Big Tech makes the case for Section 230 in Supreme Court briefs
Christopher Hutton
Video Embed
Tech companies made their case to the Supreme Court not to change Section 230, a law that they argue is the backbone of the modern internet and a critical protection for social media platforms.
Microsoft, Google, and Meta filed amicus briefs on Thursday regarding Gonzalez v. Google, a Supreme Court case that could upturn Section 230, a section of communications law that protects online platforms from being held accountable for the conduct of their users. The tech companies argue that changes to how algorithms are treated under this law would have a massive impact on the use of the internet.
GOOGLE WARNS SUPREME COURT COULD ‘UPEND THE INTERNET’ THROUGH SECTION 230 CHANGES
Section 230 is “part of a unified design that protects third-party content curation generally,” the liberal advocacy organization Chamber of Progress argued on behalf of Google. “Eliminating any portion of those protections would dramatically alter the Internet for the hundreds of millions of Americans, and billions of worldwide users, who depend on online services for information, education, entertainment, and income.”
Gonzalez v. Google relates to a lawsuit by Reynaldo Gonzalez, who sued Google under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act after his daughter was killed during a 2015 Islamic State attack in Paris. Gonzalez argues Google assisted ISIS by hosting its recruitment videos on YouTube and that Google “recommended ISIS videos to users” via its algorithm, thus making it liable for helping the terrorist organization.
The companies all agreed on a central argument: that Section 230 was written when the internet was significantly smaller. The internet has expanded considerably since in content, which has made tools like search engines and algorithms necessary for searching. If the court ruled against Google, it would strip “long-standing, critical protection from suit,” Microsoft argued. “And it would do so in illogical ways that are inconsistent with how algorithms actually work.”
Meta also pushed back on the notion that the Supreme Court should be the one to change the law. “If [Section 230] is truly to be converted into a regime at such profound odds with Congress’ express findings and purposes, that decision should come from Congress, not this Court,” the social media giant wrote.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Lower courts previously ruled in Google’s favor, saying that it was protected by Section 230 due to a broad interpretation in which Google isn’t treated as liable due to ISIS creating the content and the algorithm treating the videos the same as others. Justice Clarence Thomas has expressed an eagerness to challenge this broad interpretation.
GOP lawmakers have pushed for changes to Section 230 for several years, arguing that it has allowed Big Tech to discriminate against conservatives. Some Democrats have also pushed for Big Tech to have their Section 230 protections stripped due to their role in spreading misinformation.