\n
\u201cIt might be that bad actors like ISIS are able to use platforms like defendants\u2019 for illegal \u2013 and sometimes terrible \u2013 ends,\u201d Thomas wrote. \u201cBut the same could be said of cell phones, email, or the internet generally.\u201d<\/p>\n
Thomas\u2019 opinion reflected the court\u2019s struggle to identify in oral arguments what kinds of speech ought to trigger liability for social media, and what kind deserved protections.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think the court recognized the importance of these platforms for billions of people for communicating, and stepped back from interfering with that,\u201d said Samir Jain, vice president of policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a group that filed briefs in support of the tech industry.<\/p>\n
For months, many legal experts had viewed the Twitter and Google cases as a sign the court might seek sweeping changes to Section 230, a law that has faced bipartisan criticism in connection with tech companies\u2019 content moderation decisions. Thomas in particular has expressed vocal interest in hearing a Section 230 case.<\/p>\n
Expectations of a hugely disruptive outcome in both cases prompted what Kate Klonick, a law professor at St. John\u2019s University,\u00a0described\u00a0as an \u201cinsane flood\u201d of friend-of-the-court briefs.<\/p>\n
As oral arguments unfolded, however, and as justices visibly grappled with the complexities of internet speech, the likelihood of massive changes to the law seemed to recede.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think it slowly started to creep into the realm of possibility that \u2026 maybe the Court has no idea what the hell these cases are about and had MAYBE picked them to be activist, but weren\u2019t ready to be THIS activist,\u201d Klonick\u00a0tweeted.<\/p>\n
Daphne Keller, director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford University, agreed.<\/p>\n
\u201cI do think this vindicates all of us who were saying, \u2018the Supreme Court took the wrong case, these ones did not present the issues they actually wanted,\u2019\u201d Keller told CNN.<\/p>\n
The justices may soon have another opportunity to weigh in on social media. The court is still deciding whether to hear a number of cases dealing with the constitutionality of state laws passed by Texas and Florida that restrict online platforms\u2019 ability to moderate content. But the court\u2019s handling of the Twitter and Google cases suggests the court may approach any new cases carefully.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe very fact that the justices are proceeding cautiously is a good sign and suggests a more nuanced understanding of these issues than many feared,\u201d said Evelyn Douek, an assistant professor at Stanford Law School.<\/p>\n
In Thursday\u2019s Twitter decision, the court held that Twitter\u2019s hosting of general terrorist speech does not create indirect legal responsibility for specific terrorist attacks, effectively raising the bar for future such claims.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe conclude,\u201d Thomas wrote, \u201cthat plaintiffs\u2019 allegations are insufficient to establish that these defendants aided and abetted ISIS in carrying out the relevant attack.\u201d<\/p>\n
He stressed that the plaintiffs have \u201cfailed to allege that defendants intentionally provided any substantial aid\u201d to the attack at issue, nor did they \u201cpervasively and systemically\u201d assist ISIS in a way that would render them liable for \u201cevery ISIS attack.\u201d<\/p>\n
Twitter v. Taamneh focused on whether social media companies can be sued under US antiterrorism law for hosting terror-related content that has only a distant relationship with a specific terrorist attack.<\/p>\n
The plaintiffs in the case, the family of Nawras Alassaf, who was killed in an ISIS attack in Istanbul in 2017, alleged that social media companies including Twitter had knowingly aided ISIS in violation of federal antiterrorism law by allowing some of the group\u2019s content to persist on their platforms despite policies intended to limit that type of content.<\/p>\n
\u201cCountless companies, scholars, content creators and civil society organizations who joined with us in this case will be reassured by this result,\u201d said Halimah DeLaine Prado, Google\u2019s general counsel, in a statement. \u201cWe\u2019ll continue our work to safeguard free expression online, combat harmful content, and support businesses and creators who benefit from the internet.\u201d<\/p>\n
Twitter did not immediately respond to a request for comment.<\/p>\n