Why The SCOTUS Is Unlikely To Fix The Section 230 Immunity Mess

The Communications Decency Act Section 230 grants providers limited immunity “interactive computer services,” However, for almost two decades lower courts ignored the plain text of the federal statute and instead provided the broad immunity Big Tech uses to censor conservative speech.

This morning, the United States Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the scope of Section 230 Immunity. Gonzalez v. Google, the facts of that case make it unlikely that the high court will clarify — much less constrict — the limits of the statutory shield raised by giants such as Google, Twitter, and Facebook.

In 2015, ISIS launched a spate of attacks in and around Paris, including one at the La Belle Équipe bistro, where terrorists murdered a 23-year-old American woman, Nohemi Gonzalez. Gonzalez’s family filed a lawsuit against Google under the Antiterrorism Act. Claim Google “aided” ISIS’s attempt to recruit members is made possible by the terrorist group posting videos on YouTube. “recommending ISIS videos to users through its algorithms.” Later, the Gonzalezes admitted that Google was not liable for ISIS posting videos to YouTube. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did not decide whether Google could be held liable under the Antiterrorism Act. Gonzalez v. Google Because it was immune under Section 230, the Communications Decency Act, the tech giant couldn’t be sued.

The lawsuit is relevant to two subsections in Section 230(c). Subsection (c(1) says that “no provider nor user of an Interactive computer service shall be treated as the speaker or publisher of any information provided to them by another information content provider.” And subsection (c)(2) says “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A) Any action taken in good faith to limit access to or make it unavailable to material the provider or user considers obscene or lewd, lascivious or filthy, excessively violence, harassing, or other objectionable, regardless of whether such material is protected by law.

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or other technical means to restrict access of material described in paragraph (1).”

The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Google because it was queuing. “recommended videos” YouTube worked like this thanks to algorithms “traditional search engines.” Case law Holds That “search engines are entitled to § 230 immunity because they provide content in response to users’ inquiries ‘with no direct encouragement to perform illegal searches or to publish illegal content.'”

The Gonzalez family appeals to the Supreme Court arguing that YouTube is more than just opening its platform for other speech. It is also communicating its own views. “separate message” When it “implicitly tells the user that she ‘will be interested in'” YouTube automatically loads and plays the content of videos after they are accessed. YouTube is “conveying” Its own “separate message,” According to the family Google is not entitled immunity.

Google counters by claiming that Section 230 gives it immunity for showcasing “recommended videos” YouTube users see YouTube as acting in the same way as a publisher. YouTube is acting in the same manner as a publisher would create an opinion section for a newspaper, with different editorials that it believes readers will enjoy, according to the tech giant. YouTube also acts as a publisher when it uses algorithms. “sort and list related videos that may interest viewers so that they do not confront a morass of billions of unsorted videos.”

The Supreme Court received a flood of amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs supporting the opposing viewpoints. This included one from the Biden administration which agrees with Gonzalez’s family that Google does not have immunity under Section 233. The case’s underlying facts leave Section 230 immunity unclear due to the confusion caused by these facts.

Although the Ninth Circuit dismissed Gonzalez’s lawsuit based upon Section 230 immunity, the most fundamental problem in the case is that the Gonzalez family relied on the Antiterrorism Act for Google’s liability in the ISIS murder of their daughter. Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments. Case Of Twitter vs. TaamnehThe lower court dismissed similar claims and concluded that the Antiterrorism Act didn’t create liability for analogous circumstances. 

The Taamneh The case involves a lawsuit by Nawras Alassaf’s family, seeking to hold Twitter (and other tech companies) responsible for Alassaf’s death in January 2017 terrorist attack on a Istanbul nightclub. The Taamneh A lawsuit alleges that tech companies were held liable under the Antiterrorism Act because they knowingly provided substantial assistance in the support of international terrorism. “despite extensive press coverage and government pressure,” Companies failed To “act aggressively to keep ISIS content off those platforms.”

The lawsuit was initially dismissed by the trial court. It found that the Taamneh families had not alleged sufficient facts to make them liable under the Antiterrorism Act. The trial court did not decide whether Section 230 immunity could be applied because it dismissed the lawsuit. The Ninth Circuit reversed the decision and ruled that the family’s claims were sufficient to establish an exception. “aiding-and-abetting claim.” However, because Section 230 immunity was not raised, the federal appeals court didn’t address tech companies’ claim of immunity.

Twitter and other tech companies listed in the Taamneh Appeal to the Supreme Court argued In their brief, they stated that liability under the Antiterrorism Act can only be incurred if it has “provided substantial assistance for a specific act of international terrorism,” The meaning of the Taamneh Istanbul nightclub attacked. The family was not aware of the attack on Istanbul nightclub. Alluvial Terrorists responsible for that attack used Twitter. The tech companies claim the lawsuit must not be dismissed. 

Although the loss of the Gonzalez family is tragic, the Antiterrorism Act claim they made is extremely weak and likely not to succeed. This will lead to the Gonzalez family losing their claim. The Supreme Court won’t need to apply Section 230 immunity because there is no basis for the family to sue under Antiterrorism Act. The Supreme Court actually briefed the court in the Gonzalez Google argues in this case that the justices don’t need to even touch the immunity issue because reverse in the Taamneh The Gonzalez family’s Antiterrorism Act lawsuit must also be dismissed because of this case

Those looking for clarification on Section 230 immunity should consult this article. Gonzalez v. Google They should temper their expectations. Justice Clarence Thomas made it clear in the ahref=”https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1284_869d.pdf”>statement He did so in connection with the Supreme Court’s rejection of a petition to appeal. Malwarebytes, Inc. against Enigma Software Group Lower courts have “long emphasized nontextual arguments when interpreting § 230, leaving questionable precedent in their wake.” 

In his statement, Thomas exposed the fallacious interpretation lower courts give § 230 by reading Section 230(c)(1) as establishing an expansive grant of immunity. Thomas clarified that this section does not grant immunity but only provides for the exercise of rights. “ensure[s] that a company (like an e-mail provider) can host and transmit third party content without subjecting itself to the liability that sometimes attaches to the publisher or speaker of unlawful content.” It is Section 230(c),(2) that contains the second subsection. “provides direct immunity from some civil liability,” The originalist justice was stressed. 

However, the lower courts have interpreted Section 230(c),(1) as providing a near-blanket immunity. “interactive computer service” providers — and wrongly so, Thomas implies. This precedent gives rise to immunity that is far beyond what Congress intended, as the justice suggests.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), press Thomas’ point as a friend to the court Short Filed in the Gonzalez case. The amicus curiae briefly explains how Section 230 was interpreted and shows how the lower courts erred in interpreting Section 233. Section 230(c),(1) is construed as granting immunity. Cruz and his co-signatories claim that this incorrect interpretation of Section 230 (c)(1) allows tech companies improperly to censor “conservative viewpoints on important political and social matters.” 

Thomas’ statement in Malwarebytes v. Enigma Cruz’s amicus curiae brief arguing that Section 230(c),(1) is interpreted as providing immunity, conflicts with the statute language. This explains why Cruz’s argument supports the claim that precedent interpreting Section 230 (c)(1) to provide immunity creates an exaggerated grant of immunity to Big Tech. 

Tuesday’s oral argument at the Gonzalez While this may be a case that is being considered, the Supreme Court is expected to ignore the question about Section 230 immunity. Instead, it will resolve the companion cases based in a finding of insufficient evidence to establish liability for tech companies as a result of the Antiterrorism Act.

Nonetheless, Gonzalez‘s oral argument may provide helpful insight into the views of the other justices on the question of Section 230 immunity — something that will prove invaluable in future cases brought by conservatives subjected to viewpoint censorship by Big Tech.

Margot Cleveland, The Federalist’s senior law correspondent, is Margot. She has been published in USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Washington Examiner, Aleteia, Townhall.com and Townhall.com.

Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. After graduating from Notre Dame Law School, Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a law clerk to a federal appellate judge at the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland, a former faculty member at a university full-time, now teaches adjunctively.

Cleveland is a stay at home mom to a son with cystic Fibrosis. She writes frequently about cultural issues related parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland can be found on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland These views are hers in private.