A look at SCOTUS' rulings on Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh and why explanations given for Section 230's existence could bode well for the Internet
Our long national wait for how the Supreme Court would rule regarding Section 230 is over, and the answer is... we need to keep waiting.
Techdirt Mike Masnick
Related Coverage
- Supreme Court's Social Media Ruling Is a Temporary Reprieve Bloomberg · Stephen L. Carter
- The Internet Dodges Censorship by the Supreme Court Electronic Frontier Foundation · Aaron Mackey
- Tech keeps liability shield in Supreme Court win The Hill · Grace Yarrow
- Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh SCOTUS
- Supreme Court rules against reexamining Section 230 The Verge · Adi Robertson
- Twitter, Google win big at Supreme Court Politico
- Gonzalez v. Google LLC SCOTUS
- Supreme Court rules for Google, Twitter on terror-related content Washington Post
- Supreme Court Sidesteps Ruling on Scope of Internet Liability Shield New York Times · Adam Liptak
- Supreme Court hands tech companies a win, and not just about Section 230 Washington Post · Will Oremus
- SCOTUS spares Section 230, rules Google, Twitter not liable for aiding ISIS Ars Technica · Ashley Belanger
- Supreme Court ruling continues to protect Google, Facebook and Twitter from what users post CNBC · Lauren Feiner
- The Internet Survives SCOTUS Review (This Time)-Twitter v. Taamneh and Gonzalez v. Google Technology & Marketing Law Blog · Eric Goldman
- US supreme court reinforces immunity for Google and Twitter in win for tech behemoths The Guardian · Johana Bhuiyan
- Big Tech got a big win as the Supreme Court stayed out of the Section 230 fight, leaving intact the legal shield Trump raged against Insider · Grace Eliza Goodwin
- Supreme Court Wisely Declines to Rewrite Section 230 techfreedom.org
- Supreme Court Sides With Tech Companies in Liability Cases The Information
- Section 230 Just Survived a Brush with Death The Markup · Nabiha Syed
- Legal experts say Google, Twitter and other tech companies dodged a bullet at the Supreme Court San Francisco Business Journal · Max A. Cherney
- Supreme Court hands Twitter, Google wins in internet liability cases The Hill
- Google & Other Tech Giants Not Liable For Terrorist Content Search Engine Journal · Matt G. Southern
- The Supreme Court Just Handed Google and Twitter a New Line of Defense Bloomberg · Emily Birnbaum
- Supreme Court rules in favor of Twitter and Google, avoiding the issue of Section 230 for now TechCrunch · Taylor Hatmaker
- US Top Court Back Big Tech In Terror Cases International Business Times · Alex Pigman
- Supreme Court sides with tech giants over legal shield for content Financial Times
- Supreme Court unanimously sides with Twitter in ISIS attack case NPR
- Supreme Court sides with Twitter, Google over tech platform liability Computerworld · Jon Gold
- Supreme Court: Lazy Content-Moderation Doesn't Mean Platforms Aided Terrorists PCMag · Rob Pegoraro
- Supreme Court Declines to Make It Easier to Sue Social Media Companies Mother Jones
- Supreme Court avoids ruling on law shielding internet companies from being sued for what users post WHDH 7News
- Supreme Court bolsters Section 230, shielding tech platforms from liability for harmful posts Fast Company · Laya Neelakandan
- Twitter and Google survived a Supreme Court challenge—and so did Section 230 Quartz · Scott Nover
- Supreme Court Rightly Maintains Critical Internet Free-Speech Liability Protections NetChoice · Krista Chavez
- Q&A: Section 230 is at the Supreme Court. Here's Why that Matters for Free Expression Freedom House · Allie Funk
- Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Twitter in Taaamneh, Remands Gonzalez Lawfare · Hyemin Han
- Supreme Court Leaves Intact Social Media Liability Shield Bloomberg Law
- The 26 words that created the internet live to see another day. A tremendous victory by Nora Puckett Mike Trinh and the rest of the teams that worked so hard on this! … Justin Cohen
Discussion
-
Vox
Ian Millhiser
on x
The Supreme Court decides not to break the internet
-
@lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org
Lauren Weinstein
on mastodon
In rare good news, Supreme Court rules for Twitter/Google in content cases involving terrorism. — There are two related actions. One is a unanimous decision for #Twitter that it was not responsible for terrorist content. …
-
@viacristiano
Cristiano Lima
on x
🚨 BREAKING: Supreme Court in unanimous decision punts on Section 230 debate in Gonzalez v. Google, writing that the underlying complaint appeared “to state little, if any, plausible claim for relief” https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ...
-
@ronwyden
Ron Wyden
on x
This is good news. Despite being unfairly scapegoated for everything wrong with the internet, Section 230 remains vitally important to protecting online speech. My focus remains helping end abusive practices by tech companies while protecting freedom of information online. https:…
-
@viacristiano
Cristiano Lima
on x
In the related Twitter v. Taamneh, SCOTUS reserves 9th Circuit ruling, finding that “plaintiffs have failed to allege” tech platforms “intentionally provided any substantial aid” to acts of terrorism https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ...
-
@congressmanraja
Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi
on x
Today's Supreme Court ruling does not change the fact that companies like Twitter & Google must do more to stop the spread of misinformation and hate on their platforms. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
-
@jess_miers
@jess_miers
on x
I have to say, it was surprising to see such a clean win authored by Justice Thomas no less. I think many of us assumed he would have been eager to undermine existing precedence around 1A and even 230 as applied to online publishers. That's not at all what occurred here.
-
@daphnehk
Daphne Keller
on x
Gonzalez and Taamneh were *extremely weak* cases for the plaintiffs. They do not demonstrate that platform immunities are limitless. They demonstrate that these cases fell within some pretty obvious, common sense limits.
-
@jess_miers
@jess_miers
on x
Alright, now that I've had more than a minute to think about all of this, some additional thoughts: This was the *best case scenario* for these cases today. The Taamneh opinion only reinforces the status quo (a major win for websites AND users). #SCOTUS https://twitter.com/...
-
@amyklobuchar
Amy Klobuchar
on x
Is this a sign Congress has to act or what? These are trillion dollar media companies that are protected from liability for practically anything they amplify for profit Supreme Court hands tech companies a win, and not just about Sec. 230 https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
-
@willoremus
Will Oremus
on x
So much of the debate around social media has focused on Section 230 as the obstacle to holding platforms accountable. Today's SCOTUS decision showed it's going to be hard to sue tech companies for harmful content even *without* 230. My quick analysis: https://www.washingtonpost.…
-
@jess_miers
Jess Miers
on x
Hello and welcome to my live reading of the recent SCOTUS #Section230 cases. Since Gonzalez was rightfully vacated, this thread will focus on the Twitter v. Taamneh opinion. Let's dig in: Gonzalez: https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ... Taamneh: https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ... https…
-
@daphnehk
Daphne Keller
on x
Taamneh: Resounding victory for platforms. Thomas opinion for 8 Justices, concurrence by Jackson. https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ...
-
@binarybits
Timothy B. Lee
on x
Good thread on the significance of today's Supreme Court decision not say anything about Section 230. https://twitter.com/...
-
@evelyndouek
Evelyn Douek
on x
Thomas repeats again & again throughout Taamneh how little screening platforms do of content when it's uploaded. This is helpful to platforms here, but is also a clear easter egg for the Netchoice cases and what Thomas thinks of whether they exercise “editorial discretion”
-
@b_fung
Brian Fung
on x
Our story on today's Supreme Court rulings backing tech immunity. Thomas: “Bad actors like ISIS are able to use platforms...for illegal - and sometimes terrible - ends. But the same could be said of cell phones, email, or the internet generally.” https://www.cnn.com/...
-
@superwuster
Tim Wu
on x
The legal equivalent of “too big to fail” is “too complicated and messy to rule on (unless necessary)” — hence the Supreme Court punting on Section 230. https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ...
-
@adamkovac
Adam Kovacevich
on x
If you watched the oral argument, you would have wondered why SCOTUS took Gonzalez to begin with. I think Alito and Thomas *thought* it was a case about the core of 230, but it's not. And oral arguments showed the Court's wariness to re-open 230 itself.
-
@adamkovac
Adam Kovacevich
on x
Section 230 was ready for its SCOTUS Close Up https://twitter.com/... [image]
-
@schneidercnn
Jessica Schneider
on x
Big win for tech companies today — the Supreme Court shielding Twitter from liability for terror-related content and leaving Section 230, which broadly shields internet company from liability for content posted on their sites, untouched. https://www.cnn.com/...
-
@paul_taske
Paul Taske
on x
“This is a huge win for free speech on the internet,” said NetChoice Litigation Center Director @ChrisMarchese9. “The Court was asked to undermine Section 230—and declined.” Read the @NetChoice statement here: https://netchoice.org/... https://twitter.com/...
-
@cathygellis
Cathy Gellis
on x
SCOTUS scoreboard for today: Section 230 survived. Fair use, not so much.
-
@netchoice
@netchoice
on x
@ChrisMarchese9 “With billions of pieces of content added to the internet every day, content moderation is an imperfect—but vital—tool in keeping users safe and the internet functioning. The Supreme Court's decisions protect free speech online by maintaining Section 230.”
-
@adamkovac
Adam Kovacevich
on x
I consider this a huge win for Section 230 and the Internet as a whole. There was always a risk with this case that SCOTUS would use Gonzalez for a broader reexamination of 230, and they pretty explicitly rejected that.
-
@kristaachavez
Krista Chavez
on x
“This is a huge win for free speech on the internet...he Supreme Court's decisions protect free speech online by maintaining Section 230.” —NetChoice Litigation Center Director @ChrisMarchese9 https://twitter.com/...
-
@billmcgev
William McGeveran
on x
SCOTUS ducked any ruling on Section 230 intermediary immunity because of the unusual facts of the case they took. The lower courts and Congress can pick up right where they left off in debating the issues.
-
@mjs_dc
Mark Joseph Stern
on x
Oh my! Supreme Court's fourth decision of the day is in Twitter v. Taamneh. Thomas' unanimous opinion holds that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim that the social media companies aided and abetted terrorists. https://s3.documentcloud.org/ ...
-
@anupamchander
Anupam Chander
on x
Supreme Court decides that there is no reason to decide Gonzalez Section 230 legal issue because it decided in companion Taamneh case that there was no liability in any case under terrorism law. https://twitter.com/...
-
@ma_franks
Dr. Mary Anne Franks
on x
One key takeaway from #SCOTUS's decisions today in Twitter v. Taamneh and Gonzalez v. Google is that these kinds of cases can and should be decided on the merits - not dispensed with based on inflated interpretations of #Section230 immunity. @CCRInitiative
-
@jkosseff
Jeff Kosseff
on x
Between her statements at oral argument and her concurrence in Taamneh, it sounds like Justice Jackson would very much like to revisit the lower courts' interpretation of 230.
-
@imillhiser
Ian Millhiser
on x
Ok, we just got the first big opinion of the day from SCOTUS. Twitter v. Taamneh. It is unanimous by Thomas. Twitter is not liable because ISIS used Twitter to spread its terroristic message. https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ...
-
@mjs_dc
Mark Joseph Stern
on x
Well, the Supreme Court disposed of Twitter v. Taamneh in a commendably narrow way, applying basic principles of “aiding and abetting” liability to toss out these lawsuits, without making much (any?) new law. I'm for it. https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ... [image]
-
@klonick
Kate Klonick
on x
Taamneh v. Twitter, Gonzalez's companion case, was NOT about Section 230, but was about social media companies aiding & abetting terrorist orgs under the Antiterrorism Act Taamneh had a lengthier UNANIMOUS J. Thomas authored opinion where Twitter “wins” [link to SCOTUS Syllabus T…
-
@klonick
Kate Klonick
on x
Great news for the future of the internet: the Supreme Court gets about as hands off as it can possibly get on Section 230 in a 2.5 page per curium decision in Gonzalez v. Google. Opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ... 1/ [image]
-
@nycjim
Jim Roberts
on x
Very big: Supreme Court ruling continues to protect Google, Facebook and Twitter from what users post. https://www.cnbc.com/...
-
@chrisgeidner
Chris Geidner
on x
Breaking: In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court rules that claims against social-media companies alleging that they were “aiding and abetting” terrorism on their sites fail. The case is Twitter v. Taamneh. Thomas has the opinion for the court. https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ..…
-
@juliettekayyem
Juliette Kayyem
on x
By deciding not to decide, the Court leaves in place rules regarding a media platform's responsibilities when it hosts terror groups content. And those rules, ancient in many ways, institutionalize the Wild West. @cnn https://www.cnn.com/...
-
@scottlincicome
Scott Lincicome
on x
230 LIVES: “Supreme Court Leaves Intact Social Media Liability Shield in Win for Google, Twitter” https://www.bloomberg.com/...
-
@chrisgeidner
Chris Geidner
on x
In an unsigned, per curiam opinion, #SCOTUS vacates the lower court's decision in Gonzalez v. Google, saying, essentially, there's not much case left in light of the decision in Twitter. So, no Section 230 ruling. Here's the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ...
-
@b_fung
Brian Fung
on x
Big win for internet platforms today from the Supreme Court, which just handed Twitter and Google victories in their respective cases on platform liability. GONZALEZ: https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ... TAAMNEH: https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ...