Gohmert explained that if the social media companies had their immunity from liability eliminated, it would "let them make a little better decisions knowing that bad decisions will results in massive litigation that sets them back." He reiterated, "That's the way you get accountability, and that's where we really need to go.
If social media companies were completely liable and Section 230 (paragraph 26) was changed, then all of the smaller websites that offer niche content would all close because these websites, like Tech's Realm, were created by hobbyist that love what they do, and because of that, they do all of this for free, take on all of the expenses to offer a nice space for people. They wouldn't be able to stay open for fear of lawsuits.
Gohmert explained that if the social media companies had their immunity from liability eliminated, it would "let them make a little better decisions knowing that bad decisions will results in massive litigation that sets them back." He reiterated, "That's the way you get accountability, and that's where we really need to go.
If social media companies were completely liable and Section 230 (paragraph 26) was changed, then all of the smaller websites that offer niche content would all close because these websites, like Tech's Realm, were created by hobbyist that love what they do, and because of that, they do all of this for free, take on all of the expenses to offer a nice space for people. They wouldn't be able to stay open for fear of lawsuits.
The search engine argues Section 230 protects it from any liability and that it isn't possible to draw a meaningful connection between the
YouTube algorithm promoting a certain clip based on viewing habits and the company's view on terrorism. Google argued that it “abhors terrorism and over the years has taken increasingly effective actions to remove terrorist and other potentially harmful content."
It also said that changing "Section 230 ... would upend the internet and perversely encourage both wide-ranging suppression of speech and the proliferation of more offensive speech."
The Supreme Court case that challenges Section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act is likely to have many ripple effects. While newspapers and magazines can be sued over what they publish, Section 230 shields online platforms from lawsuits over most content posted by their users. It also protects platforms from lawsuits when they take down posts.
For years, judges cited the law in dismissing claims against Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, ensuring that the companies did not take on new legal liability with each status update, post and viral video. Critics said the law was a Get Out of Jail Free card for the tech giants.
Direct link to this article:
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/supreme-court-poised-to-reconsider-key-tenets-of-online-speech/
I've read that if congress changes Section 230 (also subject to senate approval legislation and then the president must sign for it to become new law) that the law would change to only affect large websites. My question to that is where is the cut off "on large websites? This is my concern because it's just too gray, leaving open to too much judicial flexibility and subjective interpretation.
The Supreme Court faces the challenge of trying to manage the unmanageable on Tuesday when it hears a case that could drastically change the functioning of social media platforms. The case is Gonzalez v. Google and it deals with whether tech platforms can be legally liable for content posted, even from third parties.
The Court will next have to deal with laws passed in the Texas and Florida state legislatures that generally bar social media companies from censoring political speech. Those laws were passed on the assumption that big tech is stifling right-of-center political posts. Both laws have been challenged in the courts, but received conflicting rulings in separate appellate jurisdictions (Fifth Circuit and Eleventh Circuit). SCOTUS almost has to intervene — to clear up the confusion about
whether states can themselves legislate against media platforms.
There are multiple tracks to fighting Big Tech from antitrust to treating political discrimination as a civil rights issue. If the latter were in place, then Section 230 reform might make sense within that framework. Right now all that nuking Section 230 does is make it easier for government oversight and lawsuits over content, but doesn’t provide a meaningful way for conservatives to change anything. Eliminating 230 would create a lot of liability for Big Tech, but like most government regulations will make it harder for smaller upstarts to compete.
Google and other tech companies have said that that interpretation of Section 230 would increase the legal risksassociated with ranking, sorting and curating online content, a basic feature of the modern internet. Google has claimed that in such a scenario, websites would seek to play it safe by either removing far more content than is necessary, or by giving up on content moderation altogether and allowing even more harmful material on their platforms.
“We really don’t know about these things. You know, these are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet,” Justice Elena Kagan said of herself and her colleagues, several of whom smiled at the description.
At the heart of the cases before the justices are two federal laws. The first is Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act,which protects tech companies from being sued over material put on their sites by users. The second is the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which allows Americans injured by a terrorist attack abroad to sue for money damages in federal court.
https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-technology-crime-business-internet-6e4551a3f39461e77a82ff577e24e6e7
The Supreme Court grappled with the scope of a liability shield for internet companies on Tuesday, at times expressing confusion about arguments to narrow the industry’s protections as they probed how it could impact the internet.
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3868144-justices-puzzled-as-supreme-court-hears-arguments-over-internet-liability-shield/
Kagan and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh suggested a ruling on behalf of the Gonzalez family could unleash a wave of lawsuits. Kavanaugh did not seem persuaded when Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart, representing the Justice Department and siding in part with the plaintiffs, said few lawsuits “would have much likelihood of prevailing.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-seems-cautious-on-google-case-that-could-reshape-internet/ar-AA17LJ5E />
She said it was very difficult to draw a line between ordinary algorithms that tell users they may be interested in similar videos and those that encourage certain individuals to look at suspect or harmful content.
Isn't drawing that line "something for Congress, not the court?" she asked.
Kavanaugh said he too thought this might be a time for judicial restraint. He said dozens of tech firms and business groups had warned that changing Section 230 "would crash the digital economy, with all sorts of effects on workers and consumers, retirement plans and what have you, and those are serious concerns."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-sounds-wary-weakening-191138510.html />
Tech companies involved in the litigation have cited the 27-year-old statute as part of an argument for why they shouldn’t have to face lawsuits alleging they gave knowing, substantial assistance to terrorist acts by hosting or algorithmically recommending terrorist content.
https://edition.cnn.com/business/live-news/supreme-court-gonzalez-v-google-2-21-23/h_baf90839e3535bf6409012d29b4e60a9 />
Inspire creativity, community, and awareness!
We are a social community with awesome members! Tech's Realm is created for members from multiple occupational professions such as, webmasters, web developers, community managers, admin's of websites (promote your forums), software and hardware engineers, programmers, and to many of the other technical trades where sharing your craft, tips, and support can be invaluable amongst friends and memorable for a lifetime. Tech's Realm members come to together to bring you the most up-to-date software and hardware item discussions that are on the market. Tech-savvy member's that build and create projects for both business and personal join together with the elevated social environment provided in the most unique modern social setting that you've been craving. All the features are here to create your own Albums, Blogs, Groups and Forum discussions. Share your photos, videos, updates, personal favorites, life experiences, and interests and make new friends to bond with over everything tech at Tech's Realm.