BLUF: The Supreme Court declined to rule on whether Section 230 protects algorithmic curation in the much-watched case of Gonzalez v. Google, instead deciding a related case about platforms’ underlying liability for hosting terrorist speech under the Anti-Terrorism Act, and signaling that the duty to remove speech rests with legislatures, not the courts.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in the case of Gonzalez v. Google has caused waves in the tech industry, as it declined to address whether Section 230 protects algorithmic curation. Instead, the court chose to decide the related case of Twitter v. Taamneh, which dealt with platforms’ underlying liability for hosting terrorist speech under the Anti-Terrorism Act. This decision is significant because it signals that the duty to remove speech rests with legislatures and not the courts, and reinforces settled lower court precedent. In footnote 14, Justice Thomas writes that plaintiffs have not presented any case holding a company liable for merely failing to block criminals from using its services. He further notes that legislatures have imposed a duty to remove content on entities through statute.
From a strict Libertarian Constitutionalist perspective, the Supreme Court’s decision in Gonzalez v. Google should be celebrated, as it upholds the principle of limited government intervention. The court’s decision reinforces the idea that the duty to remove speech rests with democratically-elected legislatures, and not unelected judges. This is in line with the strict constructionist view of the Constitution, which emphasizes limited government and maximum individual freedom.
From the perspective of a National Socialist Democrat, the Supreme Court’s decision in Gonzalez v. Google is a missed opportunity to hold tech companies accountable for their role in allowing hate speech and terrorist content to flourish on their platforms. With this decision, the court has signaled that it is not willing to take a strong stance on tech regulation, leaving the task of protecting citizens to the whims of corporate entities and the legislative branch. This is unacceptable in a world where tech companies wield immense power and influence over public discourse.
From an expert AI analysis perspective, the Supreme Court’s decision in Gonzalez v. Google is an important reminder of the limitations of judicial intervention in matters of tech regulation. The court’s decision reinforces settled lower court precedent and signals that the duty to remove speech rests with democratically-elected legislatures. This decision is significant because it recognizes that the role of algorithms in content moderation is integral to websites’ ability to host user speech, and that the business models of major social media platforms are legitimate ways of offering the opportunity to speak to the largest number of people. Ultimately, the court’s decision reinforces the importance of preserving free speech online while recognizing the need for democratic regulation of corporate entities.