This is a file that was very followed in the American tech sector. Google, Facebook and Twitter cannot be sued by victims of attacks who accuse them of having helped the Islamic State group by relaying its propaganda, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.
The decision had the potential to change the face of the internet, reports our correspondent in Washington, Guillaume Naudin. No doubt a little aware of the revolution it could have triggered, the Supreme Court preferred to kick in touch. Unanimously, it rejected the complaints of two families of victims of attacks by the Islamic State organization.
The first: the parents of a young American killed in the November 2015 attacks in Paris. They filed a complaint against Google, which they accused of having supported the growth of the terrorist group by suggesting its videos to certain users. The other concerns an attack on a nightclub in Istanbul. Relatives of one victim believed that Facebook, Twitter and Google could be considered accomplices of the attack, because their efforts to remove content from the Islamic State group had not been sufficiently vigorous “.
” The fact that bad actors profit from these platforms is not enough to ensure that the defendants knowingly provided substantial assistance. to the jihadists, writes Judge Clarence Thomas in the unanimous judgment of the Court. He estimates that “ the allegations of the plaintiffs are insufficient to establish that the defendants helped the IS to carry out its attack “.
” A central aspect of internet law »
The judges’ restraint has pleased the tech sector and free speech advocates. ” The Court rightly recognized the limited scope of these cases and refused to rewrite a central aspect of internet law, protecting freedom of expression online and a thriving digital economy. “, told AFP Matt Schruers, president of the professional association CCIA. ” Thanks to this judgment, freedom of expression online survives and will be able to face its new battles added Patrick Toomey of the powerful civil rights organization ACLU in a statement.
Tech professionals were also delighted to see that the high court “ declines the invitation to look into “Section 230”. This law, dating from 1996, grants legal immunity to digital companies for content posted on their platforms. An immunity defended body and soul by the big companies of Silicon Valley who believe that it is their status as hosts – and not as publishers – which has allowed the rise of the Internet.
If Section 230 needs to be changed, it will not be by the Court, but must be by law. Everyone finds it unsuitable and denounces it. The Democrats believe that it allows the dissemination of false information and the Republicans, that it exonerates the platforms from answering for their choices of deleting accounts and promotes, according to them, censorship. This explains why no one has been able to agree on a reform so far.
(With AFP)