"The free and open internet as we know it couldn’t exist without Section 230," the Electronic Frontier Foundation says—and a case the Supreme Court will hear Tuesday could have huge implications for the internet's future. In Gonzalez v. Google, the court will determine whether the 1996 legislation shields Google from liability in the death of American college student Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed in an ISIS attack in Paris in 2015. Her family argues that YouTube, which is owned by Google, contributed to the death by promoting extremist content via algorithms that recommend content to viewers. This is the first time Section 230, which has been criticized by Republicans and Democrats alike, has come before the top court. More:
- What is Section 230? The legislation, part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, shields tech companies from liability for content posted on their platforms. It states: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." It was intended to protect startups in the early days of the internet, but critics argue that much has changed in the following decades, CNN reports. Republicans say it allows websites to censor right-wing content, while Democrats say it allows misinformation to spread unchecked.