On Tuesday, Feb. 21, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Gonzalez v. Google LLC—a case that may set new parameters for interpreting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This case centers around the scope of Section 230, questioning if the law “immunizes interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider.”
Section 230 grants broad immunity to internet companies and websites, which is established in two ways. First, this law gives providers, such as Google or Twitter, immunity from legal liability when a user posts content that may be harmful or offensive. Instead, the user can be sued for the speech. The second key protection is the power to moderate the content that users upload on the platform, meaning that if a company takes down a post, it cannot be held liable for that action.
Gonzalez v. Google concerns Nohemi Gonzalez, a U.S. citizen killed in a 2015 terrorist attack in Paris. The terrorist organization ISIS posted a video on YouTube claiming responsibility the following day. This prompted Gonzalez’s father to sue Google, Twitter and Facebook, alleging that these companies permitted ISIS “to recruit members, plan terrorist attacks, issue terrorist threats, instill fear, and intimidate civilian populations.” He also cited that Google’s algorithm that recommends content to users further aided the terrorist organization in circulating its message. Gonzalez said that although these companies did not actively participate in terrorism, they did not take action to prevent ISIS from utilizing its platforms.
The district court dismissed the claim based on Section 230, siding with Google. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed this decision.
Throughout oral arguments, some of the justices were confused by the points crafted by Eric Schnapper, the lawyer representing the Gonzalez family.
“I’m afraid I’m completely confused by whatever argument you’re making at the present time,” Justice Samuel Alito said in relation to “thumbnails” on YouTube videos.
The justices across the political spectrum also seemed concerned about potentially altering the legal structure that defines the internet, which implies that they may be hesitant when considering the consequences of reshaping Section 230.
“You are creating a world of lawsuits,” Justice Elena Kagan said. “Really, anytime you have content, you also have these presentational and prioritization choices that can be subject to suit.” She also expressed that Congress should make changes to the law, not the Court.
“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 Brett Kavanaugh echoed. However, it is unclear if Congress can or will improve Section 230, as it has become a highly debated issue in recent years.
Republicans and Democrats alike have called for an update of Section 230. However, there is limited consensus on what these changes should entail. With the law written in 1996, many argue that Section 230 was designed for the emergence of the internet and is now outdated.
Republicans have argued that Section 230 permits big tech to censor conservative users. However, companies have fired back and claimed that they are politically unbiased. Meanwhile, Democrats take issue with the law because they believe that tech companies are not doing enough to curb the spread of misinformation and threats to democracy.
If the Court rules in favor of Gonzalez, the modern online world may become wholly reshaped, as it would subject internet companies to more potential lawsuits. Some see this as a way to hold big tech accountable, but others argue that it will completely upend the internet.
