The Supreme Court heard oral argument last week in cases that
will have extensive implications for online platforms, and, more
broadly, for internet speech across the board. Gonzalez v.
Google, in particular, may result in a first-of-its-kind
clarification of the scope of 47 U.S.C. § 230.
Section 230 protects online platforms by, first,
stating that they shall not be "treated as the publisher or
speaker" of any content posted by third parties, and
second, clarifying that this immunity also applies when
online platforms moderate and remove content. The question
presented in Gonzalez v. Google was whether online
platforms can assert 47 U.S.C. § 230 immunity against claims
brought under the Antiterrorism Act alleging content curation
algorithms facilitate terrorist acts. A second, related case not
directly implicating § 230, Twitter v. Taamneh, was
also heard this week, and could have similar implications —
it similarly deals with whether platforms can be held liable