The American Supreme Court must examine, Tuesday, February 21, a file linked to the Paris attacks which could have very important consequences by calling into question one of the fundamental laws which govern the moderation of content on the Internet.
In 2016, the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, an American student killed at the age of 23 on the terrace of Le Carillon restaurant during the terrorist attack of November 13, 2015, filed a complaint against Google, as owner of YouTube, as well as against Facebook. and Twitter. The parents of the young woman, enrolled in a design course in France, criticized the three platforms for having insufficiently moderated, or even in some cases for having participated in the dissemination, of texts and propaganda videos of the Islamic State organization, contributing to the radicalization of the killers of their daughter.
The plaintiffs had been dismissed, at first instance and on appeal, by the Californian courts, before seeking the Supreme Court of the United States. The judges had agreed with Google and YouTube, main subject of the complaint. According to them, the giant had not failed in its obligations, provided for in section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a fundamental text which sets the legal framework for the moderation of social networks in the United States.
Legal and political compromise
Adopted in 1996, Section 230 exempts large platforms from liability when they host content produced by Internet users and contrary to the law, unless this content has been reported to them as illegal. Often criticized, section 230 is a legal and political compromise that has inspired the legislation in force in most Western countries, including France.
Without this relative immunity, argue its defenders, no social network could operate: a permanent legal risk would force them, at best, to preventively censor almost all messages and, at worst, to close. Its critics believe that the text is interpreted by the courts too leniently for the large platforms. These, they add, would no longer be simple hosts, but would editorialise their services by classifying content and making recommendations, thanks to algorithms.
The hearing by the Supreme Court has been the subject of very intense activity in recent weeks on the part of digital giants and organizations defending public freedoms, most of which have given their support to Google, the name of freedom of expression. Over 70 amicus curiae (literally “friend of the court”) – motions making legal arguments – have been filed, by the American Civil Liberties Union, by victim advocacy associations, by the American Police Association, etc. .
You have 44.27% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.