The Biden administration argued in the U.S. Supreme Court against online media platform, saying that, in some instances, tech giants like Google should assume responsibility for the content they share—a stance that could undermine existing protections for tech companies and upend the internet content culture.
In a Supreme Court filing on Wednesday, the lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice made their argument in the high-profile lawsuit filed by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez. Gonzalez was a 23-year-old American citizen who has killed by ISIS terrorists when they opened fire in a Paris bistro in November 2015. The lawyers said that Google-owned YouTube was partly responsible for the incident through sharing ISIS content with its users.
The plaintiffs pointed to YouTube “recommending” ISIS videos to users through its algorithms, and alleged that “ISIS-affiliated users have received revenue from Google for participating in AdSense.”
A website operator loses Section 230 protection when it is responsible for the content, even “partially.” Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act bars lawsuits that seek to hold online platforms liable as the publisher of any content that the service did not create or develop.
Video Recommendations, District Court Ruling
“Google selected the users to whom it would recommend ISIS videos based on what Google knew about each of the millions of YouTube viewers, targeting users whose characteristics indicated that they would be interested in ISIS videos,” said the petition for a writ of certiorari (pdf) filed.“A single ISIS video on YouTube, for example, had been viewed 56,998 times in a 24-hour period.'' The plaintiffs claimed that ISIS recruiters used YouTube videos to enlist extremists from outside the Middle East.
Biden Administration’s Stance on Section 230
The Biden administration called for a different kind of control over online platforms, and did not argue in complete support of the plaintiffs in the Gonzalez case. They said that tech companies should not be outright liable for all content displayed through their platforms and supported most of Section 230’s protections.However, they argued that the Gonzalez family should get another chance and called for the Supreme Court to return the case to the Ninth Circuit for further review.
The case ruling could define how Section 230 is defined and decide how much content and liberty of distribution the companies carry moving forward. The law was passed in 1996, before the time of the modern internet.
A coalition of 26 states and Washington, D.C., have argued that courts have broadly defended Section 230 and provided immunity to platforms that have also contributed to protecting criminals when they operate online.
On the other hand, Matt Schruers, president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, a trade group, said in support of existing protections, “I could foresee an outcome where the litigation and compliance risks stemming from an ill-considered decision are so great that many small firms exit the market.”
“To say that another way, U.S. competitiveness is potentially at risk here, and we have the most to lose from getting this wrong,” he said, according to The Wall Street Journal.
“We regularly work with law enforcement, other platforms, and civil society to share intelligence and best practices. Undercutting Section 230 would make it harder, not easier, to combat harmful content—making the internet less safe and less helpful for all of us,” said Google spokesman Jose Castaneda, cited by Bloomberg.
