The Supreme Court on Thursday sidestepped a ruling on the legal shield that protects internet companies from lawsuits relating to content posted by users. In a case concerning allegations that YouTube was liable for suggesting videos promoting violent militant Islam, the court ruled that such claims could not be brought in the first place under a federal law called the Anti-Terrorism Act. The Supreme Court sent both cases back to lower courts for further consideration.
The lawsuit accuses YouTube of bearing some responsibility for the killing of Nohemi Gonzalez, an American college student, in the 2015 Paris attacks carried out by the Islamic State terrorist group. A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit, and a San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision in June 2021.
President Joe Biden and some Republican critics agree on why and how reform should be done but are yet to reach consensus on what changes will take place.
Google asserted that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, enacted in 1996, protected their company from all claims raised against them regarding user-generated content. However, after deliberating over two lawsuits against Google and Twitter—both brought by families of terrorist attack victims—the court found neither company had any underlying liability needing protection under this statute.
In response to The Hill's request for comment from Google and Twitter following these rulings, both companies have remained silent thus far.
By avoiding direct questions about Section 230's scope through deciding these cases based upon other grounds—and ultimately sending them back down to lower courts—the justices leave tech industry leaders questioning their future liability status when it comes down to user-posted content online.
Continuing with this trend towards safeguarding social media platforms' immunity from potential litigation related specifically toward content posted by users themselves via decades-old legislation like Section 230 is seen as a victory among those within Silicon Valley circles.
However, the unanimous decision in Twitter v. Taamneh cast doubt over whether this protection will last indefinitely; by ruling that a different law—one allowing suits for "knowingly providing substantial assistance" to terrorists—generally did not apply to tech platforms in the first place, the Supreme Court has left open questions about where liability might lie moving forward.
Nohemi Gonzalez's family is expected to continue their legal fight against Google and YouTube parent company Alphabet Inc., as they seek justice for her tragic death amidst ongoing debates surrounding internet companies' responsibilities when it comes down to user-generated content online.