A recap of oral arguments before SCOTUS in Gonzalez v. Google, where justices appeared to struggle to define where Section 230's legal shield should end

The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google, a lawsuit that could shift the foundations of internet law.

Washington Post 2023-02-22

Discussion

Vox Ian Millhiser on x
The Supreme Court appears worried it could break the internet
@howardmortman Howard Mortman on x
“We're a Court. We really don't know about these things. These are not, like, the nine greatest experts on the Internet.” — #SCOTUS Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan ... #GonzalezvGoogle https://twitter.com/...
@willoremus Will Oremus on x
Gorsuch touched in passing on a question that could have *big* future implications for tech giants: Could they be held liable for the output of generative AI, like ChatGPT or Bing “Sydney?” Gorsuch hypothesizes the answer is a clear “yes.” My post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/…
@justinhendrix Justin Hendrix on x
Justice Kagan on the limits of the Supreme Court's ability to draw fine distinctions in Gonzalez v Google: “These are not the 9 greatest experts on the internet.”
@caseymattox_ Casey Mattox on x
The Gonzalez v Google argument is ongoing right now. It should be a remarkably easy legal question. The text of section 230(f)(4) should resolve the case in favor of Google/Youtube. (And that's good news for everyone - conservatives included). Our brief: https://americansforprosp…
@nxthompson @nxthompson on x
Ironic that the Supreme Court is hearing a case on the publisher-platform debate of section 230 right as chatbots completely blow that distinction up.
@tomfitton Tom Fitton on x
Big Tech companies should limit content moderation to illegal content (or, at most, a narrow interpretation of moderation under Section 230) and give users the tools that enable the freedom to choose what content they see.
@kantrowitz Alex Kantrowitz on x
“We're a Court. We really don't know about these things. These are not, like, the nine greatest experts on the Internet.” - Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan in the Gonzalez v. Google case. This is fine 🔥 https://twitter.com/... ht @HowardMortman
@amyklobuchar Amy Klobuchar on x
So worth a read! Piece quotes Judge Frank Easterbrook who wrote in 2003, Section 230 makes internet providers “indifferent to the content of information they host or transmit” and encourages them to “do nothing.” https://www.nytimes.com/...
@imillhiser Ian Millhiser on x
The Supreme Court appeared uncharacteristically humble today during arguments in a case that could literally break the internet. https://www.vox.com/...
@imillhiser Ian Millhiser on x
I really admire Elena Kagan's “maybe this Court shouldn't decide every fucking question on the planet” approach to being a Supreme Court justice. Wish we had more of her. https://www.vox.com/...
@aricohn Ari Cohn on x
The funny part is that Klobuchar knows so little about what she's talking about that: (a) She doesn't realize that Section 230 protects *way* more than “Big Tech”, and (b) she doesn't realize that without 230, websites would have MORE incentive to be indifferent to content. https…
@mmitchell_ai @mmitchell_ai on x
“Historically, search engines have responded to users' queries with links to third-party websites, making for a relatively clear-cut defense [Section 230] that they should not be held liable for the content” But, as ChatSearch begins answering directly... https://www.washingtonpo…
@aclu @aclu on x
Section 230 plays a crucial role in creating online spaces for creativity, education, politics, and collaboration. Without Section 230, we stand to lose the internet as we know it. https://apnews.com/...
@alfranken Al Franken on x
On Gonzalez v. Google, things have changed (algorithms) since '96. SCOTUS will kick to Congress, which must amend Section 230 https://www.nytimes.com/...
@willoremus Will Oremus on x
@ma_franks There's a sense from others, meanwhile, that SCOTUS is likely to move cautiously on Section 230, perhaps even skirting the issue altogether depending on how tomorrow's arguments in Twitter v. Taamneh go. Here's @viaCristiano on @jkosseff's takeaways: https://www.washin…
@willoremus Will Oremus on x
I talked to @ma_franks, who feels 230 has been misconstrued to give platforms blanket immunity. She thinks its true intent was to be a “Good Samaritan law” so they aren't punished for moderating content. She was cautiously encouraged by SCOTUS' questions: https://www.washingtonpo…
@bcmerchant Brian Merchant on x
this section 230 hearing seems like a train wreck on every front?
@lawrence Lawrence O'Donnell on x
Expand the court because no group of 9 people will ever know enough about the complexity of life in the 21st century. https://twitter.com/...
@andashleysays Ashley Baker on x
During each #SCOTUS term there's always a handful of cases in which any particularly notable/interesting aspects of the decision will most likely be written in concurring opinion(s). #GonzalezvGoogle has always belonged firmly in that category. https://twitter.com/...
@zoetillman Zoe Tillman on x
The Supreme Court justices are “not the nine greatest experts on the internet,” per Justice Kagan — here's @birnbaum_e with how things are going in today's Section 230 arguments before SCOTUS: https://www.bloomberg.com/...
@curt_levey Curt Levey on x
Justice Barrett notes #GonzalezVGoogle and #TwitterVTaamneh complaints are similar and asks whether loss by Taamneh would allow #SCOTUS not to reach #Section230 issue in Gonzales. She's got a point.
@birnbaum_e Emily Birnbaum on x
Several of the SCOTUS justices today have questioned whether the Supreme Court is the right body to grapple with the future of Section 230. They said Congress might be a better venue. Our story today interrogates that question: https://www.bloomberg.com/...
@nancyscola Nancy Scola on x
Google's lawyer seems to be arguing that YouTube doesn't recommend videos, which is a bold move. #SCOTUS230
@netchoice @netchoice on x
Imposing liability on websites for imperfectly moderating will only chill constitutional speech, limit voices online, and punish what this heartbreaking case proves the internet needs: content moderation. Read NetChoice's brief in Gonzalez v. Google: https://netchoice.org/...
@qjurecic Quinta Jurecic on x
ironic that the internet may be saved thanks to an argument this cringe
@leahlitman Leah Litman on x
Kagan asking the search engine question ("are ICSPs liable for curating search results") is another indication of how/where this is going (in favor of Section 230 immunity here).
@willoremus Will Oremus on x
Among the “26 words that created the internet,” the 3rd and 4th words are often overlooked. Amy Coney Barrett asked whether the plaintiffs' argument would imply social media *users* could be held liable for their reposts/RTs. (Plaintiffs don't think so.) https://www.washingtonpos…
@matthewstoller Matt Stoller on x
The Gonzalez v. Google hearing is going very well for Google. Kagan and Roberts seem concerned that reducing the amount of litigation is the goal of law, and are buying the amicus briefs that changing Section 230 will destroy the internet. https://www.c-span.org/...
@shiraovide Shira Ovide on x
I mean, this is not a bad question from Justice Kagan! https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... https://twitter.com/...
@willoremus Will Oremus on x
The SCOTUS justices are really hung up on the idea that YouTube's “thumbnails” make it liable for its recommendations of ISIS content, even though it's not liable for hosting the content. I wrote about the needle the plaintiffs are trying to thread here: https://www.washingtonpos…
@nancyscola Nancy Scola on x
Justice Brown Jackson: “I guess I'm thoroughly confused, but let me try to understand what your argument is.” This is going great. https://twitter.com/...
@nancyscola Nancy Scola on x
Justice Alito to the lawyer arguing against Google here: “I'm afraid I'm completely confused by whatever argument you're making.” https://twitter.com/...
@eff @eff on x
It's impossible to separate the hosting of content from the recommendation of content, as the plaintiffs in the Google v. Gonzalez Section 230 case are trying to do, EFF's @scopesetic told @GridNews. https://www.grid.news/...
@chrisgeidner @chrisgeidner on x
Here's is the audio link for the Gonzalez v. Google arguments, live now: https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ...
@cendemtech @cendemtech on x
📢📢Today, the #SupremeCourt hears oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google, a case with the potential to reshape #Section230 and the fundamental protections it provides for online free expression. https://cdt.org/... #SCOTUS230 #SCOTUS https://twitter.com/...
@adegrandpre Andrew deGrandpré on x
The key portion of Section 230 is only 26 words long and says: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@zilevandamme Phumzile Van Damme on x
A critical matter is before the US Supreme Court tomorrow: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act & the immunity it provides for social media platforms regarding third-party content. A tricky balancing act for the court affecting the future of platform accountability.
@divestech Dan Ives on x
Supreme Court hearing Section 230 cases is very noteworthy and could have broad ramifications for social media players such as Meta, Twitter, Google and others depending on ruling. Street watching this case carefully as legal shield issue front and center for social media sector
@jonathanstray Jonathan Stray on x
Good morning everyone! The Supreme Court hears oral arguments for one of the most important cases for the Internet in years this morning. Follow along Bakground: https://www.technologyreview.com/ ... Live blog: https://rebootingsocialmedia.org/ ... Audio stream starts 10 AM ET ht…
@ninatotenberg Nina Totenberg on x
Big tech, and little tech too meet potential #SCOTUS skepticism today over the law granting legal immunity to tech cos for what others post on their platforms. https://www.npr.org/...
@andrearene Andrea Rene on x
Potentially huge case happening in the Supreme Court that could make the internet both a better and worse place for very different reasons. Great write up from the @washingtonpost here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@scottnover Scott Nover on x
“Platforms would likely abandon systems that suggest or prioritize information altogether, or just sanitize their services to avoid carrying anything close to objectionable — creating, as some have put it, either a wasteland or a Disneyland.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@netchoice @netchoice on x
The fate of online speech is in the hands of #SCOTUS when it decides Gonzalez v. Google — a case that puts Section 230 on trial. Misinterpreting this critical protection will destroy the internet as we know it. Read more from @CarlSzabo @dailywireplus: https://www.dailywire.com/.…
@jaywillis Jay Willis on x
Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Gonzalez v. Google, or as it's known in Clarence Thomas's brain, “How to finally stop the woke mob from censoring my wife's posts” https://ballsandstrikes.org/ ...
@alex_valaitis Alex Valaitis on x
The case is “Gonzalez vs Google”. The parents are arguing that YouTube should be sued for hosting accounts from foreign terrorists. One of these videos was seen by a terrorist that killed their daughter... https://twitter.com/...
@technetupdate @technetupdate on x
If Section 230 is repealed, the Internet as we know it would stop functioning, leading to unintended consequences that would fundamentally change how we communicate and interact online. Our statement in advance of oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google: https://www.technet.org/...
@iandecker111 Ian Decker on x
Covering oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google for @CNSmd. The case concerns social media recommending algorithms and could significantly alter how companies promote content. https://twitter.com/...
@profmjcleveland Margot Cleveland on x
Temper your excitement over today's oral argument in Gonzalez v. Google as the Supreme Court is very unlikely to wade into the Section 230 morass in this case. @FDRLST 1/ https://t.co/...
@wikimedia @wikimedia on x
Today, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments in the Gonzalez v. Google case. This will be the first time that the Court will consider Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects website hosts from lawsuits for the content submitted by users. (2/6)
@wikimedia @wikimedia on x
Our ability to host @Wikipedia hangs in the balance in a US Supreme Court case against YouTube. Read the thread to learn more. 🧵⬇️ (1/6) https://twitter.com/...
@luizajarovsky Luiza Jarovsky on x
🔥Gonzalez v. Google / Section 230 / The future of online platforms I agree with @washingtonpost's editorial board (screenshot below) & @AnupamChander. IMO, the key argument involves algorithmic transparency and accountability obligations. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... http…
@scotusblog @scotusblog on x
Today at SCOTUS: The justices return from their mid-winter recess. They'll release orders on pending petitions at 9:30 a.m. EST, followed by argument at 10 in Gonzalez v. Google, which may determine whether tech giants can be sued based on content their algorithms recommend.
@integrity_inst @integrity_inst on x
Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Gonzalez v. Google. Many experts have said this case could change the internet as we know it. Will you be following along? Here are some resources we prepared... 🧵
@dcnorg @dcnorg on x
Landmark internet cases go before the US Supreme Court. This is the first time the high court will directly weigh in on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects online platforms from legal liability over content posted by their users https://www.ft.com/...
@b_fung Brian Fung on x
Big day for the internet today, as SCOTUS takes up Section 230 for the first time in its history with oral arguments on social media's handling of terrorist content. We'll be bringing you live updates later, but get up to speed here: https://www.cnn.com/...
@lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org Lauren Weinstein on mastodon
Ironically, by and large the conservatives on the Supreme Court seem to better understand the dangers of tampering with Section 230 than the liberals. Scary. But what do I know?
@jkosseff Jeff Kosseff on x
This, from @ericgoldman, captures what I think was the biggest sticking point for the justices today. They seem to want 230 to only apply to “neutral” algorithms, but defining neutrality is a tough task because algorithms are not neutral. https://blog.ericgoldman.org/ ... https:/…
@klonick @klonick on x
The Top 8 Surprises From the Gonzalez v. Google Oral Argument 🧵 For full summary of live analysis of arguments see @BKCHarvard's expert panel archived here: https://rebootingsocialmedia.org/ ... 1/
@superwuster Tim Wu on x
3. Google's Lisa Blatt had a much easier case — but got into an unwise and often patronizing battle with Justice Jackson that she could have easily dodged or softened. She too often displayed some of the arrogance that annoys people about big tech.
@enbrown Elizabeth Nolan Brown on x
But also... “The justices really struggled with parsing the statutory wording. This is a good example of how 230 could lose even if Google wins. The court's exact reasoning will make a huge difference, and there are many ways it could go sideways”
@jkosseff Jeff Kosseff on x
For that reason, I had expected petitioners to distinguish between personalized and nonpersonalized content (which would have its own problems). But...that's not what happened.
@superwuster Tim Wu on x
Quick reactions to Sec. 230 oral argument (Google v. Gonazalez) - my views only. 1. Gonzalez will lose, but how they lose remains important. Could range to dismissal without reaching 230 to remanded with a Gorsuch -Jackson std that limits 230 in future
@caseynewton Casey Newton on x
There's a loose consensus that the plaintiffs botched their oral arguments today in the pivotal Gonzalez vs. Google case. One of the reasons why surprised me — though it shouldn't have! https://www.platformer.news/ ... https://twitter.com/...
@grantstern Grant Stern on x
“We're a court. We really don't know about these things. We're not the world's 9 greatest experts on the internet” - Justice Kagan, with the best line of today's Section 230 arguments in Gonzalez vs. Google.
@enbrown Elizabeth Nolan Brown on x
Eric Goldman on #GonzalezvGoogle: “I did not hear 5 votes in favor of the plaintiffs' position. ... I have a little optimism that Google will win the votes-much more so than yesterday.” https://blog.ericgoldman.org/ ...
@adamkovac Adam Kovacevich on x
.@ericgoldman: Why did SCOTUS even grant cert in Gonzalez case? https://blog.ericgoldman.org/ ... https://twitter.com/...

Chronicles

A recap of oral arguments before SCOTUS in Gonzalez v. Google, where justices appeared to struggle to define where Section 230's legal shield should end

Related Coverage

Discussion