The future of online speech and the internet is in the hands of the US Supreme Court.
That could go away depending on what the Supreme Court decides.
“It’s sticking it to all of us.”
Companies could limit who can post on their platforms or scrap user-generated content, he added.
It also allows these platforms to take action against offensive content.
Even back then, online services were facinglawsuitsover user content.
Why should I care?
Section 230 was designed to encourage free speech online.
What cases are the Supreme Court hearing?
The Supreme Court is examining two cases involving online speech: Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh.
The lawsuit also accuses YouTube of recommending ISIS videos to users.
What happened during the hearings?
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked if a user could be liable for retweeting or liking a tweet.
“On your theory, I’m not protected by Section 230?”
“I think it wouldn’t be,” said Seth Waxman, Twitter’s lawyer.
Waxman said you would have to have a “general awareness” that you’re assisting an illegal activity.
“Willful blindness is something that we have said can constitute knowledge,” she said.
How have tech companies responded?
Waxman told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that the tech platforms had no intent of aiding ISIS terrorism activity.
“They maintained and regularly enforced policies prohibiting content that promotes terrorism activities,” he said.
Twitter, which no longer has a communications department, didn’t respond to a request for comment.
What do US lawmakers think about this?
Democrats and Republicans, surprisingly, agree that reforms to Section 230 are needed.
But their motives strongly contradict each other.
“I don’t know how we can assess that in any meaningful way,” he said.
What happens next?
The Supreme Court is expected to make a decision on the cases this year.
The court is being asked to review other cases involving online speech.
