Boldly Committed to Truth Telling in the False Face of Fakery
SCOTUS Hears Major Case Against Google, YouTube About American Murdered By ISIS
Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the The Daily Wire. The author of this post is Hank Berrien.
The 2015 murder of a young woman in Paris by ISIS terrorists is at the center of a U.S. Supreme Court case that challenges the liability protection social media companies enjoy for hosting content published by others.
The case, Gonzalez v. Google, revolves around slain college-exchange student Nohemi Gonzalez, 23, and whether Google, which owns YouTube, helped ISIS recruit by recommending certain content through YouTube's algorithms. American law forbids aiding and abetting terrorists, but Google claims Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects it from legal responsibility for videos pushed by its recommendation algorithms.
Supreme Court justices on Tuesday struggled to grasp the issues raised in the case.
"We're a court. We really don't know about these things," Justice Elena Kagan said. "You know, these are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet."
Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested, "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 are neutral, and suggested the case should be sent back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which had ruled for Google.
Law professor Eric Schnapper, who represents the Gonzalez family, argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act makes a distinction between claims holding internet companies liable for content created by others and claims that hold internet companies responsible for their own actions.
"Helping users find the proverbial needle in the haystack is an existential necessity on the internet," countered Lisa S. Blatt, representing Google. "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."
Blatt responded to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who asked if platforms such as YouTube would be protected if their sorting mechanism was not neutral but "really defamatory or pro-ISIS." Blatt argued that Section 230 would protect the platforms.
Schnapper said that items Blatt claimed were "inherent" in publishing, like topic headings and "trending now" tags, were in fact not inherent.
YouTube describes itself as a public forum, which, according to Section 230, is not subject to liability for content placed on its site. Section 230 also requires public forums to promote "a true diversity of political discourse."
In mid-October 2020, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai released a statement showing his intention to clarify what Section 230 should mean.
"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."
Go Back
The 2015 murder of a young woman in Paris by ISIS terrorists is at the center of a U.S. Supreme Court case that challenges the liability protection social media companies enjoy for hosting content published by others.
The case, Gonzalez v. Google, revolves around slain college-exchange student Nohemi Gonzalez, 23, and whether Google, which owns YouTube, helped ISIS recruit by recommending certain content through YouTube's algorithms. American law forbids aiding and abetting terrorists, but Google claims Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects it from legal responsibility for videos pushed by its recommendation algorithms.
Supreme Court justices on Tuesday struggled to grasp the issues raised in the case.
"We're a court. We really don't know about these things," Justice Elena Kagan said. "You know, these are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet."
Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested, "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 are neutral, and suggested the case should be sent back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which had ruled for Google.
Law professor Eric Schnapper, who represents the Gonzalez family, argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act makes a distinction between claims holding internet companies liable for content created by others and claims that hold internet companies responsible for their own actions.
"Helping users find the proverbial needle in the haystack is an existential necessity on the internet," countered Lisa S. Blatt, representing Google. "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."
Blatt responded to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who asked if platforms such as YouTube would be protected if their sorting mechanism was not neutral but "really defamatory or pro-ISIS." Blatt argued that Section 230 would protect the platforms.
Schnapper said that items Blatt claimed were "inherent" in publishing, like topic headings and "trending now" tags, were in fact not inherent.
YouTube describes itself as a public forum, which, according to Section 230, is not subject to liability for content placed on its site. Section 230 also requires public forums to promote "a true diversity of political discourse."
In mid-October 2020, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai released a statement showing his intention to clarify what Section 230 should mean.
"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."
Latest State and Federal
 |
Fox News is reportedly set to replace its entire primetime lineup with three of the network’s biggest hosts, according to a new report.
Published: Friday, June 2nd, 2023 @ 7:26 am
By: Daily Wire
|
 |
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration finalized its recommendations to expand eligibility for blood donation to include gender-inclusive, individual risk-based questions to reduce the risk of transfusion-transmitted HIV.
Published: Friday, June 2nd, 2023 @ 7:25 am
By: Eastern NC NOW Staff
|
 |
President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) each said on Tuesday that they made progress on debt ceiling negotiations, indicating thaws in an impasse as the nation faces a possible debt default in two weeks.
Published: Friday, June 2nd, 2023 @ 1:28 am
By: Daily Wire
|
 |
Congressmen Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Lance Gooden (R-TX) issued a joint letter calling attention to the potential use of federal funds to enable illegal immigration into the United States.
Published: Friday, June 2nd, 2023 @ 1:19 am
By: Daily Wire
|
 |
When the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled on our state’s voter ID law on April 28th, the justices only had to answer one narrow question: “[Does the voter ID law] violate the meaningful protections set forth in Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution?”
Published: Friday, June 2nd, 2023 @ 1:12 am
By: John Locke Foundation
|
 |
A top House Republican wants the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to clarify what is happening with the criminal investigation into Hunter Biden after lawyers for a whistleblower within the agency claimed his team got removed from the case.
Published: Friday, June 2nd, 2023 @ 1:01 am
By: Daily Wire
|
 |
Fox News settled a bombshell defamation suit stemming from the 2020 election by paying Dominion Voting Systems nearly $800 million just hours after the the beginning of a trial that would have seen some of the cable news behemoth’s biggest stars take the witness stand.
Published: Friday, June 2nd, 2023 @ 12:04 am
By: Daily Wire
|
 |
North Carolina Republicans voted to override Democratic Governor Roy Cooper’s veto of a 12-week abortion ban, using their supermajority to put the pro-life measure into law.
Published: Thursday, June 1st, 2023 @ 8:26 pm
By: Daily Wire
|
 |
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) defended the tentative agreement on the debt ceiling he made with President Joe Biden during a press conference Sunday after criticism from some Republicans on the concessions, saying the deal is “worthy of the American people.”
Published: Thursday, June 1st, 2023 @ 7:53 pm
By: Daily Wire
|
Home
Contact
About
Service Rates
Privacy Policy
Follow on Facebook
Subscribe to Newsletters
Rss Feed
Keywords
Eastern NC Now & ENC NOW © Copyright 1998-2023 All Rights Reserved.
