The U.S. Supreme Court against a blue sky in Washington, D.C., US. Photographer: Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberglawyer told the Supreme Court was roughly "96% correct" could drastically undermine the liability shield that the company and other tech platforms have relied on for decades, according to several experts who advocate for upholding the law to the highest degree.
The law is central to the question that will be decided by the Supreme Court in the Gonzalez case, which asks whether platforms like A lower court ruled that Section 230 barred the claims, but the appeals court overturned that decision. The court also ruled Public Data was responsible for the content because it decided how to present it, even though the information was pulled from other sources. The court said it's plausible that some of the information Public Data sent to one of the plaintiff's potential employers was "inaccurate because it omitted or summarized information in a way that made it misleading.
"It was shocking to me to see Google endorse a Henderson opinion, because it's a dramatic narrowing of Section 230," Goldman said at a virtual press conference hosted by Chamber of Progress after the arguments.
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.
A guide to Section 230, the law that made the internet the Wild WestTwo Supreme Court cases in the US have Section 230 at their core. Here's what to know about the brief but controversial law from 1996.
Source: PopSci - 🏆 298. / 63 Read more »
Repealing Section 230 won’t stop anti-conservative bias in Big TechThe Supreme Court has chosen to tackle a question at the heart of the debate over Big Tech. When they decide Gonzales v. Google, the justices will have to address for the first time the extent of the legal immunity granted to internet platforms such as YouTube (owned by Google), Facebook, and…
Source: dcexaminer - 🏆 6. / 94 Read more »
9 People Hold the Internet’s Fate in Their HandsWe are at a potential turning point for the Supreme Court’s strong protections for free speech and the internet.
Source: WIRED - 🏆 555. / 51 Read more »
SCOTUS Whiffs on Internet SpeechWe get it, moderating harmful content is hard, but this week’s shrugs at SCOTUS are a cop-out.
Source: Slate - 🏆 716. / 51 Read more »
The story of Section 230 goes back to an AOL troll. Now the law may be undoneA fight between a Seattle man and AOL in the 1990s led to what has been called 'the most important internet law ruling ever.' Decades later, the Supreme Court is weighing if Section 230 still fits. If a company can be held liable for what they're hosting, they will be less likely to allow volatile(liability-wise) sites on their service. This begs the question, who will host sites like Newsmax, OANN, and/or Fox News when they can be sued for the lies they post?🤔 Captain Picard? In a library the books are closed. One must open or borrow a book. On web, for the most part, the content is visible. Thus, published. The analogy to a library does not hold.
Source: NPR - 🏆 96. / 63 Read more »
Larry Magid: Supreme Court grapples with definition of publisherIf Section 230 weren’t in place, social media companies would have even more pressure on them to suppress speech
Source: mercnews - 🏆 88. / 68 Read more »