New
#1
Anak,
This is very interesting. Thanks for posting.
All the best,
Denis
Scotus Considering Internet Liability § 230
-
-
New #2
You're welcome Denis.
I mentioned earlier that this should only affect the U.S. but I can't help feeling it will spread to other countries rules an regs for the internet, if hasn't already.
Although C-Span televises almost all of capital hill the scotus is still resistant to televising their proceedings.
Here is a link to a 2:41:16 audio done by C-Span on opening arguments.
Gonzalez v. Google Oral Argument
If you're not used to court proceedings it can be very dry especially with audio only.For nearly three hours, the Supreme Court heard arguments from three attorneys in Gonzalez v. Google, a case challenging the Communications Decency Act’s Section 230, which protects tech companies against liability for third-party content on their platforms.
Steve
-
New #3
Scotus works to their own schedule.
I went looking for any news on Gonzalez v. Google LLC an ran into this;
Hearings run yearly from October to October and this is the October 2022/October 2023 session.
Then remembered of past sessions where news would come out around the beginning of Summer and mid-June fits the bill.
Related:
A breakdown of Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023
-
New #4
Unless we somehow remove ALL lobbyist & their big money from Washington forever, this will go absolutely NOWHERE !
Stalemate my arse.... we all know what happens with that occurs
Scotus Considering Internet Liability § 230
Last Updated: 21 Feb 2023 at 11:46
Happening today; This should only affect the USA.
Five things to know about the Supreme Court case that could change the internet by Rebecca Klar and Zach Schonfeld - 02/20/23 8:00 PM ET
The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on Tuesday in a case that could upend protections internet companies have had throughout the roughly two-decade rise of social media.
The case, Gonzalez v. Google, centers on allegations that Google subsidiary YouTube provided a platform for and used its algorithm to recommend terrorist content in a way that incited violence and led to the death of U.S. citizen Nohemi Gonzalez during a 2015 terror attack in France. It targets the controversial Section 230 provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which provides a liability shield for internet providers over content posted by third parties.
The tech industry argues that protection is critical, but the rule has been criticized on both sides of the aisle — albeit for different reasons.
As Congress is largely at a stalemate on how to proceed with rules regulating content moderation, all eyes are on how the justices respond in the first Section 230 case to hit the highest court.
“There is a potential, for the first time really, to very significantly change the way that Section 230, which is one of the pillars of internet law, has been interpreted going forward,” said Ashley Johnson, a senior policy analyst at the think tank Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF).
Here are five things to know heading into Tuesday’s oral argument:
The outcome could impact how platforms recommend content
The case revolves around the core provision of Section 230: “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.”
As interpreted to date, that protection has kept companies from being held legally responsible over content that is posted by third parties.
Rather than focus on the hosting of content, however, the case considers if Google is responsible for its algorithmic recommendations that drives content to users. . . .
Related:
Quote
Related Discussions
