-
Two thirds of EU faced harmful ozone levels during heatwave: report
-
Russia to take on World Athletics at CAS over ban
-
Italy expels two Russian diplomats accused of spying: minister
-
600 dead in DR Congo Ebola outbreak
-
German exports rise despite Iran war headwinds
-
'Total Eclipse' singer Bonnie Tyler, queen of the 80s power ballad, dies at 75
-
Thousands attend funeral for Afghan cricketer Shapoor Zadran
-
Myanmar names Norwegian Andersen as head of national team
-
Crude pares steep gains as traders take stock after US-Iran flare-up
-
Russell back as Scotland tackle world champions South Africa
-
Cleanup underway as death toll from China floods hits 39
-
Tour de France yellow jersey protocol: 90 minutes of 'stress'
-
Italy recall Allan, Lynagh for All Blacks Nations Championship Test
-
Crude stabilises after US-Iran flare-up rocked peace hopes
-
Rookie fly-half Meredith thrown in for Wallabies debut against France
-
Playmaker Jalibert moves to fullback as France swing axe for Australia clash
-
Taiwan warns of 'destructive' winds as typhoon nears
-
Australian sprint star Gout out of U20 worlds with hamstring tear
-
Farrell rings changes for Ireland's Japan clash
-
Unions to protest as Volkswagen thrashes out job cut plans
-
Magyar's blitz against Orban's Hungary 'mafia' gathers pace
-
Teeth bared in Greece's bear-human showdown
-
Labour leadership contest takes Burnham closer to UK PM's office
-
Alpacas, mini pigs on the loose after floods hit south China zoo
-
New Zealand may join Australia-Fiji defence pact: PM Luxon
-
All Blacks make five changes for Italy Nations Championship clash
-
Fly-half Meredith to make Australia debut against France
-
Western Europe records its hottest June as heatwaves surge: EU monitor
-
US, Iran trade new strikes in fight over Hormuz strait
-
Fashion's mystery man Margiela sells off his archives
-
Modi eyes 'historic' chance to secure Australian uranium
-
Nuclear test-scarred Marshall Islands criticises China missile
-
US crackdown on top AI fuels open-source surge
-
Chip titan SK hynix to set price for mega US listing
-
EU moves closer to kicking kids off social media
-
Crude extends rally as US-Iran flare-up rocks peace hopes
-
Protecting the protectors: racing to save Philippine mangroves
-
Democrat accused of rape exits key US Senate race
-
Expanded World Cup; same old story as Europe dominates quarter-finals
-
Japan student Ito keeps place against Ireland as Jones returns
-
Morocco's Saibari out of France World Cup quarter-final
-
Belgium bid to crack Spain's ironclad defence in World Cup quarter-final
-
Trump orders new strikes on Iran over attacks on shipping in Hormuz
-
US man sentenced after swapping 17th century manuscript
-
PSG's Lee set to join Atletico Madrid
-
US launches new strikes on Iran after Trump vows to hit 'hard'
-
Iran plays with fire, but calculates Trump will hold back
-
Taylor Swift fans pay $25 for garbage from outside wedding
-
Oil surges, stocks slide as Trump says Iran ceasefire over
-
After quakes, Venezuelans fear losing damaged homes
US top court back Big Tech in terror cases
The US Supreme Court handed a victory to Twitter, Facebook and Google on Thursday, saying the social media giants could not be held liable by victims of terrorist attacks for postings that endorsed the Islamic State group.
Crucially, the cases that targeted Google-owned YouTube and Twitter were seen as potential challenges to decades-old legal protections for tech companies. And the justices declined to wade into the debate.
In their decision, the justices indicated that the cases were not fit to address the law, because the platforms did not in any case "aid and abet" IS terror attacks by hosting postings supportive of the extremist group.
A law known as Section 230 gives internet platforms blanket immunity from the fallout of content that comes from a third party, even if it is pushed out as a recommendation by the website.
Section 230, which became law in 1996, is credited with allowing the no-holds-barred expansion of the internet but has increasingly been seen as helping cause the harmful effects of social media on society.
Without it, websites would potentially be open to lawsuits for content posted by users, making the free-wheeling discussions seen on social media subject to much closer moderation.
A bitterly divided US congress has failed to update the rules, and many US states are passing their own laws to make platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and Tiktok more responsible for content.
The justices of the Supreme Court largely evaded the question. They said that the allegations against YouTube and Twitter did not amount to a liable infraction and therefore the debate over section 230 was not pertinent.
"We therefore decline to address the application of Section 230 (in a case) that appears to state little, if any, plausible claim for relief," they said.
The justices however gave no indication on how they could potentially address the immunity issue in the future, nor were their stances on the matter made clear at hearings in February.
- 'Fight another day' -
"With this decision, free speech online lives to fight another day," said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU, which advocates for free speech.
The first of the two cases involved a US victim of the 2015 Paris attacks, claimed by the IS group.
The other case was brought by the family of a victim of a 2017 attack by the group on an Istanbul nightclub.
The family alleged that Twitter's failure to take down and stop recommending IS tweets constituted aiding an act of terror.
Google and Facebook's owner Meta did not immediately reply to a request for comment, but an association representing US tech companies said the decision was good news.
"The Court correctly recognized the narrow posture of these cases and declined to rewrite a key tenet of US Internet law, preserving free expression online and a thriving digital economy,” said Matt Schruers, head of the Computer & Communications Industry Association.
The Supreme Court declines to hear the vast majority of the cases that come its way, and experts had predicted that by opting to decide on this one, there could be a willingness to modify the increasingly contested landmark law.
But in the hearings, the justices largely expressed doubts that the case would be fit to begin a debate about reworking Section 230.
H.Seidel--BTB