US Supreme Court against blue sky in Washington DC, USA.Photographer: Stephanie Reynolds/Bloomberg
Bloomberg Creative | Bloomberg Creative Photography | Getty Images
legit test Google’s Lawyers said the Supreme Court was roughly “96 percent correct,” according to multiple experts who advocate for the law’s fullest support.
The so-called “Henderson test” would significantly undermine Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, several experts said in conversations and briefings following oral argument in the case. gonzalez vs googleSome of the people who criticized Google’s concessions even work in Google-backed groups.
Section 230 is a law that protects the ability of technology platforms to host material from their users, such as social media posts, uploaded video and audio files, comments, etc., and cannot be held legally responsible for such content. there is no. The platform can also moderate the service and remove posts that it deems objectionable.
Law is at the heart of the issue that the Supreme Court decides in the Gonzales case. Google’s YouTube may be responsible for algorithmically recommending User Submissions that it believes to support or promote terrorism.
At Tuesday’s debate, the judge said seemed hesitant Issue a ruling overhauling Section 230.
But even if they avoid commenting on the law, they may issue warnings that change how it is enforced, or pave the way for future changes to the law.
What is the Henderson Test?
Some proponents believe that one way the Supreme Court can overrule Section 230 is by upholding the Henderson test. Ironically, Google’s own attorneys may have given the courts the confidence to uphold this test if they chose to do so.
Henderson testing started in November. dominate Henderson v. The Source for Public Data, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs in that case sued a group of companies that collect public information about individuals, such as criminal records, voting records and driving information, and put it into a database that they sell to third parties. Plaintiffs alleged that the company failed to maintain accurate information and violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by providing inaccurate information to potential employers.
A lower court ruled that the claim was barred under Section 230, but the Court of Appeal reversed that decision.
The Court of Appeals wrote that for the protection of Section 230 to apply, “the defendant must be held liable for inappropriate content in the publication.”
In this case, it wasn’t the content itself that was the problem, but the company’s choice of how to present it.
The court also held that Public Data was responsible for the content because it determined how the information was presented, even if it was drawn from other sources. The court ruled that some of the information Public Data sent to her one of plaintiff’s potential employers was likely “inaccurate because it omitted or summarized information in a misleading manner.” said. In other words, when Public Data makes changes to the information it obtains, Public Data becomes an information content provider.
If the Supreme Court upholds Henderson, it will, in effect, “discuss Section 230,” said an attorney at the Progressive Chamber of Commerce, a center-left trade group that counts Google as a supporter. Jess Myers said. A key benefit of Section 230, Miers said, is that it helps expedite dismissal of lawsuits against platforms centered on user posts.
“This is a very dangerous test because it encourages plaintiffs to defend their claims. We’re not talking about how inappropriate the content in question is,” Miers said. says. “We’re talking about how the service organizes and curates its content.
Eric Goldman, professor of law at the University of Santa Clara, said: blog Henderson would be “a disastrous sentence if adopted by SCOTUS.”
“It was shocking that Google endorsed Henderson’s view because it narrowed Section 230 down dramatically,” Goldman said at a virtual press conference hosted by the Chamber of Progress after the debate. “And as long as the Supreme Court gets its bait and says, ‘Henderson is good for Google and good for us,’ plaintiffs will find plenty of other opportunities to sue. You’ll actually see a dramatic narrowing of Section 230. Based on third party content. .
Google pointed out that part simply The Gonzalez case discussing the Henderson test. Simply put, Google is trying to distinguish actions on search engines, social media sites, or chat rooms that display snippets of third-party information from actions on credit-checking websites, such as those at issue in the Henderson case. is.
For chat rooms, “the operator provides the organization and layout, but the basic post is still third-party content,” Google said, which means it falls under Section 230. increase.
“In contrast, Section 230(c)(1) does not bar liability if a credit bureau website fails to provide users with its own required statements of consumer rights,” Google wrote. “Even if the website also publishes third-party content, it is the website’s sole failure to summarize consumer rights and provide that information to its customers.”
Google also said the 230 does not apply to websites that “require users to communicate their allegedly illegal preferences,” such as sites that violate housing laws. “by contributing materially” [the content’s] Google, citing the 2008 San Fernando Valley Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com lawsuit, said the website owns and is responsible for its content.”
Concerns over Google’s concessions
Section 230 experts digesting the Supreme Court’s arguments were baffled by Google’s lawyers’ decision in full favor of Henderson. In trying to make sense of it, some suggested that it might have been a strategic decision to show the judge that Section 230 was not an endless free pass for technology platforms.
But in doing so, many felt that Google went too far.
Cathy Gellis, who represented amici in a brief filed in the case, said at the Chamber of Progress briefing that Google’s attorneys were likely trying to explain the line between where Section 230 applies and where it doesn’t. “By broadly supporting it, we probably supported more than we bargained for, and certainly more than amici would have signed.
Corbin Barthold, Internet Policy Counsel Backed by Google At a separate press conference, TechFreedom said that the ideas Google may have been trying to convey in support of Henderson aren’t necessarily bad per se. He said he seemed to be trying to argue that organizing information is the essence of what a platform does, even using the definition of publishing as Henderson puts it.
But by making that claim, Google’s lawyers “have kind of held fate hostage,” Barthold said.
“Because if the court doesn’t accept Google’s argument, it means that there really isn’t a need to make a distinction here.
Miers said Google deemed Henderson’s case relatively safe to cite, given the alleged Fair Credit Reporting Act violations and not the issue of users’ social media posts. I assumed it was possible.
“Perhaps Google’s attorneys were looking for a way to show the court that the Section 230 immunity was limited,” Miers said. “But I think doing so would include a rather problematic reading in the §230 immunity test, which could have rather irreversible consequences in future Internet law litigation.”
Watch: Why the Supreme Court’s Section 230 Case Can Reshape the Internet
