The judges of the body seized a complaint filed by relatives of a victim of an attack on the EI organization in a disco in Istanbul in 2017. According to the family, Twitter is an accomplice of This act of terrorism for not having withdrawn tweets from the jihadist group.
mo12345lemonde with AFP
Twitter was accused on Wednesday, February 22 on Wednesday, February 22, of looking at the online actions of the Islamic State jihadist group (IS), during a hearing at the United States Supreme Court, responsible for deciding whether the social network could be prosecuted for complicity in the event of acts of terrorism.
“There is an accusation of deliberate blindness here … You knew that IS used your platform,” noted Judge Sonia Sotomayor, addressing the lawyer representing the social network.
The nine judges of the body seized a complaint filed by relatives of a victim of an IS attack in a disco in Istanbul in 2017.
According to the family, Twitter is an accomplice of this act of terrorism for not having removed group tweets or stopped recommending these tweets (via automated algorithms). The platform, supported by its rivals (Google, Facebook, etc.), says that it is a service used by tens of millions of people in the world does not prove that it “helps knowingly “Terrorist groups.
The” section 230 “at the heart of the debates
Tuesday, an audience on a similar question took place: the family of a victim of the 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris accuses YouTube (google subsidiary) of having supported the growth of IS by suggesting videos of Group to some users.
At the heart of the two complaints is the “Section 230”, a 1996 law which gives judicial immunity to digital companies for content put online by Internet users on their platforms.
Large companies in the sector defend beak and nails This status of hosts – and not publishers – which, according to them, allowed the advent of the Internet as it has taken shape.
The judges of the Supreme Court expressed their doubts on Tuesday on the relevance of section 230 today, but also their reluctance to influence the fate of a law that has become fundamental to the digital economy.
On Wednesday, they formulated many hypotheses to determine how platforms could be held accomplices in terrorism acts.
In 1997, “CNN carried out an interview with Osama bin Laden, a very famous interview … Following your theory, could CNN have been prosecuted for complicity with the attacks of September 11? “, For example, asked the Brett judge Kavanaugh.
In the American Congress, many voices claim a overhaul of section 230. But given the very different perspectives on the left and right, legislative efforts to amend the text never ended.