Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Whether Section 230 protects social media firms from what their algorithms produce remains a question in case law. The Supreme Court considered this question in regard to terrorism content in the forementioned Gonzalez and Taamneh cases, but neither addressed if Section 230 protected social media firms for the product of their algorithms. [90]
Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 598 U.S. 617 (2023), was a case at the Supreme Court of the United States which dealt with the question of whether or not recommender systems are covered by liability exemptions under section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, which was established by section 509 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, for Internet service providers (ISPs) in dealing with terrorism ...
Any change to Section 230 is likely to have ripple effects on online speech around the globe. “The rest of the world is cracking down on the internet even faster than the U.S.,” Goldman said.
Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008), [1] is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) did not apply to an interactive online operator whose questionnaire violated the Fair Housing Act.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas did not say Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is unconstitutional in a recent concurring opinion.
The Section 230 internet law is still under threat, even though the Democrats have both Houses. Big Tech will be planning how it's going to fight it
Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), [2] is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit determined the immunity of Internet service providers for wrongs committed by their users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
The new Congress can help shape the structure of online ecosystems to better serve consumers.