Image by ijeab on Freepik
This week, Google filed its brief before the Supreme Court in a case brought by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed in the 2015 IS terrorist attack in Paris, claiming that Youtube aided ISIS by recommending the terrorist group’s videos to its users. The petition challenges the liability shield given by Section 230. In its brief, Google argues that it is impossible to meaningfully distinguish between recommendation algorithms and related algorithms, powering the online function of search engines or other ranking systems which should be protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
Historically, Section 230 was introduced to provide immunity to online-platforms from civil liability for third-party content and the removal of content in certain circumstances. Following President Biden’s Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship and US Department of Justice’s long standing review, a legislative reform package has addressed 2 main issues: (1) unclear, inconsistent moderation practices limiting speech and going beyond the text of the existing statute; (2) proliferation of illicit and harmful content online leavings victims without civil recourse.
The reform is inclusive of 4 main areas: (1) incentivising online platforms to address illicit content; (2) clarifying law enforcement capabilities to address unlawful content; (3) promoting competition; and (4) promoting open discourse and greater transparency, particularly replacing vague terminology “otherwise objectionable” in Section 230(c)(2) with “unlawful” and “promotes terrorism” and explicitly clarifying that “a platform’s removal of content pursuant to this section or consistent with its terms of service does not, on its own, render the platform a publisher or speaker for all other content on its service” to avoid moderator’s dilemma – Overruling Stratton Oakmont.
Beside the benefit to online platforms, Section 230 also protects a user sharing an allegedly defamatory Facebook Event (AH v. Labana)
Sources:
R. Gonzalez, et al. v. Google LLC, Google’s brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/252127/20230112144706745_Gonzalez%20v.%20Google%20Brief%20for%20Respondent%20-%20FINAL.pdf
Section 230 Reform work:
AH v. Labana 2022 WL 17687172 (Cal. App. Ct. Dec. 15, 2022):