US Supreme Court to hear cases challenging tech firm immunity

US Supreme Court to hear cases challenging tech firm immunity

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear cases challenging the legal immunity of internet companies from liability for user-generated content
The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear cases challenging the legal immunity of internet companies from liability for user-generated content. Photo: Anna Moneymaker / GETTY IMAGES/Getty Images via AFP
Source: AFP

PAY ATTENTION: Сheck out news that is picked exactly for YOU ➡️ find “Recommended for you” block on the home page and enjoy!

The US Supreme Court, in a decision with potentially far-reaching ramifications, agreed on Monday to hear two cases challenging the legal immunity of internet companies from liability for content posted by their users.

One of the cases accepted by the court was filed by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old American who was one of the 130 people killed in the November 2015 Islamic State attacks in Paris.

The complaint alleges that Google violated the US Anti-Terrorism Act by recommending IS videos that incited violence on Google-owned YouTube.

"Google's services have played a uniquely essential role in the development of IS's image, its success in recruiting members from around the world, and its ability to carry out attacks," according to the complaint.

Read also

Taiwan launches first English TV channel as China pressure grows

Under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, social media companies such as Google, Facebook and Twitter are not considered to be publishers and are not legally liable for content posted by their users.

A lower court ruled in the Gonzalez case that Google enjoyed legal protection under Section 230, which its backers claim is essential to protecting freedom of expression on the internet.

PAY ATTENTION: Enjoy reading our stories? Join YEN.com.gh's Telegram channel for more!

Section 230 has come under attack, however, from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, with the left claiming tech companies are promoting far-right hate speech and the right alleging it allows the firms censor conservative voices.

Among those who have been critical of Section 230 is former Republican president Donald Trump, who was banned from both Twitter and Facebook after the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol by his supporters.

The other related case accepted by the Supreme Court involves a lawsuit accusing Twitter of abetting terrorism in which a lower court declined to rule whether the messaging service enjoys a legal shield under Section 230.

Source: AFP

Authors:
AFP avatar

AFP AFP text, photo, graphic, audio or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. AFP news material may not be stored in whole or in part in a computer or otherwise except for personal and non-commercial use. AFP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions in any AFP news material or in transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages whatsoever. As a newswire service, AFP does not obtain releases from subjects, individuals, groups or entities contained in its photographs, videos, graphics or quoted in its texts. Further, no clearance is obtained from the owners of any trademarks or copyrighted materials whose marks and materials are included in AFP material. Therefore you will be solely responsible for obtaining any and all necessary releases from whatever individuals and/or entities necessary for any uses of AFP material.