The Supreme Court reconfirmed the provider's exemption in a trial that was feared that ``the Internet could be broken''
The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint in the 'Google Gonzales Trial', in which the family of an ISIS terror victim sued Google for helping ISIS. In this case, Article 230 of the Communication Quality Act, which stipulates exemption from liability for providers, is at issue, and Google expressed concern that ``if the law is overturned, the Internet may be broken.''
Supreme Court Leaves 230 Alone For Now, But Justice Thomas Gives A Pretty Good Explanation For Why It Exists In The First Place | Techdirt
Great news for the future of the internet: the Supreme Court gets about as hands off as it can possibly get on Section 230 in a 2.5 page per curium decision in Gonzalez v. Google.
https://t.co/h2rNGTp0mE
Opinion here:
1/ pic.twitter.com/520WJWfBlB — Kate Klonick (@Klonick) May 18, 2023
The lawsuit was filed by the parents and brothers of Nohemi Gonzales, a 23-year-old American who died in 2015 due to the terrorist attack in Paris by ISIS.
The terror attack left 130 people dead, and the plaintiffs hold Google directly and secondary responsible for the attack because of the use of YouTube by ISIS and its supporters. argued that it should.
According to Article 230 of the Communications Decency Act of the United States, providers are not responsible in principle for information transmitted by users, and even harmful content can not be held responsible if it is sincerely and voluntarily deleted. It is defined.
Google has expressed concern that if the recommendation algorithm is exempted from Article 230, the quality of similar services will decline, and if Article 230 is revised, the Internet itself will be transformed. rice field.
Depending on the outcome of the trial, Google said, ``The Internet may be broken,'' in the Supreme Court's trial over ``Article 230 of the Communication Quality Law,'' which exempted media from responsibility for user posting-GIGAZINE
The Supreme Court unanimously decided to remand this case. In this, the judge wrote to the circuit court, ``Please reconsider based on the judgment of the ``
The ``Twitter Taamne Trial'' was filed against Twitter, Google, and Facebook by the bereaved family of Jordanian Nauras Alassaf, who died in an ISIS attack in Istanbul in 2017. judgment brought about.
The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but Twitter appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming that the ruling unduly expanded the scope of the anti-terrorism law. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disregarded the protections of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and found that Twitter, Google, and Facebook may be liable for aiding and abetting acts of terrorism.
Following the appeal by Twitter, a Supreme Court trial began on February 22, 2023, and on May 18, Judge Clarence Thomas unanimously ruled that the defendant companies abetted and abetted the conduct of the ISIS attacks. found that the allegations were insufficient to prove that It concluded that the allegations made by plaintiffs under the Anti-Terrorism Act were inadmissible and did not issue a ruling with respect to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
The news site Techdirt wrote, ``I am surprised that the part of the judgment that talks about common law aiding basically explains all the reasons why Article 230 of the Communications Decency Act exists.'' I'm here.
Justice Thomas said of 'assistance':
“Importantly, in the commission of crimes and torts, the concept of 'aiding' has never existed before, because 'aiding' and 'abetting' are not only those who give direct assistance, but also those who commit crimes. For example, if any kind of assistance creates liability, a person who passively watched the robbery could be said to have assisted in the robbery because he did not call the police. increase. However, our legal system generally does not impose liability for mere carelessness, omission or negligence. Inaction may be criminalized where there is some independent duty to act, but the law generally does not impose a duty to rescue.'
'For this reason, courts have long recognized the need to limit aiding liability to genuinely serious acts, such as 'everyone present in the commission of a wrongful act must The courts have cautioned that “aiding and aiding and The term 'incitement', as elsewhere, refers to conscious, voluntary and responsible participation in the wrongful conduct of another.'
On top of that, he pointed out that while the platform could be used for malicious purposes, the same applies to the Internet and smartphones. Specifically, ``Even if the telephone conference function or video call function makes it easier to trade illegal drugs, it is not usually said that the service provider has assisted or abetted.'' This is the basis of Article 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which stipulates that 'providers are not responsible for information transmitted by users in principle.'
Also, regarding the algorithm that the plaintiff argued in the 'Google Gonzalez trial', it is only part of the infrastructure and is not bound by the nature of the content, and some ISIS content is distributed to some users. He said that even if he did recommend it, it would be passive help, not active solicitation.
Regarding this ruling, the Electronic Frontier Foundation published an article titled ``The Internet has avoided censorship by the Supreme Court.'' While the Supreme Court described its avoidance of interpreting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as a 'great relief,' it remained vigilant as Congress considered a bill that would weaken Section 230 and expand brokerage responsibilities. I'm here.
The Internet Dodges Censorship by the Supreme Court | Electronic Frontier Foundation
Related Posts:
in Note, Web Service, Posted by logc_nt