On Tuesday, the court heard the oral arguments for Gonzalez v. Google, which dealt with whether Section 230, a law that protects publishers from being held accountable for content posted by users, applied to algorithms recommending terrorist-created content.
The case arose after an ISIS terrorist opened fire at a nightclub in Istanbul in 2017. The shooting killed 39 people, including Nawras Alassaf. Alassaf's family filed a suit against Twitter, Meta, and YouTube, alleging that they had aided and abetted in recruiting and promoting ISIS causes to the public.
While Twitter v. Taamneh and Gonzalez deal with identical sets of facts about ISIS victims in foreign states, the litigation processes for each led to the cases being split into two different sets of arguments from the court. Twitter and Google raised defenses under Section 230 as well as the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act on a district level.
Twitter made its bed by removing other posts it deemed dangerous. They therefore agreed to accept what ever responsibility is attached to what they chose to leave up.
What do we do about all the US propaganda?
Why isn't Congress doing this?
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:
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 hear arguments on Google and Twitter’s liability for terrorists’ online postingsThe Supreme Court will hear arguments this week in a pair of cases about the legal liability of tech platforms like Google and Twitter for content posted by terrorists.
Source: FoxBusiness - 🏆 458. / 53 Read more »
Supreme Court showdown for Google, Twitter and the social media worldAt the center of two cases to be argued over two days is Section 230, which provides tech companies a legal shield over what users post online. Not just social media, it protects any and every website that has user content. From facebook to a mom and pop site about knitting, if you allow users to comment/post, 230 protects you from being sued because of said posts. Is it crazy to expect an outcome that curtails Musk’s libertarian nonsense? Tell me you know that Hunter Biden is in business with the nephew of Whitey Bulger, James Bulger. BHR
Source: NPR - 🏆 96. / 63 Read more »
Twitter in the spotlight at the Supreme Court over terrorism liabilityOne blockbuster case involving Twitter boils down to a fight over whether the company should be held liable for terrorists using the platform to carry out deadly attacks. Oh, now you want to prosecute Twitter since Musk took over? How about prosecuting the old CEO and board members at the time the terrorist attacks took place? Its not twitter's fault that terrorists killed people.
Source: AKNewsNow - 🏆 460. / 53 Read more »
Supreme Court showdown for Google, Twitter and the social media worldHow the court rules could be a gamechanger for American law, society, and social media platforms that are some of the most valuable businesses in the world.
Source: WBUR - 🏆 274. / 63 Read more »
U.S. Supreme Court weighs suit against Twitter over Istanbul massacreThe U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday is set to hear for a second straight day a bid to hold internet companies accountable for contentious content posted by users, this time involving a lawsuit against Twitter Inc by the American relatives of a Jordanian man killed in a Istanbul nightclub massacre.
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »
Supreme Court tackles claim that Twitter aided and abetted terrorist attackU.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday considers whether Twitter can be sued for aiding and abetting the spread of militant Islamist ideology in a case concerning a Jordanian citizen killed in a terrorist attack. Establishing causal connectivities and chain of command logistics between a general western social media site and terror events caused by terror cells in Jordan or Levantine nations is a slim picking, and assumes only one causality has relevance. It is just too tendentious, stop. SCOTUS will probably decide that Twitter didn’t do enough to help the terrorists.🤷♂️ They won't dare say yes, because that will open the door for lawsuits against websites that aid and abet white racists, and since the majority of SCOTUS are white racists, they don't want to step on their own tongues.
Source: NBCNews - 🏆 10. / 86 Read more »