Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios
Tech firms are warning the Supreme Court that weakening liability protections for online speech could put all types of service providers — including those operating offline — at risk of costly, business-wrecking litigation.
The big picture: A key law governing online speech is facing its first-ever fundamental tests before the high court.
Driving the news: Companies and parties to the suits made early filings and statements this week in two cases that will test long-held practices in the tech industry based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which largely protects platforms from liability for people's posts.
Details: In the Taamneh case, attorneys for Twitter, Google and Meta argue that businesses like rental-car companies or banks would also risk legal liability for terrorist attacks if a jury decides they could have done more to root out terrorists using their services.
In the Gonzalez case, plaintiffs argue that Section 230's protection does not extend to algorithmically created recommendations, since YouTube plays a role in deciding which videos to recommend to users. Google contends Section 230 protects YouTube's methods of organizing users' posts, and weakening the law would only make it harder to filter out terrorism content.
What they're saying: The Gonzalez case "has a very high potential impact with a very small amount of decision makers involved, which makes it a particularly intense decision point," Emma Llansó, director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy & Technology, told Axios.
The intrigue: Twitter's defense of its legal immunity and ability to moderate comes as its new owner, Elon Musk, has been rapidly shifting the platform's content policy, promoting what he describes as free speech and reinstating banned users.
What's next: Google will file a formal reply in the Gonzalez case by mid-January, with arguments likely happening early next year. Amicus briefs from interested third parties are due in both cases in coming weeks.
