The SupremeCourt will hear arguments Tuesday in a potentially groundbreaking case that could change the force of a fundamental law. That the tech industry say has been critical to keeping the internet open also free of bias.
Gonzalez v. Google is a case brought by the family of an American who die in a terrorist attack in Paris in 2015. The petitioners contended. Google and its subsidiary YouTube did not do enough to remove or stop promoting ISIS terrorist videos aimed at recruiting members. Which they claim violates the Anti-Terrorism Act.
Google won in lower courts because Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects it from liability for its users’ posts on its platform.
The petitioners argue that the shield should not apply where Google actively promotes user-generated content, such as through its recommendation algorithms.
Many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle would likely applaud a narrowing of Section 230. Which has been criticize in Washington for years for reasons ranging from the belief. That it fuels allege internet censorship to the belief. That it protects tech companies that do little to stop hate speech also misinformation on their platforms.
However, many tech platforms and free speech experts warn.That changing Section 230 will have far-reaching consequences for how the internet works. Incentivizing popular services to limit or slow down user posting to avoid being hold accountable for what they say.
“Without Section 230, some websites would be force to overblock. Filtering content that could pose any potential legal risk, also might shut down some services entirely. Google General Counsel Halimah DeLaine Prado wrote in a January blog post summarising the company’s position. “This would give consumers fewer options for engaging on the internet. As well as fewer opportunities to work, play, learn, shop, create, and participate in the exchange of ideas online.”