The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that tech companies did not contribute to crimes by allowing free speech in an unanimous decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Section 230
According to Wikipedia, “Section 230 is a section of Title 47 of the United States Code that was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which is Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and generally provides immunity for online computer services with respect to third-party content generated by its users.”
As XBIZ reported, the SCOTUS Justices heard arguments in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh in February, when lawyers for the plaintiffs and platforms addressed online speech, content moderation and Section 230 protections.
www.xbiz.com/news/273790/supreme-court-upholds-section-230-for-social-media-platforms
Platforms, like Adult Industry News (AINews.xxx) for example, publish articles from third-parties who send us articles, press releases, and Letters to the Editor. The SCOTUS decision says we can’t be sued in cases similar to the lawsuits filed against Twitter and Google.
CNN reports, “In one of the two cases, Twitter v. Taamneh, the Supreme Court ruled Twitter will not have to face accusations it aided and abetted terrorism when it hosted tweets created by the terror group ISIS.
“The court also dismissed Gonzalez v. Google, another closely watched case about social media content moderation – sidestepping an invitation to narrow a key federal liability shield for websites, known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.”
www.cnn.com/2023/05/18/politics/supreme-court-twitter-google-social-media/index.html
“We’re a court. We really don’t know about these things,” Justice Elena Kagan said. “You know, these are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested, “Isn’t it better … to put the burden on Congress to change that, and they can consider the implications and make these predictive judgments?”
www.dailywire.com/news/scotus-hears-major-case-against-google-youtube-about-american-murdered-by-isis
It appears the SCOTUS are saying they *may be experts in Constitutional Law, but not that tech savvy, and Congress needs to pass laws to regulate the Internet that are Constitutional. [*Is it “may be” or “maybe”?]
The Gonzalez v. Google suit was filed by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez who was killed in the 2015 terrorist attack in Paris. In Twitter v. Taamneh, Twitter was sued by Nawras Alassaf’s family who was killed in a 2017 ISIS attack in Istanbul.
I need to comment that world-wide there are organizations and governments – including our own – who are continually chipping away at our Constitutional rights. They will propose laws, mandates, and rules on us that actually infringe on the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. We all need to be better versed in our form of Government, which is the most liberal with freedoms for it’s citizens that there is world-wide. I’ve made my living on the Internet in behalf of the Adult Industry since 1998. I’m seeing more rats leaving the ship than ever before, meaning not many are vocal about standing up for the rights we all value!
There’s a fine line between allowing legal speech and government collusion to censor citizens for partisan political purposes. Here at Adult Industry News (AINews.xxx) we screen articles for illegal content and are strict with our graphics. We intend to continue to offer legal Industry press releases, original content, and non-pornographic graphics to our readers, like it or not.
