Google told the Supreme Court that if it guts Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, it would upend the internet, encourage suppression of legitimate speech and proliferate offensive speech. The tech giant is being sued by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed in 2015 during an Islamic State group (ISIS) terrorist attack in Paris that left 129 people dead.
Section 230 protects platforms like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter from lawsuits regarding content people post on their sites. For instance, if someone posts hateful or defamatory content on Twitter, the victim cannot sue Twitter. They can only seek damages from the person who posted it.
Section 230 states, “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.”
Gonzalez’s family argues that Youtube, which is owned by Google, aided and abetted the Islamic State group by recommending the terrorist organization’s videos to users. Therefore, the family contends, YouTube is more than just what’s called an “interactive computer service” that allows third parties to post content.
Google countered that if websites accepted all third-party content without organizing or limiting that content, it would risk a proliferation of pornography, hate speech and illegality.
“Recommendation algorithms are what make it possible to find the needles in humanity’s largest haystack,” attorneys for Google wrote in a brief.
The justices will have to decide if online platforms can be held liable for recommending content, even if they did not create or post it. Oral arguments are scheduled for Feb. 21 and a decision will be released by this summer.
While the Supreme Court may have the final word on that specific issue, lawmakers on Capitol Hill have debated for years whether to keep or repeal Section 230 entirely.
“Section 230 was absolutely necessary to bring our legal system into the 21st century. It has been the legal foundation for the growth of the internet, particularly in areas like education and jobs and a platform for free speech around the world,” Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said during a 2017 Senate Commerce Committee hearing.
“Right now we’re looking for ways to reform section 230 and to regulate big tech without turning the congress into a new speech police,” Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said in 2020.
If online platforms are ultimately made responsible for users’ content, it would be an enormous task to fully police it. Each day tech users generate more than 500 million tweets, 294 billion emails, 4 million gigabytes of Facebook data and 720,000 hours of new YouTube content.
The protections provided by Section 230 are extraordinary. As an example, a young boy was once lured into performing sex acts with a grown man who then marketed videos of the crime on AOL. The boy’s parents sued AOL and AOL won.