Supreme Court takes up legal spat over public officials blocking people on social media
NBCNov 23, 2022
The Facts
In two SCOTUS decisions Thursday — Twitter v. Taamneh and Gonzalez v. Google — the US high court ruled that social media companies don't need special protections to avoid liability for hosting terrorist content.
US relatives of Nawras Alassaf, a Jordanian man murdered during a New Year’s Eve attack in Istanbul in 2017, sought damages from Twitter for providing what they argued was "substantial assistance" to an "act of international terrorism" that left Alassaf and 38 others dead.
The Spin
Pro-establishment narrative
These decisions aren't just a win for tech companies but for the concept of free speech as a whole. If companies had to worry about liability for every post that potentially incited violence, they would have to resort to widespread censorship of certain topics and speakers. The internet is full of unimaginable amounts of speech, and it would be impossible and unethical for a corporation to curate the vast market of free expression.
Establishment-critical narrative
Forget telecom companies; there should be a focus on the similarities between tech platforms and newspapers, which can be held liable. As was seen in Sarah Palin's failed defamation suit against the New York Times in 2020, it's very difficult to sue media publishers, though not impossible. Tech companies should be held to the same standard — repealing Section 230 would allow them to retain most of the protections they've held for the past 30 years while also protecting victims, companies, and viewpoint diversity.