Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Google Social Networks The Internet Twitter

Supreme Court Rules Against Reexamining Section 230 (theverge.com) 58

Posted by BeauHD from the foundational-internet-laws dept.
Adi Robertson writes via The Verge: The Supreme Court has declined to consider reinterpreting foundational internet law Section 230, saying it wasn't necessary for deciding the terrorism-related case Gonzalez v. Google. The ruling came alongside a separate but related ruling in Twitter v. Taamneh, where the court concluded that Twitter had not aided and abetted terrorism. In an unsigned opinion (PDF) issued today, the court said the underlying complaints in Gonzalez were weak, regardless of Section 230's applicability. The case involved the family of a woman killed in a terrorist attack suing Google, which the family claimed had violated the law by recommending terrorist content on YouTube. They sought to hold Google liable under anti-terrorism laws.

The court dismissed the complaint largely because of its unanimous ruling (PDF) in Twitter v. Taamneh. Much like in Gonzalez, a family alleged that Twitter knowingly supported terrorists by failing to remove them from the platform before a deadly attack. In a ruling authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, however, the court declared that the claims were "insufficient to establish that these defendants aided and abetted ISIS" for the attack in question. Thomas declared that Twitter's failure to police terrorist content failed the requirement for some "affirmative act" that involved meaningful participation in an illegal act. "If aiding-and-abetting liability were taken too far, then ordinary merchants could become liable for any misuse of their goods and services, no matter how attenuated their relationship with the wrongdoer," writes Thomas. That includes "those who merely deliver mail or transmit emails" becoming liable for the contents of those messages or even people witnessing a robbery becoming liable for the theft. "There are no allegations that defendants treated ISIS any differently from anyone else. Rather, defendants' relationship with ISIS and its supporters appears to have been the same as their relationship with their billion-plus other users: arm's length, passive, and largely indifferent."

For Gonzalez v. Google, "the allegations underlying their secondary-liability claims are materially identical to those at issue in Twitter," says the court. "Since we hold that the complaint in that case fails to state a claim for aiding and abetting ... it appears to follow that the complaint here likewise fails to state such a claim." Because of that, "we therefore decline to address the application of 230 to a complaint that appears to state little, if any, plausible claim for relief." [...] The Gonzalez ruling is short and declines to deal with many of the specifics of the case. But the Twitter ruling does take on a key question from Gonzalez: whether recommendation algorithms constitute actively encouraging certain types of content. Thomas appears skeptical: "To be sure, plaintiffs assert that defendants' 'recommendation' algorithms go beyond passive aid and constitute active, substantial assistance. We disagree. By plaintiffs' own telling, their claim is based on defendants' 'provision of the infrastructure which provides material support to ISIS.' Viewed properly, defendants' 'recommendation' algorithms are merely part of that infrastructure. All the content on their platforms is filtered through these algorithms, which allegedly sort the content by information and inputs provided by users and found in the content itself. As presented here, the algorithms appear agnostic as to the nature of the content, matching any content (including ISIS' content) with any user who is more likely to view that content. The fact that these algorithms matched some ISIS content with some users thus does not convert defendants' passive assistance into active abetting. Once the platform and sorting-tool algorithms were up and running, defendants at most allegedly stood back and watched; they are not alleged to have taken any further action with respect to ISIS." "The interpretation may deal a blow to one common argument for adding special liability to social media: the claim that recommendation systems go above and beyond simply hosting content and explicitly encourage that content," adds Robertson. "This ruling's reasoning suggests that simply recommending something on an 'agnostic' basis -- as opposed to, in one hypothetical from Thomas, creating a system that 'consciously and selectively chose to promote content provided by a particular terrorist group' -- isn't an active form of encouragement."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Supreme Court Rules Against Reexamining Section 230 More

Supreme Court Rules Against Reexamining Section 230

Comments Filter:
  • Is it AI day on /. ?
    Supreme Court Rules Against Reexamining Section 230 - recommender systems
    OpenAI Launches Free ChatGPT App For iOS - AI apps
    Alibaba To Spin Off Its Cloud, AI and Business Messenger Unit - AI cloud
    Italy Allocates Funds To Shield Workers From AI Replacement Threat - AI jobs
    BT To Cut Up To 55,000 Jobs By 2030 as Fibre and AI Arrive - AI jobs
    Hippocratic Is Building a Large Language Model For Healthcare - AI jobs
    AI Threatens Humanity's Future, 61% of Americans Say - AI doom

  • Dupe? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]

  • Translation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NotEmmanuelGoldstein ( 6423622 ) on Thursday May 18, 2023 @05:15PM (#63533545)

    ... meaningful participation in an illegal act.

    Businesses have a 'duty of care' to prevent people seeing breasts or prostitutes, but not hate-mongering or brain-washing.

    • PornHub would like to have a word with you... they do nothing to confirm I'm not a three year old!

    • Talibangoelicals (Score:5, Informative)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Thursday May 18, 2023 @06:36PM (#63533669) Journal

      Yip! This is the Land of Religious Zealots. They realize that if Muslim terrorists can be jailed for such, then so can radical evangelicals (such as Ginni per Jan 6).

      I bet if the case were "Google talked my son into growing breasts", SCOTUS would be all over Google like a grenade at a Hero Convention.

    • Yes, that is correct. Because Congress has explicitly stated the former and have only vaguely alluded to the latter. But in the same vein, it means that if a platform WANTS to censor a particular content, it's at their discretion and not requirement.

      Now this isn't me picking a side and saying one is better than the other. It's just pointing out that the arguments given to the courts don't offer a strong enough point for the Court to reconsider their position on what's already settled. That's the court i

  • The problem with Section 230 is that once you start censoring content, you become responsible for the content you don't censor, because you have implicitly condoned it. So it's kind of all-or-nothing.

    • Re:Censorship=approval (Score:5, Informative)

      by TheWorstTakes ( 10347040 ) on Thursday May 18, 2023 @05:58PM (#63533615)

      Gonna pull out ol' reliable [techdirt.com] for this one:

      First off, there is no “neutrality” requirement at all in Section 230. Seriously. Read it. If anything, it says the opposite. It says that sites can moderate as they see fit and face no liability. This myth is out there and persists because some politicians keep repeating it, but it’s wrong and the opposite of truth. Indeed, any requirement of neutrality would likely raise significant 1st Amendment questions, as it would be involving the law in editorial decision making.

      Second, as described earlier, you can’t “lose” your Section 230 protections, especially not over your moderation choices (again, the law explicitly says that you cannot face liability for moderation choices, so stop trying to make it happen). If content is produced by someone else, the site is protected from lawsuit, thanks to Section 230. If the content is produced by the site, it is not. Moderating the content is not producing content, and so the mere act of moderation, whether neutral or not, does not make you lose 230 protections. That’s just not how it works.

    • Nobody's censoring content (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday May 18, 2023 @06:34PM (#63533665)
      they're choosing who to do business with. Something your lot normally likes so long as your personally agree with the business. You only seem to have a problem with a business' right to do business with who they choose when they're turning down business to someone you like....

      As for S230, it's one of 2 pillars of the Internet. Without it your site either gets flooded with trolls [upworthy.com] or shuts down.

      The internet is not cable TV. It's a new technology. So it needed new rules to thrive. It got them, in the form of Net Neutrality & S230, and it's why we have a functioning internet.

      Some folks are snowflakes who don't like that, and want to censor content. Either by being allowed to crap flood & harass anyone they disagree with until they log off or by turning The Internet into Cable TV run by a handful of Nepo babies.

      I think we can all agree that's a raw deal for everyone but the trolls and nepo-babies.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by quall ( 1441799 )

        Right. So your electrical provider can choose not to do business with you over your political views, right? How about internet providers? They can decide not throw you off their network because they don't like how you may only believe in 2 genders, right?

        When you curate the content and decide who shouldn't be on you platform based on whether you're making money off their content or not, then you're not really a service provider. Your a content provider like cable TV. Referring to Youtube in this situation.

        Y

        • Re:Nobody's censoring content (Score:4, Insightful)

          by TheWorstTakes ( 10347040 ) on Thursday May 18, 2023 @07:29PM (#63533741)

          Man, I'm glad I brought this [techdirt.com] out today:

          The law does distinguish between “interactive computer services” and “information content providers,” but that is not, as some imply, a fancy legalistic ways of saying “platform” or “publisher.” There is no “certification” or “decision” that a website needs to make to get 230 protections. It protects all websites and all users of websites when there is content posted on the sites by someone else.

          To be a bit more explicit: at no point in any court case regarding Section 230 is there a need to determine whether or not a particular website is a “platform” or a “publisher.” What matters is solely the content in question. If that content is created by someone else, the website hosting it cannot be sued over it.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by DamnOregonian ( 963763 )

          How about internet providers? They can decide not throw you off their network because they don't like how you may only believe in 2 genders, right?

          Indeed, we can.
          We wouldn't, though.
          Believe it or not, even though we think you're fucking morons, we like taking money from you more.

        • Possibly (Score:2, Troll)

          by rsilvergun ( 571051 )
          because political views are not a protected class. They cannot do it for race, creed or sex. The difference is that immutable characteristics are generally protected

          Incidentally, that's a good reason to keep Utilities public instead of private. Things needed to live should, by and large, be public so that access is guaranteed and universal.

          That said there is a certain level of censorship in all communities. Go around screaming "The Jews Will Not Replace US!" and yes, you can legally say that, but the

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        Without it your site either gets flooded with trolls

        Can I take a baseball bat to the person with the red and black flag on their tee shirt? Because letting one in is fine. But pretty soon, they bring friends, stop being cool and burn down or vandalize the neighborhood.

    • You mean the problem with removing S.230, I'm guessing.

      Under S.230, no, you have no such responsibility, period.
      What you describe is actually the pre-S.230 environment that led directly (and quickly) to the amendment to the CDA that you know call S.230, after a famous court decision.

    • The problem with Section 230 is that once you start censoring content, you become responsible for the content

      That is literally the exact opposite of what Section 230 says and the opposite of the whole reason Section 230 was written. But don't take my word for it, go read or listen to any interview with Christopher Cox who wrote the law on why he did it. Hint: It was specifically about making sure that online services are considered distributors and not held liable.

  • This ruling is relevant to gun manufacturers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Aristos Mazer ( 181252 ) on Thursday May 18, 2023 @06:17PM (#63533635)

    If Thomas had gone the other way on this case, it would've set him up for problems defending gun manufacturers from similar lawsuits. "If aiding-and-abetting liability were taken too far, then ordinary merchants could become liable for any misuse of their goods and services, no matter how attenuated their relationship with the wrongdoer," writes Thomas. That's a precedent Thomas would seek to avoid for his Second Amendment goals.

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by TheWorstTakes ( 10347040 )

      I mean, yeah, no shit, that seems like common sense to me. Were you trying to make a point relevant to Section 230, or did you just wanna say "guns bad, Thomas bad"? Because if that's all you wanted to do, I feel like there are a lot worse things Clarence Thomas did than make some pro-2A rulings that you don't like.

    • I like to think that's a precedent all judiciaries would seek to avoid, for their goal of the rule of law.

      • Me too. I am just surprised anyone thought this was a good argument for these justices.

        • Honestly, I can't figure out wtf these Justices really think as far as legal theory goes.

          If I'm being honest, I feel like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would uphold Dredd Scott v. Sanford.

          But whatever, the implications with this one were too fucking glaring to ignore, I'd like to think.
          It would essentially allow the treatment of unintentional technical material aid as material aid for the purpose of tort... which is fucking insanity.
          It would allow for such hilarity like holding you responsible for

          • Legal insanity is Congress' job. I do not want SCOTUS treading on their ground! :-)

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion
            • You *want* a court that will overthrow decades of a precedent (that was set by that court).
              A legal decision can be wrong.
              See: Dredd Scott v. Sanford.

              Roe v. Wade was a shit decision.
              I wish we lived in a country where there was simply no fucking need for it, but the decision was made on very very shoddy legal grounds, to suit the need.
              But that's not a foundation that's going to last.

              Substantive Due Process is questionable legal theory.

              That is not to say that Alito isn't fucking crazy, and that your
              • Comment removed based on user account deletion

                • Come on, you know better than that. Obviously there are rare cases you want a court to overthrow decades of a precedent set by that court, but you don't, you absolutely don't, want to do it unless absolutely 100% necessary.

                  Nonsense.
                  You want them to do it whenever a previous decision was wrong.
                  There isn't some absolute necessity on holding to a bad call. That's complete bullshit.

                  Roe vs Wade was imperfect, but I wouldn't describe it as a shit decision. And it had already been "overthrown" within a decade of it coming out with a set of far better rulings based upon much stronger arguments. What it had to say on the subject of privacy rights was strong, but there were stronger arguments for protecting a person's right to an abortion than simply privacy rights, noteably Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In the mean time, judges over and over again, rightly, re-affirmed and built-upon the privacy rights thesis that RvW gave.

                  Then your judgement is clouded.
                  Row v. Wade was so fucking terrible, that its logic had to be fundamentally admitted as flawed, and tuned specifically to the case in hand.
                  It's simple to demonstrate this-
                  If abortion is covered under Substantive Due Process as a fundamental right, then why isn't conversion therapy?

                  This wasn't one case that was overturned, it was half a century of legitimate, pro-civil rights, precedent, where a legitimate thesis in the center of an imperfect ruling was expanded upon and used to cover a range of civil rights issues. And overthrowing that was based upon a clearly bullshit argument.

                  No. Stop that.
                  A ruling was overtur

    • Agreed. Taking this position will make it extremely difficult to hold gun manufacturers and dealers responsible for deaths where the products they designed, manufactured or sold were used. Similarly it would be like holding Monsanto responsible for deaths cause by unintended exposure to glyphosate, or tobacco companies responsible for deaths caused by undesired second hand smoke.

      • The gun companies haven't been claiming you can't kill people with guns. Monsanto still claims glyphosate is safe as commonly used, and tobacco companies claimed for decades that second-hand smoke was harmless.

    • Re:This ruling is relevant to gun manufacturers (Score:4, Insightful)

      by misnohmer ( 1636461 ) on Friday May 19, 2023 @03:19AM (#63534141)
      Why just gun manufacturers? How about metal manufacturers who sell to gun manufacturers? How about the city, state, or country which allowed the manufacturing of metal which was sold to the gun manufacturer? Going the other way, how about the Uber driver who drove a terrorist to a gun store? How about the gas station which sold the gas to that Uber driver. How about the gas hauling truck driver who drove the gas to the said gas station? How about Uber the company? How about the car manufacturer who made the car which the Uber driver drove to the gun store? How about the mother of the Uber driver? There has to be a limit to extended liability.

      • I agree there *should* be a limit, but laws can be dumb. No reason there *has* to be. :-) But the reason to focus on guns is because that is another area of law currently or recently under litigation before the SCOTUS on this same point, so it is likely that Thomas is considering it at the same time as this ruling. To my knowledge, there is nothing similar regarding Uber or any other area currently or recently before the Court. If I have missed a related case, please let me know.

    • By, "Second Amendment goals", do you mean preserving a Constitutionally guaranteed right? Why frame that as a goal, as if he is trying to achieve something new rather than the preservation of something we already have?

      • Because there are a few ways to look at the 2nd Amendment text, with two big questions: a) how relevant is the "militia" clause and b) can it be regulated like the 1st Amendment or is it more absolute? Both questions have multiple answers under the verbatim text, and Thomas is in the camp that specifically wants 2nd interpreted as individually and absolutely as possible. There is nothing judicially right or wrong about that position, so I phrase it as a goal of his argumentation. The rightness or wrongness

    • Not just firearms manufacturers but any company whose products are used for malicious purposes. You can't sue Ford for African warlords' use of the Somalia Technical. You can't sue Saran Wrap for a mafia hit man using it to suffocate a witness. What this really means is that humans are the malicious element and society needs to deal with the broken ones however uncomfortable, inconvenient, or time-consuming that process may be.

  • ... have made in the long run anyways?

    When supreme court precedents can be overridden at any time by a future court, it doesn't even really matter.

    • You have to just think of them as another legislative branch at this point. The long term effects of this are the same as any law passed by congress: it applies until someone changes it, and that may or may not be a long time.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mark-t ( 151149 )

        The difference: Congress is elected by the people for fixed term periods.

        Judges on the supreme court are appointed by whoever was president at the time and retain the position for life.

      • You have to just think of them as another legislative branch at this point.

        Not really. They are interpretive only. Regardless of their decisions the actual legislative branch can overrule anything the Supreme Court has said at any point. And yes this includes the Constitution. Remember free speech was an "amendment". The constitution can be changed.

        That said, with the courts in the US being completely political, and the governments being such as split between extreme views in Red vs Blue without any consideration as to what is being discussed or its benefits, with votes largely ca

  • ATT will no longer have to worry about people posting nasty ads on their utility poles!

  • ""The interpretation may deal a blow to one common argument for adding special liability to social media: the claim that recommendation systems go above and beyond simply hosting content and explicitly encourage that content," adds Robertson."

    From Thomas as quoted in TFS "As presented here, the algorithms appear agnostic as to the nature of the content, matching any content (including ISIS' content) with any user who is more likely to view that content. The fact that these algorithms matched some ISIS conte

Slashdot Top Deals

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Close