SCOTUS Sidesteps Section 230
Will DuffieldGonzalez v. Google, a much ‐watched Supreme Court case about whether Section 230 protects algorithmic curation,ended with a whimper on Thursday. In a three page per curiamopinion, the Court avoided addressing Section 230 at all. Instead, the court decidedGonzalezviaTwitter v. Taamneh, a related case about platforms’ underlying liability for hosting terrorist speech under the Anti‐Terrorism Act (ATA).In a clear, unanimousdecision authored by Justice Thomas the court held that Twitter did not “aid and abet” ISIS under the ATA by failing to prevent the terror group from using its platform. BecauseGonzalez plaintiffs ’ underlying claims were essentially the same as those inTwitter v. Taamneh, it wasn ’t necessary for the court to rule on whether Section 230 protected Google from plaintiff’s now‐defunct ATA claims. RemandingGonzalez, the Court writes:“ … we think it sufficient to acknowledge that much (if not all) of plaintiffs’ complaint seems to fail under either our decision in Twitter or the Ninth Circuit’s unchallenged holdings below. We therefore decline to address the application of §230 to a complaint that appears to state litt le, if any, plausible claim for relief.”Most important is the simple fact that the Court was offered an opportunity to reinterpret or remake Section 230 and declined to act on it. This is, as I explained after oral argument, the best possible outcome. “The best outcome would be for the...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Will Duffield Source Type: blogs