On Feb. 21, 2023, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter Inc., v. Taamneh, a set of companion cases which turn on the question of whether social media platforms can be held liable for hosting harmful terrorist material. CUNY Law Student Val Rigodon (‘22) wrote a note in our 25.2 issue that was cited in the amicus brief submitted by Tennessee and other states.

Gonzalez relates to the scope of protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which indicates that “interactive computer services” cannot be held liable as the “publisher or speaker” of third-party content on their platforms. Gonzalez asks whether algorithm-based recommendations personalized for users fall within the scope of Section 230 because ISIS claimed responsibility for multiple attacks in Paris through written statements and Youtube videos. 

Taamneh mirrors Gonzalez but also asks whether the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which allows victims to pursue claims against an entity that aids acts of terrorism, extends to social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. ISIS uses social media to recruit members, issue terrorist threats, spread propaganda that these platforms failed to proactively monitor and remove. Both cases ask whether these personalized algorithm-based recommendations are considered aiding and abetting acts of international terrorism.

The hearings are a significant step in the debate over the power of social media platforms. Gonzalez is the first case the Supreme Court heard challenging Section 230’s protections for internet platforms against liability arising from third-party content. The provision has remain unchanged since the passing of the Communications and Decency Act in 1996 while technology has drastically evolved. Val Rigodon’s note explains the current scope of Section 230 while elucidating how past courts have largely prevented people from holding internet companies accountable for harms that have been caused by or facilitated through their platforms. 

“Section 230 is not perfect–it deserves the same amount of consideration and critical analysis as any other law. While its benefits are enormous, there will always be room for improvement and renovation. Times are changing. The internet is changing. The stakes are so much higher than either a thousand duck bites or a lawless no-man’s land, and they will only continue to grow. The law should reflect that,” Rigodon wrote.   

Click here to read Val Rigodon’s Note. 

CUNY Law Review is proud to publish its student authors in its Notes and Comments section. which have been quoted in appellate briefs throughout the years:

1. Christina M. Tenuta, Note, Can You Really Be a Good Role Model to Your Child if You Can’t Braid Her Hair? The Unconstitutionality of Factoring Gender and Sexuality Into Custody Determinations, 14 CUNY L. Rev. 351 (2011): cited by a Supreme Court amicus curiae brief filed in Obergefell v. Hodges.
2. Brett Dolin, Note, One Condo: One Vote: The New York BID Act as a Threat to Equal Protection and Democratic Control, 18 CUNY L. Rev. 93 (2014): included in a treatise on civil rights and a treatise on real estate.
3. Amy Robinson-Oost, Note, Evaluation as the Proper Function of the Parole Board: An Analysis of New York State’s Proposed Safe Parole Act, 16 CUNY L. Rev. 129 (2012): cited by a New York State Court of Appeals amicus curiae brief in Linares v. Evans, supporting a pro se plaintiff’s challenge to New York State’s broken parole system. 

Find out how you can publish with the CUNY Law Review as a student author or as a practitioner by contacting cunylr@mail.law.cuny.edu or visiting our website https://www.cunylawreview.org/submissions/.