© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: The U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington, U.S., June 26, 2022. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz
By Andrew Chung and John Kruzel
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday in a major case that could weaken a legal shield protecting internet companies from a wide range of lawsuits in a dispute involving YouTube and the family. of an American student shot dead in 2015. Riot by Islamist militants in Paris.
Judges were considering an appeal by the family of Nohemi González, a 23-year-old California State University Long Beach student studying in France, of the dismissal of a lawsuit against YouTube, owned by Google LLC, by a lower court. Google and YouTube are part of Alphabet (NASDAQ:) Inc.
The arguments were ongoing.
In dismissing the lawsuit, the San Francisco-based US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit relied on a federal law called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which protects Internet companies from responsibility for the content published by its users. This case marks the first time the Supreme Court has examined the scope of Section 230.
The judges asked questions reflecting their concern about the possible consequences of limiting immunity for Internet companies.
“These are not the top nine Internet experts,” liberal Justice Elena Kagan said of the court members, drawing laughter from the courtroom.
The family claimed that YouTube, through its computer algorithms, illegally recommended videos from the Islamic State militant group, which claimed responsibility for the Paris attacks that killed 130 people, to certain users. The recommendations helped spread the Islamic State message and recruit jihadist fighters, the lawsuit says.
Kagan added: “Everyone is doing their best to figure out how this … pre-algorithm statute applies in a post-algorithm world.”
Kagan noted that “every time someone looks at something on the internet, there’s an algorithm involved, whether it’s a Google search engine or this YouTube site or a Twitter account or countless other things, it all involves ways of organizing and prioritizing material. . .”
Kagan asked Eric Schnapper, the attorney representing the family: “Does your position send us down the road such that (Section) 230 can’t really mean anything at all?”
Schnapper said no, adding: “As you say, algorithms are ubiquitous. But the question is: ‘What does the defendant do with the algorithm?'” Noting that this case involved YouTube recommending Islamic State videos.
The lawsuit, which accuses the company of providing “material support” to terrorism, was filed under the US Anti-Terrorism Act, a federal law that allows Americans to recover damages related to “an act of international terrorism.”
The judges questioned whether YouTube should lose immunity if the algorithms that provide recommendations are “neutral” or used to organize content.
Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts said if YouTube doesn’t have an algorithm focused on a user’s “terrorist activities” or other interests, “it’s harder for you to say there’s a selection involved” than the company may be responsible.
“I’m trying to get him to explain to us how something that’s standard on YouTube for pretty much anything you’re interested in all of a sudden becomes aid and abetment because it’s in the ISIS category,” Judge Clarence Thomas told Schnapper, using the Initials of the Islamic State group.
CHANGING THE INTERNET?
Google and its supporters have said a victory for the plaintiffs could spark a spate of litigation against the platforms and disrupt how the internet works. Many websites and social media companies use similar technology to serve users relevant content such as job postings, search engine results, songs, and movies.
The case is a threat to free speech, they added, because it could force the platforms to remove anything remotely controversial.
Section 230 protects “interactive computer services” by ensuring that they cannot be treated as the “publisher or speaker” of information provided by users. Legal experts note that companies could employ other legal defenses if Section 230 protections are eroded.
Critics of the law have said that it too often prevents platforms from being held accountable for real-world harm. Many liberals have condemned misinformation and hate speech on social media. Many conservatives have said that social media companies censor right-wing voices under the guise of content moderation.
President Joe Biden’s administration has called for Section 230 to be amended and has asked the Supreme Court to revive the lawsuit by Nohemi González’s family, including her mother Beatriz González and stepfather José Hernández, accusing YouTube of providing “support material” to the Islamic State.
The Ninth Circuit in 2021 ruled that the lawsuit was barred by Section 230 because it sought to hold Google accountable for Islamic State content, and its algorithms did not treat the group’s content any differently than any other user-created content.
