One year ago, Congress defunded public media. Now that we're 100% community funded, please become a sustaining member or increase your existing membership today.
Google's Algorithm Has Its Day In Court
Jose Hernandez and Beatriz Gonzalez, stepfather and mother of Nohemi Gonzalez, walk with their attorney Eric Schnapper outside the U.S. Supreme Court following Tuesday's oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google.
(
Drew Angerer
/
Getty Images
)
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a case involving the 2015 Islamic State killing of Southern California student Nohemi Gonzalez while she was studying abroad in Paris.
Lawyers for Gonzalez's family argue Google should be held liable for the algorithmic recommendations that led to the radicalization of the perpetrators, calling into question the current language of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Why it matters
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a landmark early internet regulation that treats interactive internet-based companies the same way phone providers are viewed, shielding them from legal responsibility over any content users broadcast on their platforms. Any change to the act would result in major consequences for these platforms and their users.
What's next
Final decisions from the justices on this session's cases won’t be released until this summer.
Sponsored message
Several justices have asserted that the outcome of a similar internet case being argued on Wednesday, which focuses on Twitter and the Anti-Terrorism Act, would answer the Section 230 question being posed in Gonzalez v. Google.
That other case, Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, concerns whether a social media company like Twitter can be sued under the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act for hosting content involved in an act of international terrorism.
The backstory
This is the first time the Supreme Court has taken up a case challenging Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Legal tech experts remain divided on the ramifications for the rest of the internet if regulations in the CDA were to change.
Listen to the conversation
You can hear a legal tech expert and a journalist covering the court case discuss the details on LAist 89.3's talk show AirTalk, which aired Tuesday.
Listen
28:19
Listen: What's next in the Supreme Court case examining Section 230
Sponsored message
One year ago, Congress voted to defund public media, eliminating a critical $1.7 million from our budget every year going forward. But they couldn’t silence us, and we’re not going anywhere. LAist is now 100% community funded and that means we’re taking our future into our own hands and turning to you to keep local reporting strong.
You come to LAist because you want independent reporting and trustworthy local information. Our nonprofit newsroom doesn’t answer to shareholders looking to turn a profit. Instead, we answer to you and our communities. We are free to follow facts wherever they lead and to hold power to account without fear or favor. Our only loyalty is to our readers and listeners and our mission: to inform, engage, and strengthen Southern California’s communities.
If this story helped you, please become a monthly member today to help sustain this mission. It just takes 1 minute to donate below.
You come to LAist because you want independent reporting and trustworthy local information. Our nonprofit newsroom doesn’t answer to shareholders looking to turn a profit. Instead, we answer to you and our communities. We are free to follow facts wherever they lead and to hold power to account without fear or favor. Our only loyalty is to our readers and listeners and our mission: to inform, engage, and strengthen Southern California’s communities.
If this story helped you, please become a monthly member today to help sustain this mission. It just takes 1 minute to donate below.
Senior Vice President News, Editor in Chief
