'Gonzales v. Google' case reheard: Supreme Court upholds the application of Section 230

According to reports on May 19, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in an unsigned opinion that it will not change the legal shield that Internet platforms are not liable for content posted by users for the time being. The decision preserves broad liability exemptions that temporarily exempt content platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube from liability for comments posted on their platforms. While this comes as a relief to Internet platforms, many members of Congress in the United States are still calling for reform of the exemption clause.

The U.S. Supreme Court stated in the case of "Gonzales v. Google" that it did not involve the application of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The regulations protect platforms from being affected by user speech and authorize platforms to review or delete content posted by users. Since the indictment did not state a proper claim, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the status quo. The case will be sent back to the lower court for a new hearing. The Supreme Court has already ruled on a similar case, Twitter v. Tamme.

According to ITBEAR Technology Information, the family of a terrorist attack victim in the case tried to hold Twitter accountable, accusing it of aiding and abetting the attack and failing to take sufficient action to delete terrorist content on the platform. However, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff's allegations were insufficient under Article 230.

Judge Thomas wrote in the court's unanimous opinion: "Plaintiffs allege that Defendants designed the digital platform and deliberately failed to do an adequate job of removing ISIS-related users and content from hundreds of millions of users and vast amounts of content. Content. However, the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant knowingly provided substantial assistance to the Reina attack or otherwise consciously participated in the attack, let alone proved that the defendant assisted ISIS extensively and systematically and was responsible for each ISIS attack. ." This case involves a terrorist attack in a nightclub in Istanbul, Turkey.

Many members of the U.S. Congress believe that Section 230 provides redundant protection for large industries. Despite this, supporters believe that this law can protect smaller industry participants from the burden of expensive lawsuits. Lawmakers are currently divided over what form the reform should take, so significant obstacles remain in achieving it. "This decision does not change Section 230, which governs Internet speech and content moderation," said Jesse Myers, legal counsel for the Chamber of Commerce for Progress and the Google-backed Chamber of Commerce for Progress. A clear victory. While the Court may have been interested in reinterpreting decades-old Internet law, it was clear from the oral arguments that tweaking the interpretation of Section 230 would cause more problems than it would solve. The Supreme Court made the right decision. Section 230 keeps the internet as we know it alive.” Chris Marchese, director of the organization's Litigation Center, said: "This is a major victory for Internet speech. The court refused to undermine Section 230 and upheld the existing situation."

The above is the detailed content of 'Gonzales v. Google' case reheard: Supreme Court upholds the application of Section 230. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!