The Supreme Court is set Wednesday to hear the second of two cases that could have major ramifications for social media and the internet.
On Tuesday, the court heard the oral arguments for Gonzalez v. Google, which dealt with whether Section 230, a law that protects publishers from being held accountable for content posted by users, applied to algorithms recommending terrorist-created content.
But on Wednesday, the court will focus on whether companies like Twitter can be sued under the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act over their struggle to take down Islamic State propaganda.
The case arose after an ISIS terrorist opened fire at a nightclub in Istanbul in 2017. The shooting killed 39 people, including Nawras Alassaf. Alassaf's family filed a suit against Twitter, Meta, and YouTube, alleging that they had aided and abetted in recruiting and promoting ISIS causes to the public.
AI CHATBOTS AREN'T PROTECTED BY SECTION 230, GORSUCH SAYS
A federal court in the Northern District of California ruled that Alassaf's family had failed to provide sufficient cause for its direct liability claims and argued that there was no "direct relationship" between the events in Turkey and the platforms' actions. The case was appealed by the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals, which determined the plaintiffs "adequately state a claim for aiding and abetting liability" when it came to Twitter's role in hosting ISIS propaganda.
The lawsuit in question focuses on the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, two acts that allow victims and their families to seek justice for acts of international terrorism in the United States if the terrorism occurs in a foreign state.
While Twitter v. Taamneh and Gonzalez deal with identical sets of facts about ISIS victims in foreign states, the litigation processes for each led to the cases being split into two different sets of arguments from the court. Twitter and Google raised defenses under Section 230 as well as the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act on a district level.
Several amicus briefs have pressed over whether two anti-terror laws were genuinely applicable. A brief filed by the U.S. argues that because Twitter did not "provide atypical services or [bend] their usual policies" to host ISIS content, it is not liable under Halberstam v. Welch, a 1983 case used as a legal framework for determining secondary liability.
Supporters of Taamneh's case against Twitter say the social platform failed to do enough in this case. The social platform "did not go far enough in recognizing the breadth of [the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act's] cause of action," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) wrote in an amicus brief.
Other briefs argue that an overly broad interpretation of the two anti-terrorism laws could hurt U.S. business operations overseas. For example, the Chamber of Commerce argued that an adverse ruling could lead companies to stop business in conflict zones to avoid possible litigation.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Finally, some have spoken up about possible free speech limitations. A coalition of speech-focused organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Democracy and Technology, and the Knight First Amendment Institute, argued that a broad interpretation of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act could encourage "overly cautious moderation" among other platforms, leading to increased content moderation.