The case was brought by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old student who was killed in a 2015 Islamic State terrorist attack in Paris. The lawsuit alleges that Google’s YouTube “aids and abets” ISIS, in part by allowing its algorithms to recommend the terrorist group’s video content.
Section 230 was passed in 1996 and is credited with helping to lay the foundation for the Internet as we know it today. It broadly immunizes websites and online platforms, including social media sites like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, from liability in civil lawsuits for what their users post.
The law has been controversial for years, heating up considerably under the Trump administration when the president pointed out that the law allowed social media companies to “censor” conservatives online.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle called for reforms at 230, including President Biden.
“The full scope of Section 230 could be at stake, depending on what the Supreme Court wants to do,” said Jeff Kosseff, professor of cybersecurity law at the US Naval Academy and author of a book on cybersecurity. Article 230, “The Twenty-Six Words That Created The Internet.
People close to Gonzalez say YouTube used its computer algorithms to recommend ISIS videos to users who might be interested in them, using information the company collects about users. YouTube and many other social media companies use such algorithms to keep people engaged on their sites by showing them posts, videos, photos, and other content similar to what they’ve already viewed.
The complaint alleged that officials at parent company Google knew its technology was aiding ISIS.
“The videos users viewed on YouTube were the central way ISIS gained support and recruits in areas outside of the parts of Syria and Iraq it controlled,” they said. alleged by the plaintiffs in their request for the Supreme Court to review the case.
Google argued that “the complaint does not allege that terrorists saw such a recommendation or that such recommendations had any connection to the Paris attack.” In court documents, the company argued that this case was not the proper way to look at Section 230.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed that “230 barred most plaintiffs’ claims.”
The Supreme Court action marked the first time the court will directly assess Section 230, said Eric Goldman, professor and co-director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University School of Law. This allows the court to potentially draw a line between the processes of manually recommending social media content and the use of algorithms, which he called a “false dichotomy.”
“The question presented creates a false dichotomy that recommending content is not part of traditional editorial duties,” he said. “The issue presented goes to the very heart of Section 230 and that makes it a very risky case for the internet.”
The Supreme Court also said on Monday that he would consider a separate but related proceeding lawsuit involving Twitter. This case was filed by relatives of Nawras Alassaf, who was killed in a terrorist attack in Istanbul in 2017. The complaint accuses Twitter, Facebook and Google of violating anti-terrorism law by allowing the Islamic State to use their sites.
However, the lower courts did not directly address the Section 230 issue in this case, and Twitter asked the Supreme Court to consider the case if it also hears the Google case.
Will Oremus contributed to this report.
