The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next month in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh, two cases that will weigh the limits of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which shields Big Tech companies and other online platforms from lawsuits for hosting and moderating user…
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next month in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh, two cases that will weigh the limits of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which shields Big Tech companies and other online platforms from lawsuits for hosting and moderating user posts.
In the Taamneh dispute, lower courts ruled that the case should proceed but declined to answer questions such as whether Twitter was immunized under Section 230, deciding rather to analyze the scope of online platforms' responsibilities under the Anti-Terrorism Act. Meanwhile, Google has pushed back on the Gonzalez petition. “This Court should not lightly adopt a reading of section 230 that would threaten the basic organizational decisions of the modern internet," the company said in its brief.
One of those justices, Clarence Thomas, wrote in 2020 about Section 230, saying,"In an appropriate case, we should consider whether the text of this increasingly important statute aligns with the current state of immunity enjoyed by Internet platforms." "This legislation will fix the misinterpretation of Section 230 immunity and ensure that Big Tech can no longer profit off of promoting terrorists’ content on their platforms," Buck said in a statement.
Ireland Latest News, Ireland Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
At the Supreme Court, it's taking longer to hear casesSupreme Court arguments are continuing long after a red light tells lawyers to stop
Read more »
At the Supreme Court, it’s taking longer to hear casesJustices have said in the past that lawyers' written briefs, not oral arguments, most influence their decisions, so it's unclear if the extra time is really helping them decide cases.
Read more »
At the Supreme Court, It's Taking Longer to Hear CasesWhen lawyers argue before the Supreme Court, a small white light goes on to tell them when their time is almost expired and then a red light signals when they should stop. But arguments this term are extending well beyond the red light's cue.
Read more »
At the Supreme Court, it's taking longer to hear casesSupreme Court arguments that usually lasted an hour in the morning have stretched well beyond two, and on many days it's long past lunchtime before the court breaks.
Read more »
At the Supreme Court, it's taking longer to hear casesSupreme Court arguments are continuing long after a red light tells lawyers to stop.
Read more »
At the Supreme Court, it’s taking longer to hear casesWhen lawyers argue before the Supreme Court, a small white light goes on to tell them when their time is almost expired and then a red light signals when they should stop. But arguments this term are extending well beyond the red light's cue.
Read more »