Section 230 has withstood court challenges for the past three decades even as the internet exploded.
In this case, the attorney said, it enhanced the ISIS message.
Instead, he said, those are choices made by the platform.
Getty Images
Justice Neil Gorsuch said he was not sure any algorithm is neutral.
Most these days are designed to maximize profit.
But, she added, We are a court.
We really dont know about these things.
We are not the nine biggest experts on the internet.
Isnt this a case for Congress, not the court?
Even though there have been calls to alter or eliminate Section 230, legislation has gone nowhere.
Internet firms swear that removing or limiting 230 protections would destroy the medium.
Chief Justice John Roberts asked Googles attorney Lisa Blatt.
Would Google collapse and the internet be destroyed if Google was prevented from posting what it knows is defamatory?
Not Google, she said, but other, smaller websites, yes.
Even then, the internet was a mess.
You had to organize it because it was massive.
European regulators have shown that it is possible to regulate the internet to some extent.
Congress also has carved out exceptions.
In 2018, it passed a law removing immunity from internet for content dealing with sex trafficking.
That content swiftly disappeared, and the web is still standing.
Doesnt that suggest Congress wanted internet companies to block offensive content?…
The statute is like, We want you to take these things down.
I think a lot of things are offensive that other people think are entertainment, said Blatt.
SCOTUS is set to hear a separate but similar case involvingTwitteron Wednesday.
