Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Big Tech, Declines to Address Section 230
The Supreme Court declined to address Section 230 and unanimously ruled in Google and Twitter’s favor in a pair of closely-watched cases on Thursday.
The Details: In both cases, family members of victims of ISIS attacks sued the tech giants for allowing ISIS content on their platforms, which allegedly contributed to the attacks. While both sued under the Anti-Terrorism Act, the Google case also asked whether the tech giant was protected under Section 230, the law that says internet platforms are not liable for content others post on their sites.
Key Quotes: Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas argued Twitter was not liable because plaintiffs had “failed to allege that defendants intentionally provided any substantial aid” or “otherwise consciously participated” in a 2017 ISIS attack in Istanbul, Turkey. On the Google case, the court issued a similar ruling and sidestepped the question of Section 230, saying, “We therefore decline to address the application of §230 to a complaint that appears to state little, if any, plausible claim for relief.”
How the Media Covered It: Headlines across the spectrum framed the rulings differently — such as letting Twitter off the hook or sidestepping Section 230 — giving slightly different impressions of the court’s relationship to the tech companies and the law. While Fox Business (Lean Right bias) highlighted “many conservatives arguing that [Section 230] needs to amended,” The New York Times (Lean Left bias) highlighted “a growing group of bipartisan lawmakers, academics and activists” concerned about “disinformation, discrimination and violent content” on tech platforms.
Featured Coverage of this Story
From the RightSupreme Court rules for social media giants in cases over third-party content, declines to address Section 230
The Supreme Court on Thursday handed big tech companies, including Google and Twitter, legal wins in a pair of lawsuits alleging that the companies should be liable for ISIS attacks because of content the terror organization promoted using their platforms.
The companies were sued separately by the families of the victims. In the case against Twitter, Justice Clarence Thomas authored a unanimous opinion saying that the families did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the companies should be held liable for aiding and abetting.
"Defendants allegedly knew that ISIS was...
From the LeftIn win for Google, Supreme Court sidesteps question some feared could break the internet
The Supreme Court on Thursday dodged a thorny debate over whether Big Tech companies such as Google can be sued for their recommendations in a case some experts warned could fundamentally change the way the internet works.
At issue in Gonzalez v. Google was a controversial law known as Section 230, which has been widely interpreted as shielding websites from lawsuits for user-generated content. The question for the court was whether recommendations – such as a suggestion for the next video to watch on YouTube – are covered under that law. By leaving Section 230 in place, the court handed the...
From the CenterSupreme Court hands Twitter, Google wins in internet liability cases
The Supreme Court on Thursday punted the issue of determining when internet companies are protected under a controversial liability shield, instead resolving the case on other grounds.
The justices were considering two lawsuits in which families of terrorist attack victims said Google and Twitter should be held liable for aiding and abetting ISIS, leading to their relatives’ deaths.
Google asserted that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, enacted in 1996 to prevent internet companies from being held liable for content posted by third parties, protected the company from all...