VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12:17:48 1/31/23 Tue
Author: Jasper
Subject: Supreme Court takes up Google case on speech, starts Feb 21

.
What have the Supreme Court justices said about Section 230?
Thomas has been the most vocal justice in criticizing the way lower courts interpret Section 230, the law that generally shields internet firms from liability for publishing user content. In 2020, for instance, he wrote that extending immunity beyond a "natural reading" of Section 230 can have "serious consequences."
No other justice signed onto that position, nor a similar statement Thomas wrote last year questioning whether lower courts' reading of the law is consistent with "the statute's plain text." That means it's a bit of a mystery how the court will resolve an issue that also has created unusual political alliances.
The outcome of the Google case, to be argued Feb. 21, could have a significant impact on the internet itself. Google, Facebook-owner Meta and others say that if the court significantly limits Section 230 it could lead to a proliferation of objectionable content on some sites and knee-jerk removal of content on others.

At issue in the Google case is whether targeted recommendations YouTube's algorithm makes to users – suggesting the next video to watch – are shielded by Section 230. The family of a woman killed in an Islamic State group attack in 2015 sued Google, which owns YouTube, for promoting the group's videos via its algorithms.

Thomas revisited his position last year in the case of a 15-year-old who sued Facebook after a sex trafficker used the platform to lure her into a meeting.

In a separate case in 2021 about former President Donald Trump's decision to block users on Twitter, Thomas said that large social media firms could be treated like communication utilities, asserting that the concentration in the industry gives some digital platforms "enormous control over speech." Such a treatment, however, would open the companies up to far more government regulation of their content.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/01/31/google-section-230-supreme-court-clarence-thomas/11149938002/

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.