media sites, discussion forums and online marketplaces are generally not held liable for user-generated 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 user-generated content platforms and promoting free speech online.

However, 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 behavior.

If Section 230 were to be repealed or significantly amended, online platforms would likely face greater legal liability for user-generated content, which could lead to increased costs and reduced innovation in the tech industry. It could also result in platforms over-censoring content to avoid legal liability, potentially limiting free speech online.

Here's what Wikipedia says about Section 230:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

"Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the good faith removal or moderation of third-party material they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."

"Section 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 time.

"Section 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 U.S.C. § 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 230.

The repeal or amendment of Section 230 will have far-reaching implications for the Internet and online platforms.

Copyright ©2024 MediaVillage, Inc. All rights reserved. By using this site you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.