Shulou(Shulou.com)11/24 Report--

According to news in the morning of May 19, Beijing time, the US Supreme Court said in an unsigned opinion on Thursday local time that there is no legal shield for Internet platforms to be responsible for publishing content to users. the Supreme Court will not change for the time being.

The decision temporarily retains a wide range of disclaimers, making content platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube not responsible for what users say on the platform. The ruling also breathed a sigh of relief for these Internet platforms. However, many members of Congress are still calling for reform of this exemption clause.

In Gonzalez v. Google, the U.S. Supreme Court said it "refused to deal with the application of Section 230 of the Communications norms Act." The law protects the platform from user comments and allows the platform to review or delete content posted by users. The court also said that the decision was made because the indictment "does not seem to make a seemingly reasonable claim for relief".

The Supreme Court will send the case back to the lower court for retrial. Earlier, the Supreme Court had ruled on another similar case, Twitter v. Tam é.

In this case, the family of a victim of a terrorist attack in the United States tried to hold Twitter accountable under the anti-terrorism law, claiming that Twitter was suspected of aiding and abetting the attack while not taking sufficient action against the terrorist content on the platform. In the written decision of Justice Clarence Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court found that, under article 230, the accusation of the plaintiff was insufficient.

"the plaintiff alleges that the defendant designed the digital platform and deliberately did not do enough work to remove ISIS-related users and content from the hundreds of millions of users and mass content on the platform," Thomas wrote in the court's unanimous opinion. " However, the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant deliberately provided substantive assistance to the Reina attack, or was consciously involved in the attack in other ways, let alone proved that the defendant extensively and systematically assisted ISIS and was responsible for each attack by ISIS. " He was talking about a terrorist attack at a nightclub in Istanbul, Turkey.

Many members of the U.S. Congress believe that Section 230 provides unnecessary protection for a large industry. But supporters argue that the law will protect smaller industry participants from costly lawsuits. At present, there are still differences among lawmakers on the specific forms of these reforms, so there are still great obstacles to the completion of these reforms.

Jess Miers, legal adviser to Meta and Google-backed Progressive Chamber of Commerce, said: "this decision does not change Article 230 and is a clear victory for censorship of speech and content on the Internet. While the court may have been interested in reinterpreting decades-old Internet law, it is clear from oral arguments that adjustments to the interpretation of article 230 will create problems rather than solve more problems. In the end, the Supreme Court made the right decision. Section 230 enables the existence of the Internet as we know it. "

Chris Marchese, director of the litigation center at NetChoice, an organisation whose members include Google, Meta, Twitter and TikTok, also said: "this is a major victory for internet speech. The court was asked to break section 230 but was rejected."

Welcome to subscribe "Shulou Technology Information " to get latest news, interesting things and hot topics in the IT industry, and controls the hottest and latest Internet news, technology news and IT industry trends.