The Biden administration argued to the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday that social media giants like Google could in some instances have responsibility for user content, adopting a stance that could potentially undermine a federal law shielding companies from liability.
Lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice made their argument in the high profile lawsuit filed by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old American citizen killed in 2015 when Islamist militants opened fire on the Paris bistro where she was eating.The family argued that Google was in part liable for Gonzalez' death because YouTube, which is owned by the tech giant, essentially recommended videos by the Islamic State group to some users through its algorithms.
Section 230 holds that social media companies cannot be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by other users. Republicans say it allows censorship of voices on the right and other politically unpopular opinions, pointing to decisions by Facebook and Twitter to ban dissemination of a New York Post article about the son of then-Democratic candidate Joe Biden's adult son, Hunter, in October 2020.
South Africa Latest News, South Africa Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Restaurants could be 'slaughtered' in court under Biden wage rule, court toldSome restaurants will face 'bankruptcy-level litigation' if a Biden administration rule regulating the way tipped workers are paid is not blocked, a lawyer for two trade groups told a U.S. appeals court on Tuesday.
Read more »
Musk proves Hunter Biden censorship came from collusion among Biden campaign, law enforcement and TwitterMusk proves Hunter Biden censorship and confirms what most Americans knew – that Twitter took Democrats’ side during the 2020 presidential election.
Read more »
Did Ashley Biden Accuse Joe Biden of Inappropriate Behavior in a 'Leaked Diary'?The alleged diary of the president's daughter has not been authenticated.
Read more »
Op-Ed: The ominous way the Supreme Court could change our electionsIf the Supreme Court were to accept the independent state legislature theory, then no court could invalidate partisan gerrymandering.
Read more »
Supreme Court weighs controversial election-law caseIf adopted the so-called independent state legislature theory would give state legislatures the power to put in place all manner of election laws and rules, without any review by the state courts.
Read more »