Section 230 Stands (for now)

[GordMay]

CF Dodged a Bullet at the Supreme Court: Section 230 Stands (for now)

The US Supreme court recently dismissed (vacated and remanded) [2] “Gonzalez v. Google” [1] in an unsigned, three-page decision, that concluded that the case had “little, if any, plausible claim for relief.”
“Gonzalez” was a case in which the family of a terror attack victim contended that social media firms should be liable for making radicalizing ideas available to people who ultimately harm others.
“Gonzalez” focused on whether Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, which shields internet companies and social media platforms (like CruisersForum) from legal liability, for what users say on their platforms, also provides immunity from the liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA).

[1] Gonzalez v. Google, LLC, ➥ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1333_6j7a.pdf

[2] The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s judgment — which held that plaintiffs’ complaint was barred by Section 230* of the Communications Decency Act — is vacated, and the case is remanded for reconsideration in light of the court’s decision in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh. [3]
Judgment: Vacated and remanded in a per curiam opinion on May 18, 2023.
➥ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...-v-google-llc/

[3] Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh
Plaintiffs’ allegations that the social-media-company defendants aided and abetted ISIS in its terrorist attack on a nightclub in Instanbul, Turkey fail to state a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2333(d)(2).
Judgment: Reversed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on May 18, 2023. Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion.
➥ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1496_d18f.pdf

* Section 230 provides that platforms may not be treated as the publisher of third-party content, for liability purposes.

[Jamme]

[emoji23] Thanks Gord.