-
Spain brush aside Croatia in Nations League, England down Czechs
-
Trump touts AI boss pledge to self-regulate
-
Trump hails 'morally binding' AI self-regulation pledge
-
Oil down, but stocks lower as bond yields rise
-
Yamal inspires Spain to Croatia romp on World Cup homecoming
-
England break down stubborn Czechs to claim first Nations League win
-
UN to hold fourth informal poll of secretary-general candidates
-
UN Security Council extends Haiti anti-gang force by 6 months
-
Who are the Emiratis behind crisis-hit Manchester City?
-
Manchester City guilty of Premier League charges: What comes next?
-
Singer Angelique Kidjo urges Africans to 'create together'
-
Man City chief Soriano slams Premier League 'conspiracy theory'
-
Alleged Rihanna mansion shooter mentally fit for trial, says judge
-
Hurricane Polo sweeps over Mexico's Pacific coast
-
Mystery over UK airbase scare as police find petrol not explosives
-
Man City must be relegated after guilty verdict says club's former chairman
-
OpenAI unveils low-cost AI model, a day after shelving Astra upgrade
-
German far-right aims to lead Saxony-Anhalt govt in December
-
Premier League confirms Man City guilty of serious financial breaches
-
Little damage as Hurricane Polo sweeps over Mexico's Pacific coast
-
Brazil's Lula turns to Bad Bunny tune to criticise Trump ahead of polls
-
Manchester City guilty of breaking financial rules - Premier League
-
Nigerian dancer eyes world record after seven-day marathon
-
FIFA boss Infantino blasted as would-be 'emperor' by UEFA's Ceferin
-
Swiss regulator concludes Julius Baer bank probe
-
Stocks move lower despite oil prices dropping
-
Brazil's patron saint pulled into latest election scrap
-
AI driving up innovation investment: UN
-
Football overload leaves players near 'breaking point', warns Tebas
-
UN Security Council extends Haiti mission by 6 months
-
Paris Eiffel Tower says chief to step down after uproar over removing women staff
-
Man Utd do not deserve medals if Man City stripped of titles: Rooney
-
Amaze Holdings (NYSE: AMZE) Executes Binding LOI to Acquire BullionFX | Alchemy, a Decentralized Gold-Backed Financial Ecosystem for Valued at US$155 Million
-
Vana Completes Expanded Staking as Part of the Vega Upgrade, Publishes Expanded VANA Token Economics
-
Clashes between French teens, police as school blockades intensify
-
Spain to cap gas price hikes, extend fuel discounts
-
Stocks move sideways despite oil moving lower
-
'We just need rain': Germany's Rhine river hits new low
-
African leaders to gather in Egypt for business summit
-
Yemen health system at 'breaking point': WHO
-
UK decides against charging foreign visitors for museums
-
Ireland undecided on second Israel match: coach
-
Dallaglio to sell England World Cup winners' medal
-
France's Le Pen defiant after top ally hit by antisemitism claims
-
Brazil come from behind to beat Australia 4-2 in friendly
-
Tom Cruise trades stunts for satire as toxic tycoon 'Digger'
-
Ruthless An retains Asian Games badminton crown as Kunlavut triumphs
-
MEXC Unveils "WE SEE YOU" Brand Visual Refresh, Putting People Behind Every Trade in Focus
-
Alonso to stay with F1 team Aston Martin in 2027
-
Thai capital cleans up after deadly floods
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