Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Case Challenging Big Tech’s Section 230 Legal Protections | Eastern North Carolina Now | The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to take up a case that challenges legal protection for big tech companies over user-generated content that could potentially usher in a new era of moderating freedom of expression on the Internet.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
    Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the The Daily Wire. The author of this post is Brandon Drey.

    The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to take up a case that challenges legal protection for big tech companies over user-generated content that could potentially usher in a new era of moderating freedom of expression on the Internet.

    The case Reynaldo Gonzalez, et al v. Google LLC would be heard asking whether tech companies make "target recommendations."

    Axios reports the case alleges YouTube aided and abetted in the death of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old American woman who was killed in the 2015 ISIS attacks in Paris along with 130 others and injured more than a hundred.

    The family of Gonzalez sued Google, the parent company of YouTube, arguing that the platform's algorithms allowed and recommended terrorist-related content from ISIS to target users with "hundreds of radicalizing videos inciting violence and recruiting potential supporters."

    Google argued the claims were barred under Section 230 and has since moved to dismiss the lawsuit, Axios reports.

    The Hill reports a judge dismissed the case prompting the family to appeal to the nation's highest court.

    Gonzales' case taps into another controversial topic within the Communications Decency Act, which has a provision tucked inside the law - otherwise known as Section 230 - that says, "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

    The law has seen criticism from Democrats and Republicans, who argue it grants too much power to social media companies and says it favors one party over the other concerning censoring or bolstering content.

    Former Libertarian U.S. Congressman Justin Amash tweeted, "regime Republican and Democrats want to destroy Section 230 because it protects freedom of speech."

    "Dismantling Section 230 will lead to more censorship of speech that challenges their authority-giving those in power more influence and control over public discourse," Amash said.

    Tennesse Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn said in a tweet she looks forward to hearing what the court has to say on the issue.

    "For too long, Big Tech has used Section 230 as a shield to avoid accountability for its decisions, including the hosting of [Child Sexual Abuse Material], violent content, and the removal of conservative content," Blackburn said.

    NetChoice, a trade group for tech corporations, advocated for the industry to NBC News, saying that tech groups need the flexibility to keep or remove content.

    "Without moderation, the internet will become a content cesspool, filled with vile content of all sorts, and making it easier for things like terrorist recruitment," said NetChoice counsel Chris Marchese.

    The Washington Examiner reports that others said changing the provision could produce larger impacts on smaller organizations.

    "Section 230 is the foundation that today's internet is built on, supporting both speech online and the ability of internet platforms to take down harmful content," Adam Kovacevich, CEO of Chamber of Progress, said according to The Washington Examiner. "Eroding that wouldn't just impact large platforms - it would hammer smaller websites, from community newspapers to niche blogs."

poll#128
Where do you stand on the wanton censorship by Big Tech Platforms, while retaining their Section 230 carveout indemnifying them for Slander /Defamation lawsuits and Copyright infringements?
  Big Tech Platforms have the right to Censor all speech providing they voluntarily relinquish their Section 230 Carveout.
  Big Tech Platforms DO NOT have the right to Censor any speech, while retaining multiple indemnifications by virtue of the Section 230 Carveout.
  I know nothing of this 230 talk, but "I do love me some social media".
398 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?


poll#125
Since only about 20% of the News Media has any shred of Journalistic Integrity remaining: How does our Constitutional Republic continue without a "Free Press"?
  Demand real information, using real sources, backed up by facts.
  Promote real journalist entities only, and admonish those that prostitute their profession.
  We Democratic Socialists are doing just fine, thank-you, by promoting lies while having very little real knowledge about so much.
160 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?

Go Back


Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published)
Enter Your Comment ( no code or urls allowed, text only please )




American Medical Association Pushes DOJ To ‘Investigate And Prosecute’ Those Who Call Out Gender Surgeries Online Daily Wire, Guest Editorial, Editorials, Op-Ed & Politics Charlotte Observer Confirms Beasley Prefers No GPS Tracking for Pedophiles


HbAD0

Latest Op-Ed & Politics

Netherlands is world's second largest exporter of food by value
A new poll shows that Republican voters put Florida Governor Ron DeSantis at the top of deep list of politicians they want to see influence the party’s direction.
Davis Patterson, a bystander during a shooting that left a dozen dead, has been arrested for misgendering the shooter, Blake Jacobson, who is non-binary.
Twitter CEO Elon Musk announced a blanket amnesty for Twitter users permanently suspended from the platform.
With rising interest rates, experts expect the U.K. to remain in a recession into 2024
CNN host Alisyn Camerota and a guest on the network struggled with the gender non-conforming identity of the Colorado “Club Q” shooting suspect.
U.S. State Department officials defended themselves Sunday after awarding Ecuador a grant of over $20,000 for a cultural center to host drag shows for LGBTQ communities in the South American country.
The N.C. Home Builders Association is sharing its concerns about a recent court ruling against an Ashe County asphalt plant.

HbAD1

 
Back to Top