- The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in a case that could alter the force of a key law the tech industry says has been critical to keeping the internet an open and free-flowing place.
- In Gonzalez v. Google, the family of an American killed in a 2015 terrorist attack in Paris argued Google and its subsidiary YouTube did not do enough to remove or stop promoting ISIS terrorist videos seeking to recruit members, allegedly violating the Anti-Terrorism Act.
- In the lower courts, Google won on the basis that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields it from liability for what its users post on its platform, but now that shield is at stake.
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Tuesday in a potentially groundbreaking case with the potential to alter the force of a key law the tech industry says has been critical to keeping the internet an open place that fosters free speech.
That case is known as Gonzalez v. Google, brought by the family of an American who died in a 2015 terrorist attack in Paris. The petitioners argued that Google and its subsidiary YouTube did not do enough to remove or stop promoting ISIS terrorist videos seeking to recruit members, which they argue is a violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act. In the lower courts, Google won on the basis that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields it from liability for what its users post on its platform.
Now that shield is at stake as the petitioners argue it should not apply where Google actively promotes user-generated content, such as through its recommendation algorithms.
Many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle would likely cheer a narrowing of Section 230, which has been under fire in Washington for years for reasons ranging from the belief it fuels alleged internet censorship to the conviction that it protects tech companies that do little to stop hate speech and misinformation on their platforms.
But tech platforms and many free speech experts warn that changing Section 230 will have broad implications for how the internet operates, incentivizing popular services to limit or slow down user posting to avoid being held liable for what they say.
"Without Section 230, some websites would be forced to overblock, filtering content that could create any potential legal risk, and might shut down some services altogether," Google's general counsel, Halimah DeLaine Prado, wrote in a January blog post summarizing the company's stance. "That would leave consumers with less choice to engage on the internet and less opportunity to work, play, learn, shop, create, and participate in the exchange of ideas online."
Money Report
Justice Clarence Thomas has previously written that the court should take up a case around Section 230, suggesting it's been applied too broadly and that internet platforms should perhaps instead be regulated more like utilities due to their widespread use in sharing information.
The Supreme Court will also hear a separate tech case Wednesday that could have implications for how platforms promote and remove speech on their sites. In Twitter v. Taamneh, the court will consider whether Twitter can be held accountable under the Anti-Terrorism Act for not removing terrorist content from its platform.
Get a weekly recap of the latest San Francisco Bay Area housing news. >Sign up for NBC Bay Area’s Housing Deconstructed newsletter.
