On Thursday, January 12, the Supreme Court case Gonzalez v. Google gained fresh media attention after Google filed a defense brief to the Supreme Court. The family of Nohemi Gomez, who was killed in a terrorist attack in France in 2015, alleges that YouTube (which is owned by Google) allowed for terrorist organization Islamic State to gain members via the promotion of terrorist content by YouTube's recommendation algorithm. Google claims that it's protected by Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act of 1996, although the Supreme Court may potentially overturn or alter this section of the act.
Section 230 states that companies aren't liable for any content posted on their websites by third-parties, similar to how phone companies aren't liable for conversations that people have through their phone lines. Section 230 has given internet companies an enormous amount of protection from lawsuits, although with social media having exploded in popularity in recent years, the internet has changed significantly since 1996. Large amounts of misinformation, hate speech, and other harmful content has been posted on these platforms, and many are beginning to question whether Section 230 should be altered or completely removed.
Dislike for Section 230 seems to be one of the few things Democrats and Republicans can agree on, although for very different reasons. Democrats argue that Section 230 protects misinformation and hate speech posted on online platforms, and that holding tech companies legally responsible for such content would help to decrease the presence of such harmful content. Republicans, however, argue that the lack of guarantees for free speech in Section 230 gives companies a free-pass to censor whatever they deem harmful (which Republicans claim is often done with anti-conservative biases). On Wednesday, President Biden tried to harness this bipartisan dissatisfaction with Section 230 and called for its reform in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.
Online companies are terrified at the prospect of losing this liability shield, and proponents of Section 230 have claimed that it's a necessary protection that will prevent internet companies from having to greatly rework the way they operate. Google stated in it's defense brief that greatly altering or abolishing Section 230 would "upend the internet" and could lead to increases in content moderation if companies fear getting sued and remove anything that anyone objects to. However, Google claims it could also cause increases in harmful speech if companies decide to remove all content filters, allowing them to ignore third-party content posted on platforms.
The Supreme Court accepted the case on October 3, 2022, and is scheduled to hear oral arguments on February 21st, where attorneys from both sides will have 30 minutes to argue their cases. The Supreme Court has never had a case on Section 230 before, and thus no judicial precedent exists for it. If the court overturns or greatly alters Section 230, it will have significant implications for online platforms and how they operate.
Sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/01/12/biden-calls-changing-big-tech-moderation-rules-not-how/
https://fortune.com/2023/01/04/what-is-section-230-social-media-tech-regulation-3-way-could-change-twitter-facebook/
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3811161-google-warns-supreme-court-against-gutting-controversial-tech-provision/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/01/11/biden-urges-bipartisan-legislation-to-rein-in-big-tech-companies-as-gop-targets-president-in-tech-probes/?sh=78f250882efd
Image source: https://www.cumanagement.com/articles/2022/08/compliance-what-supreme-courts-administrative-state-decision-means-credit-unions
4 comments:
The Supreme Court case Gonzalez v. Google centers around the question of whether Google is protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 which is significant because it addresses the issue of internet companies' liability for content posted on their platforms by third parties. The outcome of the case could have significant implications for how online platforms operate and the extent to which they are held responsible for the content on their platforms. The case is also important because it highlights the ways in which the internet has changed since 1996 and the harms that have emerged as a result, such as the proliferation of misinformation and hate speech. Critics argue that holding online platforms liable would lead to increased content moderation and censorship, and could lead to a decrease in free speech.
To add to what Truman said, Gonzalez v Google is only one of several cases regarding Section 230 that is being brought up right now. A similar case Twitter Inc vs. Taamneh is also being heard, and depending on the ruling, it could affect how platforms operate. In addition, Meta pointed out that if changes are to be made to Section 230, they need to come from Congress rather than the court because content and putting out content is part of their job. Not only is other media companies arguing for the court to not make a decision on Section 230, but the tech industry, Center for Democracy and Technology, Computer and Communication Industry Association, and Chamber of Press are also fighting and filing briefs. There are a lot of people who could be impacted by the decision that the supreme court can make, and companies would have to remove more content than they do now.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/10/03/supreme-court-to-consider-whether-tech-companies-like-google-facebook-can-be-held-liable-for-content-recommendations/?sh=758d70c83c5c
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3820315-meta-twitter-urge-supreme-court-to-keep-controversial-tech-protection-in-place/https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3820315-meta-twitter-urge-supreme-court-to-keep-controversial-tech-protection-in-place/
What are the roles of internet companies and how much responsibility should they hold for the content posted on their platforms? There has been much debate about Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act of 1996. Some argue that Section 230 should be reformed or removed in order to hold internet companies accountable for harmful content posted on their platforms. Others argue that Section 230 is necessary to protect internet companies from overly restrictive rules and regulations and to protect free speech. Accoridng to CNN, a wide range of businesses, internet users, academics and human rights experts have defended Big Tech's liability shield. The companies, organizations and individuals have said that Section 230 is vital to the basic function of the web. A ruling enabling litigation against tech-industry algorithms could lead to future lawsuits against even non-algorithmic forms of recommendation and potentially targeted lawsuits against individual internet users.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/20/tech/meta-microsoft-google-supreme-court-tech-algorithms/index.html
Very similar to other free speech discussions we've had on this blog, the issue really comes down to whether or not speech should be regulated, and if so how? With such a polarized government who can really be the one to decide what exactly is hate speech that results in harm. At this point in time, no one would be able to agree to leave us with Section 230 and 2 absolutes of allowing free speech or none at all. While terrorism and blatant violence against certain groups can easily be labeled as hate speech and can be taken down, much more controversial issues can be interpreted in multiple ways. Removing Section 230 could make social media and other large tech companies act more accountable for their censorship, but this could come at the cost of less free internet space.
Post a Comment