The judges examine the responsibility of web giants on the content they host.
“A decision that could transform the internet”here is how the washington post, the prestigious American newspaper, presents this case. What is it about ? The US Supreme Court must decide whether major platforms, such as YouTube, are legally responsible for the content they broadcast and relay. The question arises because of a complaint filed by the family of a young American, killed in Paris during the attacks of November 13, 2015. The lawyers for this family believe that YouTube bears responsibility, because the site has hosted videos Islamic State propaganda. More serious, according to these lawyers, who presented their arguments Tuesday, February 21 before the Court, YouTube even suggested terrorist content to users. It is about these automatic recommendations, generated by algorithms when at the end of a video, which you have just watched, you are offered another one. The judges of the Supreme Court, the highest judicial authority in the country, must therefore determine whether the platforms are complicit in terrorism.
Laws that are no longer in phase
So far, US law protects these platforms in the name of two principles. First, freedom of expression. It is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Then, the protection of innovation. It is a law that dates from 1996. Its name: “section 230”. It indicates that the platforms are not responsible for the content they host.
At the time, the web was still embryonic. This law aims precisely to develop the network, by securing those who create Internet pages: you cannot be prosecuted if someone posts illegal content on your site.. It is on this law that Google, the parent company of YouTube, relies to reject any responsibility. Except that for 30 years, the internet has changed a lot. There is nothing to do between the small publishers of 1996 (which cater to a small community of enthusiasts) and the giants of today’s web (which reach billions of users).
If the Supreme Court decides against the platforms, one can imagine the deluge of legal proceedings that will fall on Google, Facebook and Twitter. For example, will the family of a young driver who was killed on the road be able to file a complaint against YouTube which broadcasts videos praising speed? We measure here how crucial this decision of the Supreme Court is for the future of the Internet. A decision also almost too heavy for the shoulders of the judges. One of them, Elena Kagan, also suggested on Tuesday that these debates should rather be the responsibility of Parliament, and therefore of political power. The decision of the Supreme Court is, in any case, expected before the end of June.