Supreme Court weighs liability shield for internet giants

  • 📰 AKNewsNow
  • ⏱ Reading Time:
  • 87 sec. here
  • 3 min. at publisher
  • 📊 Quality Score:
  • News: 38%
  • Publisher: 53%

Law Law Headlines News

Law Law Latest News,Law Law Headlines

The tech industry is facing criticism from the left for not doing enough to remove harmful content from the internet and from the right for censoring conservative speech.

WASHINGTON — Islamic State gunmen killed American college student Nohemi Gonzalez as she sat with friends in a Paris bistro in 2015, one of several attacks on a Friday night in the French capital that left 130 people dead.

A win for Gonzalez’s family could wreak havoc on the internet, say Google and its many allies. Yelp, Reddit, Microsoft, Craigslist, Twitter and Facebook are among the companies warning that searches for jobs, restaurants and merchandise could be restricted if those social media platforms had to worry about being sued over the recommendations they provide and their users want.senior vice president and head of YouTube.

Her daughter was a 23-year-old senior at California State University, Long Beach, who was spending a semester in Paris studying industrial design. Her last communication with her mother was a mundane exchange about money via Facebook, two days before the attacks, Gonzalez said. The law was drafted in response to a state court decision that held an internet company could be liable for a post by one of its users in an online forum. The law’s basic purpose was “to protect Internet platforms’ ability to publish and present user-generated content in real time, and to encourage them to screen and remove illegal or offensive content,” its authors, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and former Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif., wrote in a Supreme Court filing.

Mohan said YouTube is able to keep people from seeing almost anything that violates the company’s rules, including violent, extremist content. Just 1 video in 1,000 makes it past the company’s screeners, he said. “Paring back the sweeping immunity courts have read into Section 230 would not necessarily render defendants liable for online misconduct. It simply would give plaintiffs a chance to raise their claims in the first place. Plaintiffs still must prove the merits of their cases, and some claims will undoubtedly fail,” Thomas wrote.

 

Thank you for your comment. Your comment will be published after being reviewed.
Please try again later.
We have summarized this news so that you can read it quickly. If you are interested in the news, you can read the full text here. Read more:

 /  🏆 460. in LAW

Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines

Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.

Supreme Court to weigh Google and Twitter internet free speech policiesFree speech access to the internet could be dramatically transformed, with the Supreme Court set to hear a high-stakes pair of oral arguments. Don't forget facebooks ' fact checkers'.... You're going to do everything you can to pretend that you didn't lie to your viewers, and you continue to lie, because you know the game was rigged in conservative media's favor: About time.
Source: FoxNews - 🏆 9. / 87 Read more »

Brazil Supreme Court rules Bayer must return $252 mln in GMO soy royaltiesGermany's Bayer has been ordered by Brazil's Supreme Court to return to Brazilian soybean farmers the royalties they were charged for a GMO soybean seed, the Mato Grosso farmer lobby Aprosoja-MT said in a statement on Friday. Can’t go 3 months without losing a law suit some place 🤦‍♂️
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »

Title 42 case could soon leave Supreme Court, but not if Republicans get their wayThe Supreme Court axed Title 42 from its argument calendar. Attorneys general for more than a dozen states are desperately fighting for the justices not to declare it moot. Here's why. (via Deadline: Legal Blog) How much is it going to cost to remove these illegal aliens from this country It expires soon In real news, why did bidens fema deny then change their mind?
Source: MSNBC - 🏆 469. / 51 Read more »

Opponents of SAFE-T Act file arguments with Illinois Supreme CourtOpponents of a controversial law that would eliminate cash bail in Illinois filed their arguments with the Illinois Supreme Court on Friday, revisiting their claims that the law is unconditional and improperly ties judge’s hands when deciding the conditions of release for people accused of crimes.
Source: fox32news - 🏆 547. / 51 Read more »

Illinois Supreme Court issues opinion over ongoing White Castle biometric privacy caseThe Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion in an ongoing case against White Castle in connection to the Biometric Information Privacy Act that could potentially result in major fines. These opinions are always interesting to read. Businesses in wacko liberal states know the potential risks and consequences yet continue to do business there. Why anyone does business there is nuts.
Source: FoxNews - 🏆 9. / 87 Read more »

The Supreme Court’s chance to take on government surveillance and secrecyThe Edward Snowden revelations broke when I was serving as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. I experienced firsthand the reality that secrecy in the service of national security is sometimes necessary in our nation’s surveillance programs. Unfortunately, I also saw that claims of secrecy…
Source: dcexaminer - 🏆 6. / 94 Read more »