The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments this week in two cases covering Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a decades-old statute shielding tech companies from being held liable for online content posted and shared by users.
Depending on the outcome, the ruling could transform the internet as it exists today, changing how platforms moderate content and hate speech.
- The cases stem from two lawsuits filed by the families of terrorist attack victims, who argue that tech platforms such as Google should be held legally responsible for the harmful online content recommended by their algorithms.
- Oral arguments in the first case, Gonzalez v Google, are being heard by the Supreme Court as of this morning.
- The lawsuit in the case was filed by family members of 23-year-old Nohemi Gonzalez, a college exchange student killed by Islamic State gunmen during the November 2015 Paris attacks.
- The family makes the case that YouTube, Google's video-sharing platform, should be held liable for recommending ISIS terrorism videos.
- The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in the second case, Twitter v. Taamneh, on Wednesday. The lawsuit makes similar allegations against Twitter, Facebook, and Google.
- The cases mark the first time that the Supreme Court will consider the legality and scope of Section 230.
- The provision, passed in 1996, has been called the “twenty-six words that created the internet.”
- The law protects tech platforms from lawsuits over their decisions to both allow and take down online content.
- While lower courts have generally favored tech companies over the matter, Supreme Court justices may take a different approach. They could narrow the scope of Section 230, or even strip the legal protections altogether.
