Supreme Court Struggles With Social Media’s Role in Terrorism
The US Supreme Court struggled to determine when social media companies can be held responsible for aiding terrorism as the justices heard the second of two cases that are poised to shape the legal rules governing harmful online material.
In a clash stemming from a 2017 shooting in an Istanbul nightclub, the justices spent more than two hours probing the boundaries of a federal anti-terrorism law – and trying to decide whether social media platforms are akin to banks and restaurants that serve terrorists and people who give guns to known criminals.
The justices didn't give a clear indication as to the outcome, though some suggested they were skeptical of efforts by the family of a victim to sue Twitter Inc. and other social media companies for allegedly not doing enough to take down terrorist content.
Justice Clarence Thomas said that under the family's reasoning “it would seem that every terrorist act that uses this platform would also mean that Twitter is an aider and abettor in those instances.”
The justices pressed lawyers for Twitter, the federal government and the family on a federal statute that allows victims of terrorist attacks to collect damages from entities that “aided and abetted” a terrorist act. They held up a myriad of hypothetical examples to assess how culpable Twitter may be for allowing terrorists to remain on their platform, including reaching back to historical figures and companies.
“Let's say J. Edgar Hoover tells Bell Telephone Company that Dutch Schultz is a gangster and he's using his phone to carry out mob activities,” said Justice Samuel Alito. “The phone company says, ‘We don't deprive people of service based on that.' That makes them an aider and abbettor?”
“Perhaps not,” said Deputy Solicitor
Read more on tech.hindustantimes.com
