(Washington) The United States Supreme Court is reviewing a law this week that has shielded tech companies from lawsuits for content posted by their users for more than a quarter of a century, and its ruling could revolutionize the internet.
The high court devotes two hearings, Tuesday and Wednesday, to cases brought by victims of jihadist attacks who accuse Google and Twitter of having “helped” the Islamic State (IS) group by disseminating its propaganda.
The Supreme Court, which must deliver its judgments before June 30, will have to define the scope of a piece of law dating from 1996, known as “section 230” and seen as a pillar of the development of the Internet.
The text provides that companies in the technology sector cannot be considered “publishers” and enjoy legal immunity for content posted on their platforms.
The idea of the parliamentarians was to protect the sector, then embryonic, from cascading lawsuits, to allow it to flourish, while encouraging it to remove so-called “problematic” content.
But there is no longer a consensus on this provision: the left criticizes the techno giants for hiding behind this immunity to allow racist and conspiratorial messages to flourish; the right, outraged by the banishment of Donald Trump from several social networks, accuses them of “censorship” under cover of their right to moderation.
Given these divergent perspectives, legislative efforts to amend the text never came to fruition.
Sort
On the other hand, the reform could come from the Supreme Court which, for the first time, agreed to examine a file questioning the scope of “section 230”. The prospect worries the actors of the sector.
“A decision that undermines Section 230 protections could have a catastrophic impact on all web services,” CCIA trade association president Matthew Schruers told AFP. “It could radically change our online experiences. »
Concretely, the Court will examine on Tuesday a complaint filed by the relatives of a young American killed in the November 2015 attacks in Paris, against Google, parent company of YouTube, which they accuse of having supported the growth of the group. Islamic State (IS) by suggesting its videos to certain users.
Their complaint has so far been dismissed by the courts on behalf of Section 230. But in their appeal to the Supreme Court, they believe that Google is not a “publisher” protected by this device since it “recommended” ISIS videos via its algorithms.
YouTube “abhors terrorism”, retorted Google in an argument sent to the Court.
The recommendations are, however, “essential” to sort through the “500 million tweets, 294 billion emails, 4 million gigabits of data on Facebook and 720,000 hours of YouTube content generated every day”, he said. added, denying that it is an editorial work.
” Partner in crime ”
Proof of the importance of the stakes, each camp obtained many supports.
Google can count on associations for the defense of freedoms, classified on the left (ACLU) and on the right (Cato Institute), and on the entire technology sector, including its rivals.
“Exposing online services to lawsuits because of their recommendations would expose them to permanent complaints,” warned Meta (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp) in a document addressed to the Court.
Opposite, around thirty states, Democrats and Republicans, child protection associations and police officers have called on the Court to place Internet companies in front of their responsibilities.
On Wednesday, the high court will look into a case which opposes Twitter to the family of a victim of an attack against an Istanbul nightclub on 1er January 2017, but asks a separate question.
Without getting into the Section 230 debate, an appeals court ruled that the social network could be prosecuted under anti-terrorism laws and considered an “accomplice” in the attack, because its efforts to remove content from the IS group had not been “vigorous” enough.
Twitter has turned to the Supreme Court to overturn that decision. Otherwise, “one wonders what the companies will be able to do to avoid lawsuits under anti-terrorism laws,” wrote his lawyers, “even if they try to remove the content, a plaintiff can always accuse them of not having made it. enough. »