Gonzalez v. Google LLC

Gonzalez v. Google LLC (Docket 21–1333) is a pending case at the Supreme Court of the United States which deals with the question of whether or not recommender systems are covered by liability exemptions under Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for Internet service providers, in dealing with terrorism-related content posted by users and hosted on their servers.[1] The case was granted certiorari alongside another Section 230 and terrorism-related case, Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh.

Gonzalez v. Google LLC
Supreme Court of the United States
Full case nameReynaldo Gonzalez, et al., v. Google LLC
Docket no.21-1333
Questions presented
Whether Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limits the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information.

Background

In November 2015, a series of coordinated terrorism attacks occurred in Paris. At least 130 were killed by the terrorists, and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) took responsibility for the attack.

Among those killed was a single American, Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old student. Her family began to seek legal remedies against Google, the parent company of YouTube. Their suit argued that through its recommendation system that tailors content based on user profiles, YouTube led users towards recruitment videos for ISIS, and were partially responsible for Nohemi's death.[2] Google defended itself by relying on Section 230, passed as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides immunity from content published on an Internet service provider's platform by third-party users. A lower court ruled in favor of Google, and the decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.[3]

In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the family focused more on the YouTube algorithm that has been tailored to deliver content believed to be of interest to the end user, arguing that while this was automatically done, it was a form of moderation that Section 230 does not fully cover. They wrote in their petition to the Supreme Court, "Whether Section 230 applies to these algorithm-generated recommendations is of enormous practical importance. Interactive computer services constantly direct such recommendations, in one form or another, at virtually every adult and child in the United States who uses social media."[4]

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to the case in October 2022, along with a related case Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh also dealing with Section 230 and terrorism-related content. They will be the first cases that the Court will hear over Section 230, which since around 2015 has become under increasing partisan criticism towards Big Tech. Justice Clarence Thomas had spoken to a need to review Section 230 in previous dissenting statements to court orders.[3]

Many of the Big Tech companies provided their own amicus curiae to support Google's recommender system as part of the case, as well as smaller sites including Reddit and the Wikimedia Foundation which rely on moderation systems that partially incorporate user moderation as part of their systems. While there is general support for updating Section 230 to reflect modern concerns, these briefly broadly stressed the need to let Congress pass legislation rather than having the Supreme Court issue its own judgement.[5] This position was also upheld by Ron Wyden and Christopher Cox, the lawmakers behind Section 230, and law professor Eric Goldman who has written extensively about Section 230, in addition to mobile app platforms like Yelp and Craigslist and free speech advocacy groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation.[6]

Briefs in support of Gonzalez' position include several Republican Congresspeople including Ted Cruz, Mike Johnson, and Josh Hawley, and other advocacy groups like the Anti-Defamation League, which argue that Google and other Big Tech groups have used Section 230 to remain immune to harmful content posted on their sites.[6]

Oral arguments in Gonzalez and for Taamneh are scheduled for February 22, 2023.

See also

References
Wikiquote has quotations related to Gonzalez v. Google LLC.
  1. "In Gonzalez v. Google, SCOTUS Has Chance To Clarify Section 230's Meaning". Newsweek. January 27, 2023.
  2. Liptak, Adam; McCabe, Dave (October 3, 2022). "Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to Social Media Platforms' Shield". The New York Times. Retrieved October 3, 2022.
  3. Kern, Rebecca (October 3, 2022). "SCOTUS to hear challenge to Section 230 protections". Politico. Retrieved October 3, 2022.
  4. "Social Media Company Liability Draws Supreme Court Scrutiny". MSN. Retrieved 2022-10-04.
  5. Ryan-Mosley, Tate (February 1, 2023). "How the Supreme Court ruling on Section 230 could end Reddit as we know it". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved February 1, 2023.
  6. Barr, Kyle (January 23, 2023). "Tech Groups, Politicians, and Reddit Evangelize Section 230 to Supreme Court". Gizmodo. Retrieved February 5, 2023.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.