Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Supreme Court has decided in the context of national security to consider the parameters of, and possible limits to, "Section 230" liability protections for social media companies. Specifically, the court in Gonzalez v. Google will consider whether Google, through its YouTube service, should be held responsible for "aiding and abetting" terrorism because its algorithm recommended a terrorist group's videos to other users. The court also agreed to hear a related case involving Google, Twitter and Facebook in which posts allegedly played a role in another terrorist attack.
Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 immunizes social media companies from liability for what third parties post to their websites and online platforms. Section 230, sometimes called the 26 words that created the Internet, states: "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." Section 230 also protects social media companies from actions taken in good faith to take down or limit the availability of material they find objectionable.
In recent years, Section 230 has become very controversial and has been under attack from both sides of the political spectrum. Democrats criticize the companies for not doing enough to moderate or remove content deemed racist, hurtful or deceitful. Republicans complain that social media companies censor conservative content and speakers. Congress has struggled with how to reconcile these critiques and with what reforms, if any, to make to Section 230.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, some tenants were able to negotiate termination agreements with their landlords. But even though a landlord may agree to terminate a lease to regain control of a defaulting tenant's space without costly and lengthy litigation, typically a defaulting tenant that otherwise has no contractual right to terminate its lease will be in a much weaker bargaining position with respect to the conditions for termination.
The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.
As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.