US' Supreme Court rules for Google, Twitter on terror-related content

US Supreme Court has given a major relief to social media companies on Thursday, reported Washington Post. families of people killed in terrorist bombing attacks in Istanbul and Paris sued Twitter, Facebook, Google and YouTube. In case, families claimed that companies h violated federal Anti-Terrorism Act, which specifically allowed civil damage claims for aiding and abetting terrorism. It would be first test case that has involved immunity from lawsuits granted to internet platforms for content y publish online. This decision by US supreme court has come in two separate cases, one against Twitter, and or against Google.

US court gives immunity to social media companies 

In case against social media firms, families have alleged that se firms have passively provided platforms to terrorists for communication; by recommending ISIS videos to those who might be interested, internet platforms have been seeking to get more viewers and increase ir revenue, even though y knew that ISIS was using ir services as a recruitment tool. However, on Thursday, US SC rejected those claims. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for a unanimous court, families “never allege that, after defendants established ir platforms, y gave ISIS any special treatment or words of encouragement." Furr, he ded, “Nor is re reason to think that defendants selected or took any action at all with respect to ISIS’ content (except, perhaps, blocking some of it)." narrowly focused rulings sidestepped requests to limit Section 230, according to Washington Post. Section 230 is a legal provision that protects social media platforms from lawsuits over offensive, harmful or violent content posted by ir users, regardless of wher companies incentivise or promote those posts. It has emerged as a lightning rod in politically polarised debate over future of online speech. According to Columbia University law professor Timothy Wu, who specialises in this area of law, "Thursday's decision was 'less than hopeful' for those who wanted court to curb scope of law known as 'Section 230'." Furr, he ded,  "Even Biden ministration h looked to court to begin task of 230 reform".