Current:Home > MySupreme Court unanimously sides with Twitter in ISIS attack case -WealthEngine
Supreme Court unanimously sides with Twitter in ISIS attack case
View
Date:2025-04-17 12:01:26
The U.S. Supreme Court handed social media companies a major victory Thursday in the first test case involving the immunity from lawsuits granted to internet platforms for the content they publish online.
In two separate cases, one against Twitter, the other against Google, the families of people killed in terrorist bombing attacks in Istanbul and Paris sued Twitter, Facebook, Google and YouTube, claiming that the companies had violated the federal Anti-Terrorism Act, which specifically allows civil damage claims for aiding and abetting terrorism.
The families alleged that the companies did more than passively provide platforms for communication. Rather, they contended that by recommending ISIS videos to those who might be interested, the internet platforms were seeking to get more viewers and increase their ad revenue, even though they knew that ISIS was using their services as a recruitment tool.
But on Thursday, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected those claims. Writing for the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas said that the social media companies' so-called recommendations were nothing more than "agnostic" algorithms that navigated an "immense ocean of content" in order to "match material to users who might be interested."
"The mere creation of those algorithms," he said, does not constitute culpability, any more than it would for a telephone company whose services are used to broker drug deals on a cell phone.
At bottom, he said, the claims in these cases rest "less on affirmative misconduct and more on an alleged failure to stop ISIS from using these platforms."
In order to have a claim, he said, the families would have to show that Twitter, Google, or some other social media platform "pervasively" and with knowledge, assisted ISIS in "every single attack."
Columbia University law professor Timothy Wu, who specializes in this area of the law, said Thursday's decision was "less than hopeful" for those who wanted the court to curb the scope of the law known as "Section 23o," shorthand for the provision enacted in 1996 to shield internet platforms from being sued for other people's content. Wu said even the Biden administration had looked to the court to begin "the task of 230 reform."
Instead, the justices sided with the social media companies. And while Wu said that puts new pressure on Congress to "do something," he is doubtful that in the current political atmosphere anything will actually happen.
The decision--and its unanimity-- were a huge win for social media companies and their supporters. Lawyer Andrew Pincus, who filed a brief on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said he saw the decision as a victory for free speech, and a vindication of Section 230's protections from lawsuits for internet platforms. What's more, he said, a contrary ruling would have subjected these platforms to "an unbelievable avalanche" of litigation.
Congress knew what it was doing when it enacted section 230, he said. "What it wanted was to facilitate broad online debate and to make those platforms accessible to everyone."
Section 230, however, also has a provision encouraging internet companies to police their platforms, so as to remove harassing, defamatory, and false content. And while some companies point to their robust efforts to take down such content, Twitter, the company that won Thursday's case, is now owned by Elon Musk who, since acquiring the company, has fired many of the people who were charged with eliminating disinformation and other harmful content on the site.
The immunity from lawsuits granted to social media companies was enacted by Congress nearly three decades ago, when the internet was in its infancy. Today both the right and the left routinely attack that preferential status, noting that other content publishers are not similarly immune. So Thursday's decision is not likely to be the last word on the law.
Since 230 was enacted, the lower courts have almost uniformly ruled that people alleging defamation, harassment, and other harms, cannot sue internet companies that publish such content. But the Supreme Court had, until now, had, never ruled on any of those issues. Thursday's decision was a first step, and it could be a harbinger.
=
veryGood! (97)
Related
- See you latte: Starbucks plans to cut 30% of its menu
- The Bear's Jeremy Allen White Kisses Costar Molly Gordon While Out in Los Angeles
- Titan implosion hearing paints a picture of reckless greed and explorer passion
- Trump favors huge new tariffs. What are they, and how do they work?
- Google unveils a quantum chip. Could it help unlock the universe's deepest secrets?
- What Are the Best Styling Tips for Wavy Hair Texture? Everything You Need To Know & Buy
- Rex Ryan suggests he turned down Cowboys DC job: 'They couldn't pony up the money'
- Kane Brown Jokes About Hardest Part of Baby No. 3 With Wife Katelyn Brown
- Person accused of accosting Rep. Nancy Mace at Capitol pleads not guilty to assault charge
- As many forests fail to recover from wildfires, replanting efforts face huge odds -- and obstacles
Ranking
- A White House order claims to end 'censorship.' What does that mean?
- Horoscopes Today, September 26, 2024
- Led by Gerrit Cole, Giancarlo Stanton and Aaron Judge, New York Yankees clinch AL East
- Ozempic is so popular people are trying to 'microdose' it. Is that a bad idea?
- EU countries double down on a halt to Syrian asylum claims but will not yet send people back
- Titan implosion hearing paints a picture of reckless greed and explorer passion
- Maggie Smith, Harry Potter and Downton Abbey Star, Dead at 89
- Boeing and union negotiators set to meet for contract talks 2 weeks into worker strike
Recommendation
Off the Grid: Sally breaks down USA TODAY's daily crossword puzzle, Triathlon
Fed’s favored inflation gauge shows cooling price pressures, clearing way for more rate cuts
California man faces federal charge in courthouse bomb explosion
Georgia-Alabama showdown is why Bulldogs quarterback Carson Beck chose college over the NFL
South Korea's acting president moves to reassure allies, calm markets after Yoon impeachment
Today Show’s Dylan Dreyer Shares Who Could Replace Hoda Kotb
Lawyers in NCAA athlete-compensation antitrust cases adjust settlement proposal with judge
Kaitlyn Bristowe Is Begging Golden Bachelorette Joan Vassos for This Advice