The logjam has been made worse by partisanship. Republicans, including some who accuse Facebook, Twitter, or other sites of censoring themThe platforms have been pressured to make more content available. Democrats, on the other hand, have demanded that platforms remove more content like misinformation about health.
Many ripple effects are likely to result from the Supreme Court’s challenge of Section 230 under the Communications Decency Act. Newspapers and magazines can be sued for publishing content, but Section 230 protects online platforms against lawsuits. It also protects platforms when they take down content.
Judges used the law to dismiss claims against Facebook and YouTube for years. It ensured that companies did not become legally liable with every status update and post. Critics claim that the law is a Get Out of Jail Free card designed for tech giants.
“If they don’t have any liability at the back end for any of the harms that are facilitated, they have basically a mandate to be as reckless as possible,” said Mary Anne Franks, a University of Miami law professor.
The Supreme Court has previously refused to hear numerous cases challenging the statute. The court rejected a lawsuit filed by the families of terrorist victims claiming that Facebook had promoted extremist content in 2020. A man claiming that his ex-boyfriend harassed him via Grindr, was denied a hearing by the court in 2019. A man sued Grindr, claiming that the app was flawed.
The court will hear Gonzalez v. Google on February 21. This case was brought to the court by the family of an American who was killed in Paris by Islamic State followers. In its lawsuit, the family argued that Section 230 should not protect YouTube from the claim YouTube supported terrorism through its recommendation of Islamic State videos to users. According to the suit, recommendations are considered content that is produced by YouTube and therefore can be included in Section 230.
Twitter v. Taamneh will be considered by the court a day later. It also addresses the question of when platforms are legally liable for supporting terrorist activities under federal law.
Source link
[Denial of responsibility! smye-holland.com is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – at smye-holland.com The content will be deleted within 24 hours.]
