The social media company is headed for a major Supreme Court showdown over whether it “aids and abets” terrorists on its platform, a fight Musk would inherit.
The Supreme Court announced Monday that it plans to take up two cases that could have massive implications for how social networks moderate content on their services.
While both raise questions about whether platforms can be held liable for “aiding and abetting” terrorists on their services, the cases focus more on different parts of federal law.
IN Gonzalez v. GoogleThe court is scheduled to weigh the potential limits of the decade-old law protecting platforms from user content liability known as Section 230, which has become central theater in the battle over online speech, as my colleague Rachel Lerman reported.
In particular, the court has been asked to reconsider whether platforms face liability when they algorithmically recommend content to users, not just host it.
But Twitter on Goodbye zero in more directly on an anti-terrorism statute and whether platforms can be held accountable for not policing such material more forcefully.
Lower courts ruled that the case should proceed, sidestepping questions about whether Twitter was immune under Section 230 and fueling a battle over the scope of the platforms’ responsibilities under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). The decision stood in contrast to a wave of similar appeals that have been thrown out by the courts because of the companies’ Article 230 immunity.
While the justices may uphold the platforms’ liability protections in both cases, legal experts said the fact they took up the Twitter case may signal a desire to weigh the platforms’ responsibilities under anti-terrorism law.
“That kind of indicates at least in the minds of some judges that they think they’re going to get to the question of how the ATA applies, because they’re going to find that 230 doesn’t protect at least some actions from [platforms]”, he said Emma Llanso, director of the Free Expression Project for the Center for Democracy and Technology, a think tank that has advocated for Section 230 protections and receives funding from tech companies including Twitter, Google and Amazon. (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.)
If the court gives credence to the argument that platforms can “aid and abet” terrorism through their moderate practices, or finds that such claims should have their day in court, it could open up a flood of legal threats to Silicon Valley.
Llansó said the case could constitute an “exploration” of what companies like Twitter know about terrorist activity on its platform, what actions they take to prevent it and whether that is “enough to show that they are not aiding and abetting awareness of terrorist activity.”
She added, “This is potentially a big change in the way we think about liability for Internet service providers.”
And that could lead to much more powerful platforms cracking down on discussions about terrorism that aren’t promoting it, having a chilling effect on free expression online, Llansó said.
However, the ripple effects can go far beyond the anti-terrorism statute.
Evelyn Douekan assistant professor at Stanford Law School and fellow at the Knight First Amendment Institute, said the debate over what constitutes “aiding and abetting” or providing “material” support to terrorism has been a “live issue.”
A ruling on whether tech companies can aid and abet crimes through their moderation practices could open the door to lawsuits beyond terrorism, Douek said. This could include efforts to criminalize those who help people who have abortions.
“We see post-Dobbs, many states are passing laws that criminalize not just abortion, but a much broader scope, including aiding and abetting abortion, and so … that’s an area where the decision on consequences can also flow,” she said.
In his limited remarks about how Twitter should moderate content, Musk has suggested that he is an “absolutist” of free speech and that he believes the company should obey local laws when it comes to restrictions on speech.
of Thank you the case illustrates what happens when those principles collide.
Musk reverses course, says he will buy Twitter at original price
CEO of Tesla Elon Musk‘s party submitted the proposal to buy the company for $54.20 per share if a Delaware court immediately halts a case between the two parties and postpones the trial “and all other proceedings” related. Faiz Siddhi, Elizabeth Dwoskin AND Rachel Lerman report. The stunning development came weeks before Twitter and Musk were due to face off in an October 17 trial.
“Twitter said in a statement on Tuesday that it received the letter and intends to close the transaction at the original share price offered by Musk’s team,” my colleagues wrote. The company plans to accept the offer but is awaiting confirmation that a judge can oversee the process, said a person familiar with the discussions, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe sensitive matters.
Twitter executives are still questioning whether the letter is part of legal maneuvering by Musk because there is so much mistrust on both sides, the person said.
Google settles Arizona location tracking lawsuit for $85 million
The 2020 lawsuit accused Google of defrauding users by tracking their locations after they tried to turn off location tracking on their devices and web browsers, according to the Wall Street Journal. Sarah E. Needleman reports. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R) said in a statement that the outcome of the case “proves that no entity, not even large technology companies, is above the law.”
Google, which has denied wrongdoing, told the Wall Street Journal that the case was based on outdated policies that had been changed. “We offer direct controls and automatic deletion options for location data, and we’re always working to minimize the data we collect,” a Google spokesperson told the media.
Arizona isn’t the only state to take notice of Google’s location tracking practices. This year, the attorneys general of Indiana, Texas, Washington and D.C. sued Google over suspicions of misleading users about location tracking.
European lawmakers approve rule for common USB-C charger
The European Council has yet to give final approval to the rule, according to CNBC Arjun Kharpal reports. Under the rule, devices sold in Europe will have to come with a USB-C charging port by the end of 2024. This would mostly affect Apple, which uses a proprietary charging cable for its iPhone and iPad .
“EU lawmakers argue that the rules will reduce waste as consumers don’t need to buy a new charger every time they buy a device,” Kharpal writes. “The EU said this will reduce the production and disposal of new chargers.”
Twitter reacted immediately after the news about the social network. our colleague, Shall we pray?:
Writer and editor Mike Masnick:
Facebook shuts down service it hoped would compete with Substack (Taylor Lorenz)
Chipmaker Micron to build $20 billion plant in NY amid semiconductor boom (Jeanne Whalen)
Amazon Sues Washington Safety Regulator Over Warehouse Fines (Bloomberg News)
Amazon Freezes Corporate Hiring in Its Retail Business (The New York Times)
Apple receives complaint from US labor board in New York case (Bloomberg News)
New Democratic Coalition backs privacy bill (The Hill)
Russia Fines TikTok $51,000 for Content Violating Anti-LGBTQ Laws (The Verge)
- Douglas Farrar has joined the Federal Trade Commission as director of public affairs. Farrar previously worked as vice president of communications and strategy at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Acting Chief Technology Officer at the FTC, Stephanie Nguyenhas been appointed chief technology officer.
- The Carnegie Endowment hosts an event on Chinese technology in the Middle East and Southeast Asia on Thursday at 9 am.
that‘That’s all for today – thank you so much for joining us! Be sure to tell others to subscribe of technology 202 here. Get in touch with tips, comments or greetings I tweet or email.
