Google Case Could Impact Online Free Speech In The Supreme Court

A potential groundbreaking case with the potential to alter the force of a key law that the tech industry says has been fundamental to keeping the internet an open and free place for the expression of ideas is set to be heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

‍

Gonzalez v. Google is the case that has been brought by the family of an American who died as a result of a terrorist attack in Paris in 2015. During the trial, the petitioners alleged that Google and its subsidiary YouTube failed to take sufficient action to remove or stop the promotion of ISIS terrorist videos that are intended to recruit members, which they said violates the Anti-Terrorism Act. The lower courts ruled in favor of Google on the basis that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields it from liability if it is found to be responsible for what its users post on it.

‍

There is now a dispute over this very shield since the petitioners argue that it should not apply in the case of Google actively promoting user-generated content, such as through the recommendations it provides.

‍

Several lawmakers from both sides of the aisle would likely cheer a narrowing of Section 230, which has been under fire for years for reasons ranging from the belief that it fuels alleged internet censorship to the conviction that it protects tech companies that do little to stop hate speech and misinformation on their platforms. Many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle would likely cheer a narrowing of Section 230.

‍

As a result, many tech platforms and many free speech experts warn that a change in Section 230 will have wide-ranging implications for how the internet operates, causing popular services to restrict or slow down user posting in order to avoid being held accountable for what users say in the future.

‍

Google's General Counsel Halimah DeLaine Prado wrote in a January blog post summarizing the company's position that without Section 230, some websites would have to over-block, filtering any potential legal risk and shutting down services altogether. “Consequently, consumers would have fewer choices regarding online activities, including work, play, learning, shopping, creating, and participating in online exchanges of ideas."

‍

A few times in the past, Justice Clarence Thomas has advocated for a case to be filed around Section 230, arguing that it has been applied too broadly and that internet platforms should perhaps instead be regulated more like utilities, given their widespread use as a means of sharing information.

‍

A separate tech case will also be heard on Wednesday by the Supreme Court, one that may have an impact on how platforms promote and remove speech from their websites. Twitter v. Taamneh will determine whether Twitter can be held accountable for failing to remove terrorist content from its platform under the Anti-Terrorism Act.