Friday, March 29, 2024
HomeSECURITYU.S. Supreme Court dismisses terrorism lawsuit against YouTube and Twitter

U.S. Supreme Court dismisses terrorism lawsuit against YouTube and Twitter

-


U.S. Supreme Court dismisses terrorism lawsuit against YouTube and Twitter

The court argues that the algorithms of YouTube and Twitter did not contribute to the activities of the terrorists.

United States Supreme Court refused consider reinterpreting section 230 of the founding internet law in connection with the terrorism-related case of Gonzalez v. Google. The decision was taken in conjunction with the separate but related decision in Twitter* v. Taamneh, where the court found that Twitter did not help or incite terrorism.

The court said the underlying arguments in the Gonzalez case were weak, regardless of the applicability of section 230. In the Gonzalez case, the family of the woman killed in the attack filed a lawsuit against Google, alleging that the company had broken the law by recommending terrorist content on YouTube. They were trying to hold Google accountable under anti-terrorism laws.

The court dismissed the complaint largely because of the unanimous decision in Twitter* v. Taamne – as with Gonzalez, the family argued that Twitter knowingly supported the terrorists by not deleting their posts before the attack.

However, Judge Clarence Thomas’ ruling said the claims were “not sufficient to establish that these defendants aided and abetted” the terrorists in the attack. Thomas said that Twitter’s inability to control terrorist content does not mean the company is meaningfully involved in illegal activity.

Thomas noted that if liability for aiding and abetting were too broad, then ordinary companies could be liable for any misuse of their products and services.

The judge compared social platforms to other forms of communication and stated that bad actors can use various means of communication for illegal and terrible purposes, but this does not mean that Internet or cellular service providers are responsible for providing their services to society.

According to the plaintiffs of the Gonzalez family, their claim is based on “providing by the defendants the infrastructure that provides material support to ISIS” (the organization has been recognized as a terrorist organization and banned in the Russian Federation).

The court concluded that the algorithms are independent of the nature of the content, and the fact that these algorithms have matched some ISIS content with some users does not turn defendants’ passive assistance into active incitement. The court did not see any further actions in support of ISIS in Google’s activities.

The decision was highly appreciated by civil liberties activists. Civil liberties advocates argue that an online service cannot be held responsible for terrorist attacks just because its services are commonly used by terrorist organizations.

Today’s rulings probably won’t be the last word on the legal status of Internet services – the court has previously shown interest in several cases involving laws prohibiting online moderation in Texas and Florida.


Section 230 is part of the basic Internet law in the United States, known as the Communications Decency Act. It was adopted in 1996 and contains rules that govern the responsibility of platforms for user-generated content.


Basically, section 230 says that platforms are not legally responsible for user-generated content. For example, if a user posts something offensive or illegal on a platform, the user is responsible for it, not the platform that posted the insult.


Section 230 also shields platforms from liability for a decision to remove or restrict access to certain content. This gives platforms the freedom to shape content moderation rules and policies without worrying about potential lawsuits.


The main idea of ​​section 230 is to allow platforms to be open to a variety of opinions and content without holding them responsible for every single statement or post by users.


* The social network is prohibited on the territory of the Russian Federation





Source link

www.securitylab.ru

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular