Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Justices probe limits in social media case

Supreme Court struggling with online platforms’ roles in terrorist activities

- By Emily Birnbaum and Greg Stohr

The U.S. Supreme Court struggled to determine when social media companies can be held responsibl­e for aiding terrorism as the justices heard the second of two cases that are poised to shape the legal rules governing harmful online material.

In a clash stemming from a 2017 shooting in an Istanbul nightclub, the justices spent more than two hours probing the boundaries of a federal anti-terrorism law — and trying to decide whether social media platforms are akin to banks and restaurant­s that serve terrorists and people who give guns to known criminals.

The justices didn’t give a clear indication as to the outcome, though some suggested they were skeptical of efforts by the family of a victim to sue Twitter and other social media companies for allegedly not doing enough to take down terrorist content.

Justice Clarence Thomas said that under the family’s reasoning “it would seem that every terrorist act that uses this platform would also mean that Twitter is an aider and abettor in those instances.”

The justices pressed lawyers for Twitter, the federal government and the family on a federal statute that allows victims of terrorist attacks to collect damages from entities that “aided and abetted” a terrorist act. They held up myriad hypothetic­al examples to assess how culpable Twitter may be for allowing terrorists to remain on their platform, including reaching back to historical figures and companies.

The case, Twitter v. Taamneh, stems from a 2017 terrorist shooting in an Istanbul nightclub, which left 39 people dead. A lower court said Twitter, Alphabet’s Google and Meta Platforms’ Facebook had to face claims that they played a role by failing to remove and making money off Islamic State materials.

Twitter’s lawyer Seth Waxman on Wednesday argued that the company should not be held liable under the act because failing to remove harmful posts does not amount to aiding and abetting an act of internatio­nal terrorism. He said Twitter’s website was “exploited by terrorists, in contravent­ion of the company’s enforced anti-terrorism policies.”

The case argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday is the second this week involving social media’s liability for terrorism. On Tuesday, the justices heard arguments about whether Google’s YouTube could be held liable for proactivel­y recommendi­ng terrorist propaganda to users who did not request that content. That case, Gonzalez v. Google, involves the internet’s foundation­al law, known as Section 230, which protects online companies from facing lawsuits over content posted by their users.

It’s possible that the court could use the Twitter case to sidestep the larger question about the fate of Section 230. The court appeared wary about opening internet companies to lawsuits stemming from harmful user posts during nearly three hours of oral arguments in the Google case.

 ?? Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images ?? Attorney Eric Schnapper shakes hands Wednesday with Jose Hernandez and Beatriz Gonzalez, stepfather and mother of Nohemi Gonzalez, who died in a terrorist attack in Paris in 2015, outside of the U.S. Supreme Court following oral arguments for the case Twitter v. Taamneh.
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images Attorney Eric Schnapper shakes hands Wednesday with Jose Hernandez and Beatriz Gonzalez, stepfather and mother of Nohemi Gonzalez, who died in a terrorist attack in Paris in 2015, outside of the U.S. Supreme Court following oral arguments for the case Twitter v. Taamneh.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States