The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled. It was unanimous that it estimated, on May 18, that the criminal responsibility of Google, Facebook and Twitter cannot be compromised by victims of attacks. The latter accused them of having contributed to broadcasting and disseminating the propaganda of the Islamic State (IS) group.
In this closely watched case by the tech industry, the High Court awarded this huge victory to the three US companies without entering the broader debate over the law that protects them from prosecution for the content they put online.
The Supreme Court ruled on two separate cases. In the first, the parents of a young American girl killed in the November 2015 attacks in Paris had filed a complaint against Google, the parent company of YouTube, which they accused of having supported the growth of IS by suggesting their videos to some users.
unit 230
In the second, the relatives of a victim of an attack on a nightclub in Istanbul on January 1, 2017, believed that Facebook, Twitter and Google could be considered “accomplices” in the attack, due to their efforts to remove the group’s content. hey. he had not been “vigorous” enough.
“The fact that bad actors take advantage of these platforms is not enough to ensure that the defendants knowingly provided substantial assistance” to the jihadists, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the Court’s unanimous ruling. “We conclude that the plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient to establish that the defendants assisted ISIS in carrying out its attack,” he wrote.
Another reason for relief in Silicon Valley: the high court “rejects” the invitation to clarify the scope of “section 230”, a law dating from 1996 that grants legal immunity to digital companies for content published on their platforms.
The main companies in the sector defend tooth and nail this status as hosts -and not as publishers- which, according to them, has allowed the Internet to take off. But this provision no longer enjoys consensus: the left criticizes social networks for hiding behind this immunity to allow racist and conspiratorial messages to flourish; The right, outraged by the banishment of Donald Trump from various platforms, accuses them of “censorship” under the protection of their right to moderation.
Source: BFM TV
