Free speech access to the internet could be dramatically transformed, with the Supreme Court set to hear a high-stakes pair of oral arguments.
as we know it could soon be dramatically transformed, with the Supreme Court set to hear a high-stakes pair of oral arguments over holding social media companies liable for content posted by third-party providers.
It will be the first time the justices will review the Communications Decency Act's Section 230, which has been in effect since 1996. It gives digital platforms a measure of immunity from some criminal and civil claims. Several lower courts have interpreted Section 230 as giving some of the largest companies in the world broad legal protection.
Tech experts say the high court's decision would not only affect web search results, but potentially social media feeds, apps, online marketplace listings and streaming services content. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, about 40 million people used the internet worldwide when Section 230 was enacted. By 2019, more than four billion people were online, with 3.5 billion of them using social media platforms. In 1996, there were fewer than 300,000 websites; by 2017, there were more than 1.7 billion.
The law also says that no interactive computer service provider"shall be held liable" for what Justice Thomas said in 2020 were"good-faith acts to restrict access to, or remove, certain types of objectionable content; or... giving consumers tools to filter the same types of content." "Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike," the executive order stated.
Citing internal company emails recently published under the so-called"Twitter Files," Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said last month,"These emails confirm what we’ve known all along, The [Biden administration] has been colluding with social media companies to stifle opposing voices. I will continue to push back against this blatant attack on the 1st Amendment with every tool at my disposal.
Indonesia Berita Terbaru, Indonesia Berita utama
Similar News:Anda juga dapat membaca berita serupa dengan ini yang kami kumpulkan dari sumber berita lain.
Supreme court reconsiders case to reinstate TrumpThe lawsuit by Utah man Raland Brunson is challenging the 2020 presidential election results and calling for the reinstatement of Donald Trump.
Baca lebih lajut »
Brazil Supreme Court rules Bayer must return $252 mln in GMO soy royaltiesGermany's Bayer has been ordered by Brazil's Supreme Court to return to Brazilian soybean farmers the royalties they were charged for a GMO soybean seed, the Mato Grosso farmer lobby Aprosoja-MT said in a statement on Friday.
Baca lebih lajut »
Title 42 case could soon leave Supreme Court, but not if Republicans get their wayThe Supreme Court axed Title 42 from its argument calendar. Attorneys general for more than a dozen states are desperately fighting for the justices not to declare it moot. Here's why. (via Deadline: Legal Blog)
Baca lebih lajut »
Opponents of SAFE-T Act file arguments with Illinois Supreme CourtOpponents of a controversial law that would eliminate cash bail in Illinois filed their arguments with the Illinois Supreme Court on Friday, revisiting their claims that the law is unconditional and improperly ties judge’s hands when deciding the conditions of release for people accused of crimes.
Baca lebih lajut »
Illinois Supreme Court issues opinion over ongoing White Castle biometric privacy caseThe Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion in an ongoing case against White Castle in connection to the Biometric Information Privacy Act that could potentially result in major fines.
Baca lebih lajut »