The Supreme Court sided with tech companies in cases brought by families of people killed in terror attacks.
The Supreme Court on Thursday sidestepped a ruling that could have limited the scope of a federal law that serves as a powerful shield for internet companies, delivering a victory for the platforms who have said the law, known asin the case known as Gonzalez v. Google, the high court said it declined to address the application of the law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, to a"complaint that appears to state little, if any plausible claim for relief.
The dispute stemmed from a lawsuit brought by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, an American college student who was among the 129 people killed in Paris by ISIS terrorists in November 2015, against Google, which owns YouTube, in 2016. The Gonzalez family alleged the tech giant aided and abetted ISIS in violation of a federal anti-terrorism statute by recommending videos posted by the terror group to users.
The battle marked the first time the Supreme Court considered the scope of the Section 230, which protects internet companies from liability over content posted by third parties, and allows platforms to remove objectionable content., the court sided with the platform and other social media companies in a legal dispute brought by the family of a victim of a 2017 terrorist attack at a nightclub in Istanbul, Turkey, finding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under federal law.
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.
Supreme Court shields Twitter from liability for terror-related content and leaves Section 230 untouchedTwitter will not have to face accusations it aided and abetted terrorism when it hosted tweets created by the terror group ISIS, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
Read more »
Abortion pill case moves to appeals court, on track for Supreme CourtA federal appeals court in New Orleans hears arguments Wednesday on whether a drug used in the most common method of abortion was properly approved by a government agency more than two decades ago
Read more »
Abortion pill case moves to appeals court, on track for Supreme CourtA federal appeals court in New Orleans hears arguments Wednesday on whether a drug used in the most common method of abortion was properly approved by a government agency more than two decades ago.
Read more »
Abortion pill case moves to appeals court, on track for Supreme CourtAt issue are the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone in 2000, and FDA actions making the drug more accessible in later years.
Read more »
Mifepristone abortion pill case moves to appeals court, on track for Supreme CourtA federal appeals court in New Orleans hears arguments Wednesday on whether a drug used in the most common method of abortion was properly approved by the FDA in 2000.
Read more »
Abortion pill case moves to appeals court, on track for Supreme CourtAt issue are the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone in 2000, and FDA actions making the drug more accessible in later years.
Read more »