The Supreme Court on Thursday handed big tech companies including Google and Twitter legal wins in a pair of lawsuits alleging that the companies should be liable for ISIS attacks because of content the terror organization promoted using their platforms.
The companies were sued separately by the families of the victims. In the case against Twitter, Justice Clarence Thomas authored a unanimous opinion, saying that the families did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the companies should be held liable for aiding and abetting.
“Defendants allegedly knew that ISIS was using their platforms but failed to stop it from doing so,” the ruling states. “Plaintiffs accordingly seek to hold Facebook, Twitter, and Google liable for the terrorist attack that allegedly injured them. We conclude, however, that plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient to establish that these defendants aided and abetted ISIS in carrying out the relevant attack.”
“By their very nature, the concepts of aiding and abetting and substantial assistance do not lend themselves to crisp, bright-line distinctions,” the opinion states.
SUPREME COURT TO WEIGH GOOGLE AND TWITTER INTERNET FREE SPEECH POLICIES
“The point of aiding and abetting is to impose liability on those who consciously and culpably participated in the tort at issue,” Thomas added. “The focus must remain on assistance to the tort for which plaintiffs seek to impose liability.”
The short opinion in the Google case was unsigned, with the decision stating:
“We need not resolve either the viability of plaintiffs’ claims as a whole or whether plaintiffs should receive further leave to amend. Rather, we think it sufficient to acknowledge that much (if not all) of plaintiffs’ complaint seems to fail under either our decision in Twitter or the Ninth Circuit’s unchallenged holdings below.”
The justices declined to answer whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which gives digital platforms a measure of immunity from some criminal and civil claims, applies.
The family of Nohemi Gonzalez claimed Google, the owner of YouTube, willingly allowed the Islamic State group to post hundreds of videos on YouTube that helped incite violence and recruit potential supporters. The 23-year-old U.S. citizen studying abroad was one of 130 innocents killed in Paris during a series of IS-affiliated attacks in November 2015.
The case against Twitter dealt with liability under Section 2333 of the Anti-Terrorism Act – and whether hosting terrorist content online could constitute “aiding and abetting” under federal civil law, regardless of liability protections in Section 230.
That matter was brought by American relatives of Jordanian citizen Nawras Alassaf, who was among the 39 people killed during a 2017 mass shooting inside an Istanbul nightclub. Three social media companies, including Twitter, were sued for civil damages, with the family claiming the companies provided a messaging platform for the gunman, who allegedly was recruited and directed by ISIS to carry out the attack.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.