The US Supreme Court is examining two cases that may call into question the legal immunity of platforms by considering them as publishers and not as content hosts.
Twitter was accused on Wednesday February 22 of turning a blind eye to the online actions of the jihadist group Islamic State (IS), during a hearing at the Supreme Court of the United States, responsible for deciding whether the social network could be prosecuted in justice for complicity in acts of terrorism.
“There is an accusation of willful blindness here… You knew that IS was using your platform,” noted Judge Sonia Sotomayor, speaking to the lawyer representing the social network.
The nine judges of the instance have taken up a complaint filed by the relatives of a victim of an IS attack in an Istanbul nightclub in 2017. According to the family, Twitter is complicit in this act of terrorism for failing to remove tweets from the group or stop recommending those tweets (via automated algorithms).
“knowledgeable help”
The platform, supported by its rivals (Google, Facebook, etc.), assures for its part that being a service used by tens of millions of people in the world does not prove that it “knowingly helps” groups terrorists.
On Tuesday, February 21, a hearing on a similar issue took place: the family of a victim of the 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris accuses YouTube (subsidiary of Google) of having supported the growth of ISIS by suggesting videos of the group to some users.
At the heart of the two complaints is “Section 230”, a 1996 law that grants legal immunity to digital companies for content posted by Internet users on their platforms. The major companies in the sector defend tooth and nail this status of hosts – and not of publishers – which, according to them, has allowed the advent of the Internet as it has taken shape.
Accomplices in acts of terrorism
Supreme Court justices on Tuesday expressed doubts about Section 230’s relevance today, but also their reluctance to influence the fate of a law that has become fundamental to the digital economy. On Wednesday, they made numerous hypotheses to determine how the platforms could be held complicit in acts of terrorism.
In 1997, “CNN did an interview with Osama bin Laden, a very famous interview…According to your theory, could CNN have been prosecuted for complicity in the attacks of September 11?”, for example asked Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
In the United States Congress, many voices are calling for an overhaul of Section 230. But given the very different perspectives on the left and on the right, legislative efforts to amend the text have never succeeded.
