SCOTUS Weighs Tech Liability in Blockbuster Internet Speech Case

In a major case before the Supreme Court, the liability of social media companies for the postings of third-party users is in question. Photo by Ocko Geserick on Pexels.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in late February in a blockbuster online speech case with the potential to reshape the internet. 

Gonzalez v. Google could subject social media platforms to liability if the Court moves to scrap a longstanding federal law providing immunity to websites from suits based on their users' posts. 

A victim's family of the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks brought the suit against Google, alleging their algorithm promoted ISIS recruitment videos and is legally responsible for the ISIS-led deadly attacks against Americans. Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old American study abroad student, was among the 130 people killed in a series of terrorist attacks throughout the city of Paris in November 2015. 

Gonzalez’s father, Reynaldo, sued Google, Facebook and Twitter in 2016 for pushing radical content that he believed encouraged people to become terrorists. Reynaldo argued that these platforms were spreading propaganda, messages from Islamic State’s leaders and videos of “graphic violence.” He believes that the companies did not do enough to keep the terrorist group off their sites, and enabled people to join ISIS. 

Gonzalez v. Google is targeting the federal law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields sites from lawsuits over content posted by third-party users.

This law protects companies from being held liable for offensive, libelous or graphic content that is posted on their platform. Section 230 clearly denotes that when third-party content is in question, the company is not liable for it, no matter how they promote it to their users. 

Gonzalez’s attorney argued that this instance constituted Google’s “aiding and abetting in the promotion and recruitment efforts of these terrorist organizations.” 

Gonzalez’s lawyers are seeking to narrow Section 230 on the grounds that it allows social media algorithms to promote harmful content, and the culpability shield “denies victims an opportunity to seek redress from injury or even death.”

In examining Section 230, the Court has the potential to sharply curtail the legal protections awarded to tech companies. If they rule in favor of the plaintiffs, online platforms and social media will have to reconstruct the way they operate to avoid being held liable. Such a ruling would reshape the internet, as companies would likely move to implement censorship to avoid potential lawsuits. 

The Feb. 21 oral arguments focused on internet algorithms and the use of thumbnails. Jurors and justices discussed if introducing liability to algorithms would link Google to promoting terrorist content, even if it was directly related to a person's search query. 

Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart stated how, though this law protects YouTube for allowing ISIS-affiliated videos on their platform, recommending that content through their own algorithm should be analyzed differently, “without blanket immunity.”

Yet, many justices are worried that if they restrict or narrow Section 230, it will lead to numerous other lawsuits. Justice Elena Kagan said, “You are creating a world of lawsuits.”

“Lawsuits will be nonstop,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh also remarked.

The other part justices are looking at, is how narrowing Section 230 would affect the individual user.  Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised the question if the average social media user could be put in legal jeopardy when “retweeting” or “liking” another person’s post.  

This is not the only suit challenging Section 230. Twitter v. Taamneh, argued before the Court on the following day, was brought by the family of another terrorist attack victim. The case targets Twitter for allegedly promoting terrorist groups. 

The Supreme Court has never looked at a case going against Section 230, and now they have more than one suit against it on their hands. Their ruling may change the internet as we know it, yet the decision will not come easily. 

Justice Kavanaugh said, "We have a lot of amicus briefs that we have to take seriously that say this is going to cause significant disruption.”