SCOTUS Hears Major Case Against Google, YouTube About American Murdered By ISIS

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently investigating the 2015 assassination of a Parisian woman by ISIS terrorists. Case that challenges the liability protection social media companies enjoy for hosting content published by others.

This is the case Gonzalez v. GoogleThe story revolves around Nohemi Gonzalez (23-year-old college exchange student) and whether Google, the owner of YouTube, helped ISIS recruit through its recommendation algorithms. American law prohibits the aiding and abetting of terrorists. However, Google claims that Section 230 in the Communications Decency Act exempts it from any legal liability for videos pushed through its recommendation algorithms.

The Supreme Court justices failed to grasp the implications of Tuesday’s case on Tuesday.

“We’re a court. We really don’t know about these things,” Justice Elena Kagan stated. “You know, these are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh Suggestions, “Isn’t it better … to put the burden on Congress to change that, and they can consider the implications and make these predictive judgments?”

Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned Google’s claim that algorithms were neutral and suggested that the case be referred back to the U.S. Court of Appeals of the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit had ruled in favor of Google.

Eric Schnapper is a law professor who represented the Gonzalez family. Section 230 of Communications Decency Act allows for a distinction in claims against internet companies for content created by other people and claims that internet companies are responsible for their own actions.

“Helping users find the proverbial needle in the haystack is an existential necessity on the internet,” Lisa S. Blatt, representing Google, countered. “Search engines thus tailor what users see based on what’s known about users. So does Amazon, Tripadvisor, Wikipedia, Yelp!, Zillow, and countless video, music, news, job-finding, social media, and dating websites.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Blatt if YouTube platforms would be protected if the sorting mechanism they used was not neutral. “really defamatory or pro-ISIS.” Blatt argued Section 230 would ensure protection of the platforms.

Schnapper stated that Blatt claimed items were “inherent” Publishing, like headings and “trending now” Tags were not inherently.

YouTube calls itself a public forum. According to Section 230 YouTube is not liable for any content it places on its site. Section 230 also requires that public forums promote. “a true diversity of political discourse.”

Ajit Pai, FCC Chairman released a document in October 2020. Statement His intention to clarify the meaning of Section 230.

“The U.S. Department of Commerce has petitioned the Commission to ‘clarify ambiguities in section 230.’ … As elected officials consider whether to change the law, the question remains: What does Section 230 currently mean?” Pat wrote. “Many advance an overly broad interpretation that in some cases shields social media companies from consumer protection laws in a way that has no basis in the text of Section 230. … Social media companies have a First Amendment right to free speech. But they do not have a First Amendment right to a special immunity denied to other media outlets, such as newspapers and broadcasters.”