老澳门开奖结果

WASHINGTON 鈥� The 老澳门开奖结果 praises the Supreme Court鈥檚 unanimous decisions in two important digital free speech cases, Twitter v. Taamneh and Gonzalez v. Google. The 老澳门开奖结果 and its partners filed amicus briefs in both cases urging the court to ensure online platforms are free to promote, demote, and recommend content without legal risk in order to protect political discourse, cultural development, and intellectual activity.

鈥淲ith this decision, free speech online lives to fight another day,鈥� said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭witter and other apps are home to an immense amount of protected speech, and it would be devastating if those platforms resorted to censorship to avoid a deluge of lawsuits over their users鈥� posts. Today鈥檚 decisions should be commended for recognizing that the rules we apply to the internet should foster free expression, not suppress it.鈥�

In Twitter v. Taamneh, the plaintiffs claimed that Twitter was liable for allegedly 鈥渁iding and abetting鈥� an attack in Istanbul by ISIS because Twitter failed to adequately block or remove content promoting terrorism 鈥� even though it had no specific knowledge that any particular post furthered a terrorist act. The court held that hosting, displaying, and recommending videos, without more, is not aiding and abetting terrorism.

As the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 amicus brief in Twitter v. Taamneh explained, if the Supreme Court allowed the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals鈥� startlingly broad interpretation of the Anti-Terrorism Act to stand, online intermediaries 鈥� like internet service providers, social media platforms, publishers, and other content distributors 鈥� would be forced to suppress the First Amendment-protected speech of many of their users. The brief explained that, given the vast scale of speech occurring on platforms like Twitter every day, online intermediaries would be compelled to use blunt content moderation tools that over-restrict speech by barring certain topics, speakers, or types of content in order to avoid claims that they went too far in making that information available to an interested audience. Even today, platforms frequently take down content mistakenly identified as offensive or forbidden, for example, by a post about a landmark mosque with one about a terrorist group.

In Gonzalez v. Google, the court noted that in light of its decision in Twitter v. Taamneh, 鈥渓ittle if any鈥� of the plaintiffs鈥� case remained viable. It was therefore unnecessary to address the question of whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunized the platform鈥檚 recommendation algorithms. The court remanded the case to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to determine whether any part of the plaintiffs鈥� argument could move forward in light of the Twitter ruling.

Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh are part of the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket. The Google amicus brief was filed by the 老澳门开奖结果 of Northern California and Daphne Keller of the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, while the Twitter amicus was filed by the 老澳门开奖结果 and the 老澳门开奖结果 of Northern California, alongside the Center for Democracy & Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, and R Street Institute.