US' Supreme Court rules for Google, Twitter on terror-related content

The US Supreme Court has given a major relief to social media companies on Thursday, reported the Washington Post. The families of people killed in terrorist bombing attacks in Istanbul and Paris sued Twitter, Facebook, Google and YouTube. In the case, the families claimed that the companies had violated the federal Anti-Terrorism Act, which specifically allowed civil damage claims for aiding and abetting terrorism. It would be the first test case that has involved immunity from lawsuits granted to internet platforms for the content they publish online. This decision by the US supreme court has come in two separate cases, one against Twitter, and the other against Google.

US court gives immunity to social media companies 

In the case against the social media firms, the families have alleged that these firms have passively provided platforms to terrorists for communication; by recommending ISIS videos to those who might be interested, the internet platforms have been seeking to get more viewers and increase their ad revenue, even though they knew that ISIS was using their services as a recruitment tool. However, on Thursday, the US SC rejected those claims. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for a unanimous court, the families “never allege that, after defendants established their platforms, they gave ISIS any special treatment or words of encouragement." Further, he added, “Nor is there reason to think that defendants selected or took any action at all with respect to ISIS’ content (except, perhaps, blocking some of it)." The narrowly focused rulings sidestepped requests to limit Section 230, according to Washington Post. Section 230 is a legal provision that protects social media platforms from lawsuits over offensive, harmful or violent content posted by their users, regardless of whether companies incentivise or promote those posts. It has emerged as a lightning rod in the politically polarised debate over the future of online speech. According to Columbia University law professor Timothy Wu, who specialises in this area of the law, "Thursday's decision was 'less than hopeful' for those who wanted the court to curb the scope of the law known as 'Section 230'." Further, he added,  "Even the Biden administration had looked to the court to begin the task of 230 reform".