Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Understanding the Supreme Court Cases that Didn't Destroy the Internet: 'Gonzalez v. Google' and 'Twitter v. Taamneh'
The United States Supreme Court did not destroy the Internet on May 18, 2023. That day, the Court released its opinions in Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 143 S. Ct. 1191 (2023) (per curiam), and Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 143 S. Ct. 1206 (2023). In these companion cases from the Ninth Circuit, family members of ISIS victims sued large tech companies under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) for allegedly aiding and abetting foreign terrorists by providing them with platforms "for spreading extremist propaganda, raising funds, and attracting new recruits." Complaint ¶ 12, Taamneh v. Twitter, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-4107 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2017). Defendants in both cases asserted defenses under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) (Section 230). Section 230, generally speaking, shields online platforms from liability for otherwise actionable content users post on their sites. After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the cases on Oct. 3, 2022, worry quickly spread that the Court "could break the Internet" by weakening this liability shield. Isaac Chotiner, "Two Supreme Court Cases that Could Break the Internet," New Yorker (Jan. 25, 2023).
The Internet is still standing, but the Supreme Court's reasoning in the 583-word Gonzalez opinion remains perplexing. Gonzalez and Taamneh are a story about how the Supreme Court "saved" the Internet from itself, and the Court needed both cases to do so.
Section 230
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 states in relevant part that "[n]o 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." 47 U.S.C. §230(c)(1). This language draws from the common law distinction between content "publishers" and "distributors." Newsstands, magazine racks, and mail carriers all distribute content, but they are not "publishers." They are likely to at some point inadvertently disseminate libelous materials, but "the imposition of liability without adequate proof of fault would unquestionably chill the exercise of distributors' First Amendment rights." Lerman v. Flynt Distrib. Co. 745 F.2d 123, 139 (2d Cir. 1984). To avoid such a chilling effect, "courts have long held that vendors and distributors of defamatory publications are not liable if they neither know nor have reason to know of the defamation." Lerman v. Chuckleberry Publ'g, Inc., 521 F. Supp. 228, 235 (S.D.N.Y. 1981).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Overview of Regulatory Guidance Governing the Use of AI Systems In the Workplace
Businesses have long embraced the use of computer technology in the workplace as a means of improving efficiency and productivity of their operations. In recent years, businesses have incorporated artificial intelligence and other automated and algorithmic technologies into their computer systems. This article provides an overview of the federal regulatory guidance and the state and local rules in place so far and suggests ways in which employers may wish to address these developments with policies and practices to reduce legal risk.
Is Google Search Dead? How AI Is Reshaping Search and SEO
This two-part article dives into the massive shifts AI is bringing to Google Search and SEO and why traditional searches are no longer part of the solution for marketers. It’s not theoretical, it’s happening, and firms that adapt will come out ahead.
While Federal Legislation Flounders, State Privacy Laws for Children and Teens Gain Momentum
For decades, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act has been the only law to expressly address privacy for minors’ information other than student data. In the absence of more robust federal requirements, states are stepping in to regulate not only the processing of all minors’ data, but also online platforms used by teens and children.
Revolutionizing Workplace Design: A Perspective from Gray Reed
In an era where the workplace is constantly evolving, law firms face unique challenges and opportunities in facilities management, real estate, and design. Across the industry, firms are reevaluating their office spaces to adapt to hybrid work models, prioritize collaboration, and enhance employee experience. Trends such as flexible seating, technology-driven planning, and the creation of multifunctional spaces are shaping the future of law firm offices.
From DeepSeek to Distillation: Protecting IP In An AI World
Protection against unauthorized model distillation is an emerging issue within the longstanding theme of safeguarding intellectual property. This article examines the legal protections available under the current legal framework and explore why patents may serve as a crucial safeguard against unauthorized distillation.