Gonzalez v. Google LLC - Post-Argument SCOTUScast
On February 21, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Gonzalez v. Google LLC. After U.S. citizen Nohemi Gonzalez was killed by a terrorist attack in Paris, France, in 2015, Gonzalez’s father filed an action against Google, Twitter,...
An episode of the SCOTUScast podcast, hosted by The Federalist Society, titled "Gonzalez v. Google LLC - Post-Argument SCOTUScast" was published on April 12, 2023 and runs 41 minutes.
April 12, 2023 ·41m · SCOTUScast
Summary
On February 21, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Gonzalez v. Google LLC.After U.S. citizen Nohemi Gonzalez was killed by a terrorist attack in Paris, France, in 2015, Gonzalez’s father filed an action against Google, Twitter, and Facebook. Mr. Gonzalez claimed that Google aided and abetted international terrorism by allowing ISIS to use YouTube for recruiting and promulgating its message. At issue is the platform’s use of algorithms that suggest additional content based on users’ viewing history. Additionally, Gonzalez claims the tech companies failed to take meaningful action to counteract ISIS’ efforts on their platforms.The district court granted Google’s motion to dismiss the claim based on Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The question now facing the Supreme Court is: does Section 230 immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information?Join us as Erik Jaffe breaks down the oral argument.Featuring:Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP
Episode Description
After U.S. citizen Nohemi Gonzalez was killed by a terrorist attack in Paris, France, in 2015, Gonzalez’s father filed an action against Google, Twitter, and Facebook. Mr. Gonzalez claimed that Google aided and abetted international terrorism by allowing ISIS to use YouTube for recruiting and promulgating its message. At issue is the platform’s use of algorithms that suggest additional content based on users’ viewing history. Additionally, Gonzalez claims the tech companies failed to take meaningful action to counteract ISIS’ efforts on their platforms.
The district court granted Google’s motion to dismiss the claim based on Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The question now facing the Supreme Court is: does Section 230 immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information?
Join us as Erik Jaffe breaks down the oral argument.
Featuring:
Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP
Similar Episodes
No similar episodes found.