The Supreme Court on Thursday sidestepped a ruling on the legal shield that protects internet companies from lawsuits relating to content posted by users. The case concerned allegations that YouTube was liable for suggesting videos promoting violent militant Islam. The court ruled that such claims could not be brought in the first place under a federal law called the Anti-Terrorism Act.
The lawsuit accuses YouTube of bearing some responsibility for the killing of Nohemi Gonzalez, an American college student, in the 2015 Paris attacks carried out by the Islamic State terrorist group. A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit, and a San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision in June 2021.
President Joe Biden and several Republican critics are reportedly in agreement as to why these types of cases should be resolved differently moving forward.
In considering two lawsuits against Google and Twitter—both brought by families of terrorist attack victims who claimed that companies should be held liable—the justices avoided addressing whether Section 230 of Communications Decency Act protected them from all claims or not.
Instead, they found neither company had any underlying liability requiring protection under Section 230. Inquiries made by The Hill to both Google and Twitter have yet to receive comments regarding this issue.
In its unanimous decision concerning Twitter v Taamneh, which effectively resolved both cases at hand, SCOTUS decided that a different law—one allowing suits for "knowingly providing substantial assistance" to terrorists—did not apply generally to tech platforms either.
This outcome amounts to an overall triumph for social media platforms since it reinforces their immunity from being held responsible under anti-terrorism laws like Section 230 due to user-generated content. It also helps prevent potential deluges of lawsuits threatening free speech across these platforms altogether.
As a result, SCOTUS returned Nohemi Gonzalez's family's lawsuit against Alphabet Inc., the parent company of Google and YouTube, to a lower court for further consideration.