What we learned from 2 rounds of #SCOTUS arguments over #InternetLiability

The #SupremeCourt this wk wrestled w/arguments from #Google, #Twitter, & #Facebook (#META), in 2 sister cases that say the companies should be liable for “aiding & abetting” terrorist attacks allegedly tied to content posted to their platforms.

#Section230 #Section2333 #GonzalezVGoogle #TwitterVTaamneh
https://stocks.apple.com/A78Q8gjC0RpWvninuqA6AXQ

What we learned from two rounds of Supreme Court arguments over internet liability — Yahoo Finance

The U.S. Supreme Court this week wrestled with arguments from Google Twitter, and Facebook in two sister cases that say the companies should be liable for “aiding and abetting” terrorist attacks allegedly tied to content posted to their platforms. ...

In the cases, #GonzalezVGoogle & #TwitterVTaamneh , the court could set new boundaries to interpret #Section230 of the #CommunicationsDecencyAct, a 1996 law that arguably supports the economic models of #SocialMedia & other interactive websites hosting #ThirdParty #content—& #Antiterrorism laws that allow victims of international #terrorist attacks to seek compensation from those who “#AidAndAbet” the assaults.

#§230 law broadly exempts websites from #legal #liability when harm is caused by that content.

#Section2333 of the #AntiTerrorismAct, as amended, allows U.S. nationals injured by an act of international #terrorism perpetrated by a designated foreign #terrorist organization to sue those who sponsor the attacks.

The court is expected to hand down rulings in both cases before July.