On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the initial two cases examining the degree of legal safeguards bestowed on technology firms that offer a platform for third-party individuals to post content.
Gonzalez v. Google, the legal case in question, is concerned with how sites such as YouTube go beyond merely permitting users to post content and arranging and showcasing it to users in particular ways. YouTube and Google are facing a lawsuit for allegedly recommending videos created by ISIS for recruiting new members.
The Communications Decency Act's Section 230 protects from legal liability for websites such as YouTube, Google, Facebook, and Twitter regarding content posted by their users. The court and parties concerned debated whether how the content is presented is a form of speech and whether it is done through an algorithm or evident suggestions.
Occasionally, the debates and disagreements became quite messy, prompting among the judges.
Justice Elena Kagan, bringing about laughter from the room, joked, "I mean, we're a court. We really don't know about these things. You know, these are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet."
Before this, Justice Samuel Alito expressed his confusion to the plaintiff's legal counsel Eric Schnapper about the argument he was making. Schnapper discussed how YouTube displays thumbnails and links to different videos when providing search results or content based on an algorithm. He argued that although users create the videos, the thumbnails are a joint effort of both the user and YouTube, which could invalidate YouTube's Section 230 protection.
Lisa Blatt, Google's lawyer, rejected the notion claiming this was not part of the plaintiff's initial accusation in the lawsuit.
Ketanji Brown Jackson, just as Alito did before, exclaimed that she was utterly perplexed by the discussion since her opinion was that the pertinent point was the extent of the immunity of Section 230 rather than what could lead to liability. Schnapper concluded that the whole thing hinges on how particular acts or practices are seen in terms of being encompassed by the law.
Schnapper informed Jackson, "The contention were advancing is that a variety of things that were loosely characterizing as recommendations fall outside of the statute."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned, "I guess the question is how do you get yourself from a neutral algorithm to an aiding and abetting?
Schnapper contended that YouTube's utilization of an algorithm to create a compilation of videos is a mode of expression distinct from the material in the videos.
Malcolm Stewart, the U.S. Deputy Solicitor General, seemed to have a more restricted viewpoint. During his arguments, Stewart mentioned a hypothetical in which someone goes to a bookshop and inquires about a book, and the clerk guides them to a table where it sits. This direction would be considered speaking about the book, which is separate from any speech written inside the book.
Sotomayor opposed the concept of holding companies such as YouTube accountable for the speech of their users. "You're creating a world of lawsuits," she added.
According to Stewart, unless the legal action against the company alleges some other law has been broken, any lawsuits brought forward would be unlikely to succeed. He also pointed out that if YouTube has a uniform algorithm that is applied equally to both ISIS videos and cat videos, it is improbable that any anti-terrorism laws have been infringed upon.
Only a company such as Google would openly declare its recommendation of a video that would be categorized as an expression of free speech endorsing the content.
Blatt commented that the term "recommendation" is nowhere to be found on YouTube's website, and that they do not take any action that is not protected.
Chief Justice John Roberts argued, "Videos dont appear out of thin air." "They appear pursuant to the algorithm your clients have."
Blatt revealed that numerous user data elements are considered when displaying search engine outcomes, including their language, location, and search history. For example, she emphasized how somebody looking for "football" in the U.S. would receive different results than someone in Europe, where the expression refers to soccer.
Blatt claimed that the neutrality of algorithms is irrelevant since if a program favored ISIS, it would fall under an exclusion for illegal conduct. "So, if you have material support in collusion with ISIS, that's excepted from the statute."
Today the Supreme court will resume deliberation on Section 230 with Twitter v. Taamneh. The case examines if companies such as Twitter, which offers a platform for ISIS to use, should be held responsible.
Login