Wednesday, March 8 at 7:30 p.m. GMT:
In February, the United States Supreme Court began hearing arguments for cases that some have described as having the power to disrupt the modern internet.
In the center of Gonzalez vs. Google and a related case, Twitter v. Taamneh, is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which provides Internet companies with protection from legal liability against lawsuits arising from content posted by users. The Gonzalez case raises the question of whether the algorithm designed by YouTube and its parent company Google should be held responsible for recommending ISIL recruitment videos to its users, while the Taamneh case examines whether Twitter is responsible for aiding and abetting “international terrorism” allowing ISIL content on its site.
The debate over the cases comes as tech companies face increasing scrutiny and pressure to be held accountable for hosting harmful or offensive content on their platforms. Yet those who defend section 230, including open internet supporters and advocacy groups like the ACLUbelieve that a broad interpretation of the law is integral to freedom of expression online and the very existence of social media.
In this episode of The Stream, we’ll examine the debate over Section 230 and how its future could affect the internet as we know it.
In this episode of The Stream, we speak with:
Julie Owono, @JulieOwono
Executive Director, Internet Without Borders
Megan Iorio, @EPICprivacy
Senior Counsel, Electronic Privacy Clearinghouse
Mukund Rathi, @EFF
Lawyer, Electronic Frontier Foundation