SCOTUS rules on Section 230
… well sort of
Earlier today, the Supreme Court released their opinions in Twitter v. Taamneh and Gonzalez v. Google. It is a good day for the internet. The Supreme Court could have used this as an opportunity to erode Section 230's protections for internet platforms, yet chose not to. This reflects the reality that we asserted in our amicus brief: that algorithms play an essential role in sorting content for platform users. Leaving Section 230 to be decided another day is the right decision.
Tl;dr from Neil: “Thomas wrote, unanimous court, Twitter wins, Gonzalez dismissed, 230 not mentioned.”
The CGO, along with 11 other state policy organizations filed an amicus brief in Gonzalez v. Google. Our four main arguments for why the Court should rule in favor of Google:
Section 230 means platforms are not publishers
The Internet would not be an economic engine without Section 230
Section 230 protects free speech, especially marginalized voices
New companies can enter the market thanks to Section 230
Ultimately these cases focused on claims within the Antiterrorism Act, not Section 230.
What’s next?
The two NetChoice cases, which have yet to officially be accepted by the court, are now the cases to watch on questions regarding Section 230. However, the reasoning the court provided in today’s opinion provides some sense of optimism on how the court might rule in either NetChoice case.