POPULARITY
4 episodes with taamneh
6 episodes with taamneh
2 episodes with taamneh
2 episodes with taamneh
2 episodes with taamneh
3 episodes with taamneh
2 episodes with taamneh
2 episodes with taamneh
2 episodes with taamneh
Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Twitter, Inc. v Taamneh. In this case, the court considered these issues: First, Does an internet platform “knowingly” provide substantial assistance under 18 U-S-C § 2333 merely because it allegedly could have taken more “meaningful” or “aggressive” action to prevent such use? Second, may an internet platform whose services were not used in connection with the specific “act of international terrorism” that injured the plaintiff still be liable for aiding and abetting under Section 2333? The case was decided on May 18, 2023. The Supreme Court held that Twitter did not “knowingly” provide substantial assistance under 18 U-S-C § 2333, and thus cannot be said to have aided and abetted ISIS in its terrorist attack on a nightclub in Istanbul, Turkey. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. Section 2333 establishes liability for anyone “who aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires with the person who committed such an act of international terrorism.” To “aid and abet” requires three elements: (1) the party whom the defendant aids must perform a wrongful act that causes an injury, (2) the defendant must be generally aware of his role as part of an illegal activity at the time he provides assistance, and (3) the defendant must knowingly and substantially assist the principal violation.” The plaintiffs (respondents) in this case satisfied the first two elements by alleging both that ISIS committed a wrong and that the defendants knew they were playing some sort of role in ISIS's enterprise. They failed to show, however, that the defendants gave such knowing and substantial assistance to ISIS that they culpably participated in the Reina attack. Courts use six flexible factors to assess the third element, whether a defendant knowingly and substantially assisted the principal violation: (1) “the nature of the act assisted,” (2) the “amount of assistance” provided, (3) whether the defendant was “present at the time” of the principal tort, (4) the defendant's “relation to the tortious actor,” (5) the “defendant's state of mind,” and (6) the “duration of the assistance” given. Applying these factors, the Court found that the plaintiffs failed to allege that Twitter did more than transmit information by billions of people—most of whom use the platform for interactions that once took place via mail, on the phone, or in public areas. Without more, their claim that Twitter aided and abetted ISIS in its terrorist attack on a nightclub in Istanbul must fail. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a concurring opinion to point out the narrowness of the decision due to the stage of litigation (the motion to dismiss stage). The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support
Note: This podcast episode was recorded BEFORE the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decisions on the crucial online free expression cases: Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh. Nevertheless, we've chosen to release this episode NOW because the conversation contains important information about the potential risks to users' free speech that is more relevant than ever. While the legal landscape may have shifted since this recording, the principles of protecting free expression and fostering an open and inclusive digital environment are not going away. In the Gonzalez and Taamneh opinions, the Supreme Court dodged any detailed consideration of Section 230 or the role of recommendation algorithms in enabling access to online speech, but we can expect that those topics will be back before the Court before long. So, let's dive into this discussion and keep advocating for the preservation of free speech in the online world. The Center for Democracy & Technology – along with six other technologists with expertise in online recommendation systems – filed an amicus brief in the case of Gonzalez v. Google. The brief urges the U.S. Supreme Court to hold that Section 230's liability shield applies to claims against interactive computer service providers based on their recommendation of third-party content, because those claims treat providers as publishers. Here to talk a little bit about the amicus brief is Jonathan Stray, Senior Scientist at the Berkeley Center for Human-Compatible AI and Caitlin Vogus, (former) Deputy Director of CDT's Free Expression Project (currently Deputy Director of Advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation). More on our host, Jamal: bit.ly/cdtjamal More on Caitlin: cdt.org/staff/caitlin-vogus/ More on Jonathan: jonathanstray.com/me (CDT relies on the generosity of donors like you. If you enjoyed this episode of Tech Talk, you can support it and our work at CDT by going to cdt.org/techtalk. Thank you for putting democracy and individual rights at the center of the digital revolution.) Attribution: sounds used from Psykophobia, Taira Komori, BenKoning, Zabuhailo, bloomypetal, guitarguy1985, bmusic92, and offthesky of freesound.org.
The National Constitution Center and the Anti-Defamation League present an America's Town Hall featuring legal experts Erwin Chemerinsky, Miguel Estrada, Gregory G. Garre, Frederick M. Lawrence, and Dahlia Lithwick to discuss the most significant decisions of the term, including cases on affirmative action, religious accommodation, social media regulation, voting rights, and more. Journalist Amy Howe moderates. Introductory remarks are provided by Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, and Marjorie Zessar, chair of ADL's Legal Affairs Committee. This program is presented in partnership with ADL. Additional Resources ADL, 2023 Supreme Court Review: Written Materials and Resources Groff v. DeJoy (2023) 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023) Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (2023) Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (2023) Moore v. Harper (2023) Allen v. Milligan (2023) Gonzalez v. Google LLC (2023) Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh (2023) Biden v. Nebraska (2023) Department of Education v. Brown (2023) Haaland v. Brackeen National Constitution Center, “The Shadow Docket Debate" Stay Connected and Learn More Continue the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.
In the first of three episodes, Aughie and Nia discuss the major decisions released in June by the U.S. Supreme Court; in this episode, the cases covered are: Andy Warhol v Goldsmith, Gonzalez v. Google LLC and Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, Glacier Northwest v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Allen v. Milligan, and Jack Daniel's Properties v. VIP Products.
In this episode we discuss Twitter v. Taamneh and Google v. Gonzalez, two decisions released by the court on May 18th. We hope you enjoy!
This week's episode covers big opinions from the past few weeks, including Twitter v. Taamneh (whether social media is civilly liable for terrorism), Sackett v. EPA (how do different justices interpret the Clean Water Act), Pork Council v. Ross (does the Dormant Commerce Clause bar California from legislating out of State) and Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith (does fair use consider artistic merit or commercial usage). Law starts at (4:40).
Liz and Andrew break down the recent Supreme Court decisions in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh with help from Corbin Barthold. Notes Section 230 - 47 U.S.C. § 230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 OA 698 https://openargs.com/oa698-will-clarence-thomas-break-the-internet-probably-not/ -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com
Much earlier than expected, the Supreme Court just released its decisions for the cases Google v Gonzalez and Twitter v Taamneh, two of the largest cases concerning “big tech” in decades. For this episode, we did something a little different and brought on tech expert Jess Miers from the Chamber of Progress to share insight on what these cases meant for the future of tech policy, and what it means to “nerd harder.” Tune in to hear us two old goats try to understand algorithms and the internet. More for decision season coming soon.
Libsyn and Amazon Music Join Forces to Showcase Book-Related Podcasters, The decisions in Gonzales v Google and Twitter v Taamneh for podcasting, Workflow using the Libsyn social destinations calendar and great tips for using Libsyn Studio, The new Mackie DLZ Creator And data from the IAB Revenue Report for Podcast Advertising 2022 Audience feedback drives the show. We'd love for you to contact us and keep the conversation going! Email thefeed@libsyn.com, call 412-573-1934 or leave us a message on Speakpipe! We'd love to hear from you! SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER HERE! Quick Episode Summary Intro (1:55) PROMO 1: Within The Trenches (2:25) Rob and Elsie conversation (3:33) Libsyn and Amazon Music join forces to showcase book-related podcasters (6:08) Custom domains on Libsyn 5! (9:12) Looking to plan uploading your episodes through the summer? We have the workflow (15:07) The rulings that leave Section 230 untouched (19:37) Audacity workflows (22:34) Kast Media's acquisition by Live One (22:59) Using the social media calendar within Libsyn The best way to remove an episode from your feed (26:45) Transitioning pre-recorded live streams to podcast episodes with an added intro using Libsyn Studio (29:21) Best way to track ROI when running a promotional campaign in another podcast (30:12) Updating Apple Podcasts information within Libsyn and why (35:23) PROMO 2: Pub Songs (36:01) The new Mackie DLZ Creator (41:34) A way to use podcast RSS feeds (43:54) A podcast player that can search descriptions for Android (46:19) Fixing screwed up bullet points in shownotes (49:08) Google says it will delete inactive gmail accounts (50:42) Worst email of the week (53:48) Promo 3: 3 Pillars Podcast (54:33) Stats: IAB Revenue Report for Podcast Advertising for 2022 (58:03) Where have we been where are we going? Featured Podcast Promo + Audio PROMO 1: Within The Trenches PROMO 2: Pub Songs PROMO 3: 3 Pillars Podcast Thank you to Nick from MicMe for our awesome intro! Podcasting Articles and Links mentioned by Rob and Elsie Leave us voice feedback! Libsyn Amazon Music May 23 FINAL Free up Monthly Storage Space with Early Archiving – Libsyn 5 Supreme Court shields Twitter from liability for terror-related content and leaves Section 230 untouched | CNN Politics The Internet Dodges Censorship by the Supreme Court | Electronic Frontier Foundation LiveOne to Acquire Certain Assets of Kast Media Libsyn Studio You Tube demo Mackie launches DLZ Creator for podcasting and streaming - Videomaker Why Podcast Addict Is the Best Podcast Player Available Google says it will delete inactive accounts | CNN Business IAB | U.S. Podcast Advertising Revenue Report 2022 Video First — Podcast Gear Setup, 2023 with Doc Rock & Elsie Escobar - YouTube Tweet from Content is Queen An Open Letter to the Audio Industry: Time to Turn Words into Action – Content is Queen Thoughts triggered by She Podcasts LIVE going virtual. — Elsie Escobar HELP US SPREAD THE WORD! We'd love it if you could please share The Feed with your Twitter followers. Click here to post a tweet! If you dug this episode, head over to Podchaser and kindly leave us a review and follow the show! Follow The Feed wherever you listen to audio! → Follow via Apple Podcasts → Follow via Google Podcasts → Follow via Spotify → Here's our RSS feed! FEEDBACK AND PROMOTION ON THE SHOW You can ask your questions, make comments and create a segment about podcasting for podcasters! Let your voice be heard. Download The Feed App for iOS and Android Call 412-573-1934 Email thefeed@libsyn.com Use our Speakpipe Page
Libsyn and Amazon Music Join Forces to Showcase Book-Related Podcasters, The decisions in Gonzales v Google and Twitter v Taamneh for podcasting, Workflow using the Libsyn social destinations calendar and great tips for using Libsyn Studio, The new Mackie DLZ Creator And data from the IAB Revenue Report for Podcast Advertising 2022 Audience feedback drives the show. We'd love for you to contact us and keep the conversation going! Email thefeed@libsyn.com, call 412-573-1934 or leave us a message on Speakpipe! We'd love to hear from you! SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER HERE! Quick Episode Summary Intro (1:55) PROMO 1: Within The Trenches (2:25) Rob and Elsie conversation (3:33) Libsyn and Amazon Music join forces to showcase book-related podcasters (6:08) Custom domains on Libsyn 5! (9:12) Looking to plan uploading your episodes through the summer? We have the workflow (15:07) The rulings that leave Section 230 untouched (19:37) Audacity workflows (22:34) Kast Media's acquisition by Live One (22:59) Using the social media calendar within Libsyn The best way to remove an episode from your feed (26:45) Transitioning pre-recorded live streams to podcast episodes with an added intro using Libsyn Studio (29:21) Best way to track ROI when running a promotional campaign in another podcast (30:12) Updating Apple Podcasts information within Libsyn and why (35:23) PROMO 2: Pub Songs (36:01) The new Mackie DLZ Creator (41:34) A way to use podcast RSS feeds (43:54) A podcast player that can search descriptions for Android (46:19) Fixing screwed up bullet points in shownotes (49:08) Google says it will delete inactive gmail accounts (50:42) Worst email of the week (53:48) Promo 3: 3 Pillars Podcast (54:33) Stats: IAB Revenue Report for Podcast Advertising for 2022 (58:03) Where have we been where are we going? Featured Podcast Promo + Audio PROMO 1: Within The Trenches PROMO 2: Pub Songs PROMO 3: 3 Pillars Podcast Thank you to Nick from MicMe for our awesome intro! Podcasting Articles and Links mentioned by Rob and Elsie Leave us voice feedback! Libsyn Amazon Music May 23 FINAL Free up Monthly Storage Space with Early Archiving – Libsyn 5 Supreme Court shields Twitter from liability for terror-related content and leaves Section 230 untouched | CNN Politics The Internet Dodges Censorship by the Supreme Court | Electronic Frontier Foundation LiveOne to Acquire Certain Assets of Kast Media Libsyn Studio You Tube demo Mackie launches DLZ Creator for podcasting and streaming - Videomaker Why Podcast Addict Is the Best Podcast Player Available Google says it will delete inactive accounts | CNN Business IAB | U.S. Podcast Advertising Revenue Report 2022 Video First — Podcast Gear Setup, 2023 with Doc Rock & Elsie Escobar - YouTube Tweet from Content is Queen An Open Letter to the Audio Industry: Time to Turn Words into Action – Content is Queen Thoughts triggered by She Podcasts LIVE going virtual. — Elsie Escobar HELP US SPREAD THE WORD! We'd love it if you could please share The Feed with your Twitter followers. Click here to post a tweet! If you dug this episode, head over to Podchaser and kindly leave us a review and follow the show! Follow The Feed wherever you listen to audio! → Follow via Apple Podcasts → Follow via Google Podcasts → Follow via Spotify → Here's our RSS feed! FEEDBACK AND PROMOTION ON THE SHOW You can ask your questions, make comments and create a segment about podcasting for podcasters! Let your voice be heard. Download The Feed App for iOS and Android Call 412-573-1934 Email thefeed@libsyn.com Use our Speakpipe Page
This is the first video in my annual Supreme Court Wrap Up. Today we will be revisiting a pair of cases from my Supreme Court Roundup last fall. These cases are: Twitter v Taamneh and Gonzalez v Google The Supreme Court handed down two unanimous opinions on May 18th 2023 for both cases stating that the claims against Twitter & Google in regards to the Anti-Terrorism Act §2333 and the Communications and Decency Act §230 do not amount to "aiding and abetting" in a manner that would make these platforms liable for damages following a terrorist attack. SHOW NOTES PAGE FOR THIS EPISODE Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter Legalese Homepage Contact Me “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in areas of law, politics & culture. Tags: Law,Constitution,Politics,legal theory,Moral Philosophy,Current Events,supreme court,Section 230,section 2333,anti-terrorism act,ISIS,twitter,google --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support
Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh (May 18, 2023) Unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court.
On Thursday, May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court issued opinions in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh. In the Twitter case, the Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that plaintiffs “failed to state a claim under [18 U.S.C.] §2333(d)(2).” Justice Thomas wrote for the Court and Justice Jackson issued a concurring opinion. In Gonzalez, the Court issued a per curiam opinion vacating and remanding the case to the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration in light of the Twitter holding.The Gonzalez and Twitter cases were of great interest to some Court watchers because of their potential ramifications for Section 230 and social media platforms' liability for bad outcomes connected to hosted content. Please join us as Erik Jaffe discusses the Court's opinions and what comes next.
The Supreme Court last week issued the biggest opinion in the history of the internet—except that it didn't. Rather, it issued an opinion in a case involving the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), finding there was no cause of action and thus dismissed for further consideration the biggest case in the history of the internet.Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Scott R. Anderson, Alan Rozenshtein, and Quinta Jurecic to talk about Section 230, Taamneh v. Twitter, and Gonzalez v. Google.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Twitter v. Taamneh and Gonzalez v. Google LLC. On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled against the family of a 2017 ISIS attack victim who had sued Twitter, Facebook, and Google in an effort to hold them liable for allowing ISIS to use their platforms. The court ruled unanimously that the lawsuit could not move forward. Along with that ruling, the justices sent Gonzalez v. Google LLC, a similar case, back to the lower courts. That decision sidestepped any major changes to the scope of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which shields tech companies from liability for content published by users. We previously covered these cases in February here. Tickets are officially live (and public!) for our event in Philadelphia on Thursday, August 3rd. Thanks to all the folks who bought tickets — we're off to an awesome start, and on track to sell this baby out! Remember: Our goal is to sell out the venue, and then take Tangle on the road. Please come join us! Tickets here. You can read today's podcast here, today's “Under the Radar” story here, and today's “Have a nice day” story here. You can also check out our latest YouTube video, which will premiere later today here. Today's clickables: Quick hits (1:20), Today's story (3:06), Agreed (6:49) Right's take (7:13), Left's take (11:07), Isaac's take (15:02), Listener question (17:50), Under the Radar (19:41), Numbers (20:39), Have a nice day (21:21) You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. Our newsletter is edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, and produced in conjunction with Tangle's social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/support
Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh (May 18, 2023) Unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court.
Melissa, Kate, and Leah recap the Supreme Court's recent opinions about the Internet and intellectual property. As we predicted, the Internet isn't going to end with a bang-- and not even a whimper. Plus, we give you the "highlights" of the oral arguments in the Texas mifepristone case... which are even wilder (and more terrifying) than we could have imagined.Sign up to see the Strict Scrutiny live show in Washington, DC on June 9th!The hosts covered the arguments of the opinions for Gonzales v. Google LLC and Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh in this episode.In this episode, the hosts discussed the arguments for Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, another one of the opinions discussed.This past episode discusses the arguments for Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, an opinion the hosts talk about this week Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky
Alex and Evelyn discuss the Supreme Court decisions in Gonzalez and Taamneh; Montana passing its state-wide TikTok ban and the immediate legal challenge filed against it; Meta's $1.3 billion dollar fine under the GDPR; OpenAI's charm offensive; and just another Monday at Twitter.
Alex and Evelyn discuss the Supreme Court decisions in Gonzalez and Taamneh; Montana passing its state-wide TikTok ban and the immediate legal challenge filed against it; Meta's $1.3 billion dollar fine under the GDPR; OpenAI's charm offensive; and just another Monday at Twitter.
Last week, the Supreme Court released decisions in Gonzalez v. Google, LLC, and Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh. In this episode we'll discuss what it tells us about how the Court is thinking about social media and intermediary liability, and what it might tell us about future cases the Court may hear. I'm joined by an expert who follows these issues closely, and has shared his expertise with us on this podcast before: Anupam Chander, a law professor at Georgetown University.
The deadline to fund the government stands just weeks away, which, if unaddressed, would cause major economic turmoil for Americans. On Wednesday, President Biden told the press that ‘the U.S. defaulting on our debt is not an option," and Speaker Kevin McCarthy told journalists on Thursday that he saw a path forward for a deal on raising the debt limit. The latest optimistic words from the President and the Speaker mark a stark shift in the previously stalled negotiations, where now it seems the Biden administration is willing to compromise on some spending cuts and work requirements. Congressman Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) joins the Rundown to explain why he believes the Republicans' push to rein in spending is the winning message, how the GOP bill may become President Biden's only choice, and he weighs in on the country's ongoing border crisis. On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that tech companies are not liable for what their users post. The decision was handed down by the court when they ruled in favor of Twitter in the case of Twitter v. Taamneh, where the family of a terrorist attack victim attempted to sue Twitter for ‘aiding and abetting terrorism' after it failed to remove content posted by ISIS to the platform. Meanwhile in the realm of politics, reports show that two major GOP candidates, Governor Ron DeSantis and Senator Tim Scott, will launch their 2024 presidential campaigns next week. FOX News Sunday Host Shannon Bream joins the podcast to discuss what the SCOTUS ruling means for internet company protections and how Governor DeSantis' impending campaign announcement could impact former President Trump in the 2024 presidential race. Plus, commentary by FOX News contributor Deroy Murdock. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The deadline to fund the government stands just weeks away, which, if unaddressed, would cause major economic turmoil for Americans. On Wednesday, President Biden told the press that ‘the U.S. defaulting on our debt is not an option," and Speaker Kevin McCarthy told journalists on Thursday that he saw a path forward for a deal on raising the debt limit. The latest optimistic words from the President and the Speaker mark a stark shift in the previously stalled negotiations, where now it seems the Biden administration is willing to compromise on some spending cuts and work requirements. Congressman Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) joins the Rundown to explain why he believes the Republicans' push to rein in spending is the winning message, how the GOP bill may become President Biden's only choice, and he weighs in on the country's ongoing border crisis. On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that tech companies are not liable for what their users post. The decision was handed down by the court when they ruled in favor of Twitter in the case of Twitter v. Taamneh, where the family of a terrorist attack victim attempted to sue Twitter for ‘aiding and abetting terrorism' after it failed to remove content posted by ISIS to the platform. Meanwhile in the realm of politics, reports show that two major GOP candidates, Governor Ron DeSantis and Senator Tim Scott, will launch their 2024 presidential campaigns next week. FOX News Sunday Host Shannon Bream joins the podcast to discuss what the SCOTUS ruling means for internet company protections and how Governor DeSantis' impending campaign announcement could impact former President Trump in the 2024 presidential race. Plus, commentary by FOX News contributor Deroy Murdock. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The deadline to fund the government stands just weeks away, which, if unaddressed, would cause major economic turmoil for Americans. On Wednesday, President Biden told the press that ‘the U.S. defaulting on our debt is not an option," and Speaker Kevin McCarthy told journalists on Thursday that he saw a path forward for a deal on raising the debt limit. The latest optimistic words from the President and the Speaker mark a stark shift in the previously stalled negotiations, where now it seems the Biden administration is willing to compromise on some spending cuts and work requirements. Congressman Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) joins the Rundown to explain why he believes the Republicans' push to rein in spending is the winning message, how the GOP bill may become President Biden's only choice, and he weighs in on the country's ongoing border crisis. On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that tech companies are not liable for what their users post. The decision was handed down by the court when they ruled in favor of Twitter in the case of Twitter v. Taamneh, where the family of a terrorist attack victim attempted to sue Twitter for ‘aiding and abetting terrorism' after it failed to remove content posted by ISIS to the platform. Meanwhile in the realm of politics, reports show that two major GOP candidates, Governor Ron DeSantis and Senator Tim Scott, will launch their 2024 presidential campaigns next week. FOX News Sunday Host Shannon Bream joins the podcast to discuss what the SCOTUS ruling means for internet company protections and how Governor DeSantis' impending campaign announcement could impact former President Trump in the 2024 presidential race. Plus, commentary by FOX News contributor Deroy Murdock. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Welcome to another episode of "AI Lawyer Talking Tech," your daily dose of legal technology news and insights. In today's episode, we'll be discussing the recent Supreme Court ruling on Section 230, protecting online platforms from liability for terrorist-related content, and its potential implications for generative AI chatbots like ChatGPT. We'll also dive into the growing popularity of generative AI legal tools, Montana's controversial TikTok ban, and the rise of virtual court hearings in a post-pandemic world. Stay tuned as we explore these topics and more, keeping you informed and up-to-date on the latest developments in the legal tech industry. Supreme Court shields Twitter from liability for terror-related content and leaves Section 230 untouchedDate: 18 May 2023Source: NewsWatch 12 Generative AI Legal Tools – a white paper snapshotDate: 18 May 2023Source: Wisblawg – UW–Madison Montana Is First State to Ban TikTok. Heres What to KnowDate: 18 May 2023Source: Men's Journal Virtual Court Hearings Gain Permanent Status Post-PandemicDate: 18 May 2023Source: JDJournal Simpson Thacher Urges Associates to Report to Office or Risk Bonuses: New Policy AnnouncementDate: 18 May 2023Source: JDJournal How can legal chatbots enhance access to justice?Date: 18 May 2023Source: CryptoNews.net Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 230 Protections Could Set a Precedent for Generative AI Chatbots Like ChatGPTDate: 18 May 2023Source: Shockya.com How To Turbocharge Legal Tech Adoption Within Your Law Firm By Identifying Your ‘Champions'Date: 18 May 2023Source: LawSites Technology offers great opportunities for access to justice, but will it happen?Date: 18 May 2023Source: ExBulletin Law Firm Cybersecurity - Its Job One.Date: 18 May 2023Source: Futurelawyer The Clients of Legal Innovators | Siobhan Handley of OrrickDate: 17 May 2023Source: LexBlog Montana TikTok ban ‘unconstitutional' and ‘impossible to enforce'Date: 18 May 2023Source: Yahoo! Finance UK and Ireland How Intapp and Microsoft are driving innovation at law firmsDate: 17 May 2023Source: LexBlog The Internet Survives SCOTUS Review (This Time)–Twitter v. Taamneh and Gonzalez v. GoogleDate: 18 May 2023Source: Technology & Marketing Law Blog “The Transformative Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Legal Services and Collaboration”Date: 18 May 2023Source: Legaltech on Medium FILLING THE VOID: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND PRIVATE INITIATIVESDate: 17 May 2023Source: North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology Law360 Pulse: Generative AI Is The Hot New Practice At Law FirmsDate: 18 May 2023Source: Debevoise Data Blog Federal Circuit Holds that Software Plaintiff Bears Evidentiary Burden of Copyrightability Where Defendant's Evidence Shows Some Elements Not CopyrightableDate: 18 May 2023Source: Global IP & Technology Law Blog ChatGPT CEO Tells Congress That AI Must Be RegulatedDate: 18 May 2023Source: Sensei Enterprises, Inc. The AI Act: A step closer to the first law on Artificial IntelligenceDate: 18 May 2023Source: Inside Tech Law
This week's episode covers two cases, Gonzales v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh, which appear to cover broad, important issues at first (the recruitment of terrorism on the internet), but seem more likely to affect narrow, trivial issues later on (how Youtube recommends videos for you). This episode also talks voting, Legend of Zelda and Shake Shack's Tiramisu Milk Shake. Law starts at (5:30), but the milkshake gets reference all the way through, my dog.
Adam J. White is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he focuses on the Supreme Court and the administrative state. Concurrently, he codirects the Antonin Scalia Law School's C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State at George Mason University.Adam joins Allie Mast of Messiah University for a Supreme Court term roundup. They discussed cases such as Gonzalez v. Google LLC, Twitter Inc. v. Taamneh, and the Biden administration's proposed student loan forgiveness plan, among others.To learn more about AEI's work on college campuses, visit our website.
Twenty-six words were included in what is known as Section 230 of the 1996 law setting telecommunication policies in the United States. Those words have enabled companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google to grow into the giant technology companies they are today. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing challenges to the law on whether those companies are responsible for what users posted on their services. In Gonzalez v. Google, the justices will decide whether the family of an American college student killed in a terror attack in Paris can sue Google, which owns YouTube. The family claims the video service's algorithm helped extremists spread their message.美国 1996 年制定电信政策的法律第 230 条包含 26 个词。这些话让 Facebook、Twitter 和谷歌等公司成长为今天的巨型科技公司。本周，美国最高法院将审理对这些公司是否应对用户在其服务上发布的内容负责的法律提出的质疑。在冈萨雷斯诉谷歌一案中，法官将决定在巴黎恐怖袭击中丧生的美国大学生的家人是否可以起诉拥有 YouTube 的谷歌。这家人声称视频服务的算法帮助极端分子传播他们的信息。The second case, Twitter v. Taamneh, also centers on legal responsibility. It involves a Jordanian citizen killed in Istanbul, Turkiye. The results of these cases could reshape the internet as we know it. Section 230 will not be easily changed. But if it is, online speech could be greatly changed.If a news organization or website falsely accuses you of harmful things, you can take legal action against the publisher for libel. Libel is a published false statement about someone and is a crime. But if someone posts a libelous statement on Facebook, you cannot sue Facebook. You can only sue the person who posted it. In this case, Facebook is protected under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. The law says that “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.”第二个案例，Twitter 诉 Taamneh，也以法律责任为中心。它涉及一名在土耳其伊斯坦布尔遇害的约旦公民。正如我们所知，这些案例的结果可能会重塑互联网。第 230 条不会轻易改变。但如果是的话，网络言论可能会发生很大的变化。如果新闻机构或网站诬告你有害，你可以以诽谤罪对发布者提起法律诉讼。诽谤是对某人发表的虚假陈述，是一种犯罪行为。但是，如果有人在 Facebook 上发表诽谤言论，您不能起诉 Facebook。您只能起诉发布它的人。在这种情况下，Facebook 受到 1996 年《通信规范法》第 230 条的保护。法律规定，“交互式计算机服务的提供者或用户不得被视为另一信息内容提供者提供的任何信息的发布者或发言人。”That legal statement protects companies that can host trillions of messages from being sued by anyone who feels wronged by something someone else has posted. Section 230 also permits social media services to moderate their services. They can remove posts that, for example, are obscene or violate the services' standards.The measure's history dates to the 1950s. At the time, bookstore owners were being held legally responsible for selling books containing “obscenity,” which is not protected by the First Amendment. One case made it to the Supreme Court, which ruled that it created a “chilling effect” to hold someone responsible for someone else's content.Now, lawmakers from both Republican and Democratic parties have argued that social media websites have misused that protection and should lose it. Some argue that the companies should have to meet requirements set by the government.该法律声明保护可以托管数万亿条消息的公司不会被任何因他人发布的内容而感到委屈的人起诉。第 230 条还允许社交媒体服务调节其服务。例如，他们可以删除淫秽或违反服务标准的帖子。该措施的历史可以追溯到 1950 年代。当时，书店老板因销售包含不受第一修正案保护的“淫秽内容”的书籍而被追究法律责任。一个案件提交到最高法院，最高法院裁定它产生了一种“寒蝉效应”，让某人对他人的内容负责。现在，共和党和民主党的立法者都认为社交媒体网站滥用了这种保护，应该失去它。一些人认为，这些公司应该必须满足政府规定的要求。Eric Goldman is a professor at Santa Clara University specializing in internet law. He said the main thing people do on the internet is to communicate with each other. And a lot of that communication is made possible by Section 230. The law says that tech companies that permit people to communicate are not responsible for the discussions, he said. Goldman said that if protections for services permitting people to communicate are removed “they won't allow us to talk to each other anymore.” There are two possible results. Services might be more careful with content. For example, in 2018, a law was passed that created an exception to Section 230 for material that helps with sex work. The advertising service Craigslist removed its “personals” area that was taken over by those who used it for sex work.埃里克·戈德曼 (Eric Goldman) 是圣克拉拉大学的教授，专攻互联网法。他说人们在互联网上做的主要事情是相互交流。第 230 条使很多交流成为可能。法律规定，允许人们交流的科技公司不对讨论负责，他说。戈德曼说，如果取消对允许人们交流的服务的保护，“他们将不再允许我们互相交谈。”有两种可能的结果。服务可能对内容更加谨慎。例如，2018 年通过了一项法律，为帮助性工作的材料创建了第 230 条的例外情况。广告服务 Craigslist 删除了其“交友”区域，该区域已被用于性工作的人接管。Another possibility is that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others could stop moderating materials on their services altogether. However, the unmoderated services could easily end up with a lot of harmful content. Any change to Section 230 is likely to have strong effects on online speech around the world. Goldman noted that the rest of the world is taking measures against internet companies faster than the U.S. “So we're a step behind the rest of the world in terms of censoring the internet. And the question is whether we can even hold out on our own.”另一种可能性是 Facebook、Twitter、YouTube 和其他公司可以完全停止在其服务上审核材料。但是，未经审核的服务很容易以大量有害内容告终。对第 230 条的任何更改都可能对全球的在线言论产生强烈影响。高盛指出，世界其他地区对互联网公司采取措施的速度快于美国。“因此，我们在审查互联网方面落后于世界其他地区。问题是我们是否能够独自坚持下去。”
Are you ready for a MOHELA good time? Sarah and David try to read the tea leaves as SCOTUS scrutinizes Biden's student loan forgiveness and the future of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Also: terrorism on Twitter and cert grant update. The saga begins.Show Notes:-Biden v. Nebraska oral argument transcript-David Lat: On the need for diverse viewpoints-David Lat: More thoughts on intellectual diversity-Twitter v Taamneh oral argument transcript
In this episode of Serious Privacy, Paul Breitbarth of Catawiki and Dr. K Royal of Outschool chat with Amy Worley, the Managing Director & Associate General Counsel at BRG on topics such as the enforcement letters sent out by the California Attorney General's office on the do not sell / share my data requirement of the CCPA (as amended by the CPRA). We also discuss key US Supreme Court hearings in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh and Gonzalez v. Google LLC, involving Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act. Join us to hear some wonderful open conversation on these critical events.As always, if you have comments or questions, let us know - LinkedIn, Twitter @podcastprivacy @euroPaulB @heartofprivacy @trustArc and email podcast@seriousprivacy.eu. Please do like and write comments on your favorite podcast app so other professionals can find us easier. The Annual TrustArc Global Privacy Benchmarks survey is open until March 31st, and we want to hear from you. How is the industry shifting, and what trends do you foresee? This doesn't assess individual or company privacy competency. Rather, it allows you to shape the future of privacy protection initiatives. Please, share your views on how enterprise's manage data protection and privacy. As always, if you have comments or questions, find us on LinkedIn, Twitter @podcastprivacy @euroPaulB @heartofprivacy and email podcast@seriousprivacy.eu. Rate and Review us! #heartofprivacy #seriousprivacy #privacy #dataprotection #cybersecuritylaw #CPO #DPO
After all these years, the Supreme Court is finally weighing in on Section 230 in the Gonzalez and Taamneh cases, and the outcome could have a very significant impact. Our organization, the Copia Institute, filed an amicus brief in the case, as did many other parties. This week, we're joined by Jess Miers from the Chamber of Progress and lawyer Cathy Gellis (who wrote our amicus brief), both of whom attended the Gonzalez hearing in person, to discuss the status of both cases and what they could mean for the future of the internet.
Stanford's Evelyn Douek and Alex Stamos weigh in on the latest online trust and safety news and developments:Meta released its latest quarterly adversarial threat report, outlining influence operations it took down that were linked to Russia, Serbia, Cuba, and Bolivia. - Ben Nimmo, Nathaniel Gleicher/ Meta, Renée DiResta/ @noUpside, Alex Stamos/ @alexstamosMore: Alex and Evelyn are among those warning that the Q4 2022 report might mark the last time Meta and Twitter collaborated on addressing influence operations and resisting government data requests. Twitter failed to release its own quarterly report on government requests for data and observed influence operations. - Adam Rawnsley/ Rolling StoneTikTok announced a research API, opening an application to academics at nonprofit universities. The application and API details have received criticism for restrictions that would fail to meet academic research standards or return limited data with potentially misleading findings. - Aisha Malik/ TechCrunch, Mia Sato/ The Verge, Joe Bak-Coleman/ Tech Policy Press, Emma Lurie, Dan Bateyko, Frances Schroeder/ Stanford Internet ObservatoryTwitter CornerTwitter delayed changes to API access again (and again), with plans now pushed to some point in “the next few weeks.” But don't worry, the delays and lack of information about the new deadline or pricing are just due to “an immense amount of enthusiasm for the upcoming changes with Twitter API.” - Ivan Mehta/ TechCrunch, Lauren Leffer/ Gizmodo, Heidi Ledford/ Nature, Chris Stokel-Walker/ WiredElon Musk ordered changes to prioritize his tweets in all user timelines following the Super Bowl when the Twitter CEO's (since deleted) tweet had lower engagement than President Joe Biden's. - Casey Newton/ Platformer, Faiz Siddiqui, Jeremy Merrill/ The Washington PostFirst it was the Taliban. Now it's the Russians buying blue check marks which boost content and give a veneer of authority on Twitter. We're shocked! - Joseph Menn/ The Washington Post Twitter will soon only provide SMS-based login authentication, or 2FA, for paid subscribers. While 2FA is the weakest form of multifactor authentication, it is also the most commonly used and significantly more secure than only using a password. - @ZoeSchiffer, Sean Hollister/ The Verge, Lily Hay Newman/ WiredMeta is introducing verification with a blue check mark displayed and higher visibility for posts. Déjà vu? - Emma Roth/ The VergeFacebook and Instagram are the first platforms to participate in the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's “Take It Down” tool for people to submit non-consensual intimate photos or videos recorded of them when they were underage to be hashed and removed by participating platforms. - Antigone Davis/ Meta, Ginger Adams Otis/ The Wall Street Journal, Alexandra Levine/ ForbesThe European Commission and the EU's diplomatic service banned TikTok on staff devices and personal devices with work-related apps, citing security concerns. - Emily Rauhala, Beatriz Ríos/ The Washington Post, Monika Pronczuk/ The New York Times, Stuart Lau, Laurens Cerulus/ PoliticoCompanies including TikTok, Twitter, Meta, Pinterest, and Snapchat have confirmed they are VLOPs under the DSA and will need to comply with the strictest rules later this year. - Clothilde Goujard/ PoliticoSusan Wojcicki announced she's stepping down as YouTube CEO in a massive blow to Evelyn's “Wojcicki to the Hill” campaign. - Peter Kafka/ VoxA New York court blocked a state law requiring social media platforms to post policies on “hateful conduct.” - Eugene Volokh/ ReasonModerated Content Supreme Court correspondent (and director of Stanford's Program of Platform Regulation) Daphne Keller was in the courtroom for oral arguments in the Gonzalez and Taamneh cases. If you haven't already, tune in for those episodes:Tech Law SCOTUS Superbowl First Half: GonzalezTech Law SCOTUS Superbowl Second Half: TaamnehJoin the conversation and connect with Evelyn and Alex on Twitter at @evelyndouek and @alexstamos.Moderated Content is produced in partnership by Stanford Law School and the Cyber Policy Center. Special thanks to John Perrino for research and editorial assistance.Like what you heard? Don't forget to subscribe and share the podcast with friends!
In the first week of the February session, the justices heard oral arguments in two cases about the scoop of liability tech companies may face for user content. Amy is joined by Megan Iorio of the Electronic Privacy Information Center to break down those arguments in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh. EPIC filed an amicus brief in Gonzalez in support of neither party. Send us a question about the court at scotustalk@scotusblog.com or leave us a voicemail at (202) 596-2906. Please tell us your first name and where you're calling from.(Music by Keys of Moon Music via Soundcloud) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Evelyn speaks with Moderated Content's Supreme Court correspondent Daphne Keller again to discuss the oral arguments in Twitter v. Taamneh, and the big elephant that was missing from the courtroom.
Robot lawyer that drafts legal contracts in the offing after chatbot deal Date: 26 Feb 2023 Source: Yahoo! Finance UK and Ireland Don't leave developers behind in the Section 230 debate Date: 26 Feb 2023 Source: TechCrunch Colombia's legal system experiments in the metaverse: Report Date: 26 Feb 2023 Source: COINTELEGRAPH.COM 2023 Jaharis Health Law Symposium Unplanned Obsolescence: Reproductive Health Care Technology's Response to a Changing Legal Landscape Date: 26 Feb 2023 Source: Eventbrite Vaporware technology doesn't hide problems in companies' business models Date: 25 Feb 2023 Source: ExBulletin Arkansas law firm sues Apple for AirTag tracking allegations Date: 25 Feb 2023 Source: Todaysthv.com The Attorneys of Legal Innovators | Wesley Gonzales Date: 24 Feb 2023 Source: LexBlog AI copyright infringement article now available for comment Date: 26 Feb 2023 Source: TechnoLlama Debrief on the Taamneh v. Twitter Oral Arguments Date: 25 Feb 2023 Source: Technology & Marketing Law Blog How Plum! HR Tech Startup Raises $8 Million CAD Date: 24 Feb 2023 Source: Goodmans Technology Blog “Hey Chatbot, Who Owns your Words?”: A look into Chat GPT and Issues of Authorship Date: 24 Feb 2023 Source: Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts
This week on Rational Security, Alan, Quinta, and Scott sat through literally hours of oral arguments to prepare to discuss all the national security developments in the news, including:“The HIMAR Anniversary.” The war in Ukraine is one year old this week. The Biden administration marked the occasion with a presidential visit to Kyiv and a finding of crimes against humanity, while Vladimir Putin celebrated by moving the Doomsday Clock a bit closer to midnight. What should we make of where the war stands one year in?“We're Living in a Post-Algorithm World, and I'm a Post-Algorithm Girl.” So said Justice Elena Kagan (more or less), as she and the other members of the Supreme Court heard arguments in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh on terrorism liability and the scope of protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—a case that some argue could break the internet. What did we learn from oral arguments? And what might the ramifications be?“Bold Dominion.” Dominion Voting Systems filed a stunning brief in its defamation lawsuit against Fox News earlier this week, which lays out in 200 detailed pages the extent to which Fox's executives and on-air personalities knowingly amplified lies about the company's conduct around the 2020 election. What did we learn about Fox's culpability? And what would a Dominion win mean moving forward?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Evelyn speaks with Moderated Content's Supreme Court correspondent Daphne Keller again to discuss the oral arguments in Twitter v. Taamneh, and the big elephant that was missing from the courtroom.
Three decades ago, in the fledgling days of the internet, Congress amended Section V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to grant broader legal protections to websites who host information from third parties. Part of Section 230 of that law (known as the Communications Decency Act) has been referred to as “the 26 words that created the internet,” due to the burgeoning effect it had on online content as internet companies were protected from lawsuits. Two current Supreme Court cases—Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh—ask whether algorithms created by companies like Google or Twitter, which might promote and recommend terroristic or other harmful material, result in the companies being held liable for aiding and abetting the terrorists; or whether, as in the Google case, Section 230 applies to grant immunity to the platforms. In this episode, guests Mary Anne Franks of the University of Miami School of Law and Kate Klonick of St. John's University of Law School break down the arguments in each case before the court. They also discuss the history and purpose of Section 230, why Congress enacted it, and how it's been interpreted over the years. They also look forward to how this case could impact platforms like Facebook, Google, YouTube, and Twitter and the future of the Internet itself. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.
The Supreme Court this week held oral arguments in a pair of cases that have tech companies, First Amendment advocates and digital rights-watchers on edge. On Tuesday it heard arguments in Gonzalez v. Google, a case that could redefine a decades-old law that protects online platforms from liability for third-party content they host. And on Wednesday it debated Twitter v. Taamneh, which asks whether the social media company violated an anti-terrorism law based on videos its algorithm promoted. We'll talk about how the justices appeared to be leaning and how they might rule. Guests: Sophia Cope, senior staff attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation Daphne Keller, director, Program on Platform Regulation at the Cyber Policy Center at Stanford Law School
James O'Keefe has been ousted from Project Veritas, the company he founded, on the heels of it's biggest expose against Pfizer!. What initially began as claims of “meanness” toward employees, as morphed into claims of financial impropriety. Both Gonzalez v Google and Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh are currently being heard by the Supreme Court. These cases have major implication to Section 230, a section of Title 47 of the United States Code that was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which is Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which generally provides immunity for website platforms with respect to third-party content. Should section 230 be overturned? In a remarkable turn of events, the Death of a Clinton aide with Epstein ties found tied to tree and shot, was ruled a suicide, despite NO GUN being found at the scene!
On Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a pair of cases concerning to what extent online platforms can be held responsible for terrorist content on their services. Gonzalez v. Google focused on the scope of Section 230, which shields platforms from liability for third-party content. Twitter v. Taamneh, meanwhile, concerned whether platforms can be held liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act if members of terrorist groups use their services to recruit and spread their message. Oral arguments took a combined five hours as the justices slogged through these difficult questions about the functioning of the modern internet. Lawfare senior editors Quinta Jurecic, Scott R. Anderson, and Alan Rozenshtein, and Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes, sat down to discuss.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
This week, Alan, Quinta, and Scott sat through literally hours of oral arguments to prepare to discuss all the national security developments in the news, including:“The HIMAR Anniversary.” The war in Ukraine is one year old this week. The Biden administration marked the occasion with a presidential visit to Kyiv and a finding of crimes against humanity, while Vladimir Putin celebrated by moving the Doomsday Clock a bit closer to midnight. What should we make of where the war stands one year in?“We're Living in a Post-Algorithm World, and I'm a Post-Algorithm Girl.” So said Justice Elena Kagan (more or less), as she and the other members of the Supreme Court heard arguments in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh on terrorism liability and the scope of protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—a case that some argue could break the internet. What did we learn from oral arguments? And what might the ramifications be?“Bold Dominion.” Dominion Voting Systems filed a stunning brief in its defamation lawsuit against Fox News earlier this week, which lays out in 200 detailed pages the extent to which Fox's executives and on-air personalities knowingly amplified lies about the company's conduct around the 2020 election. What did we learn about Fox's culpability? And what would a Dominion win mean moving forward?For object lessons, Alan recommended “Poker Face“ the new star vehicle for elder millennial America's unlikely sweetheart, Natasha Lyonne. Quinta shared some hyperlocal D.C. gossip about the difficult etiquette surrounding giving stuff away for free on the internet. And Scott shared the ultimate food hack for busy parents who want a little spice and funk in their easy dinners: throw a little kimchi into your Kraft macaroni and cheese. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
As Justice Kagan has asked, “Every other industry has to internalize the costs of its conduct. Why is it that the tech industry gets a pass?” Yet she and the other 8 Supreme Court Justices seemed wary this week as they heard oral arguments in two cases that could upend the Section 230 immunity that social media companies enjoy, Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh. Today, we hear from three experts: Stanford Law professor Evelyn Douek, National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen and UC Berkeley computer science professor Hany Farid. Up for discussion — what's at stake in these two cases, which way the wind seems to be blowing and, of course, will killing Section 230 kill the internet? Questions? Comments? Email us on@voxmedia.com or find us on Twitter @karaswisher and @nayeema Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Are you ready for a DEEP DIVE? We've got an extended conversation today explaining the stakes and anticipating the outcomes in two cases argued in front of SCOTUS this week: Google v. Gonzalez and Twitter v. Taamneh. The cases present questions about the scope of civil liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act in the aiding-and-abetting context (as applied to the use of social media platforms by terrorist groups) and the proper interpretation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and its protection of such platforms.
This week, the Supreme Court heard two cases challenging Section 230, a telecommunications law that provides Big Tech giants with legal protections from the content users post on their platforms. In both Twitter v. Taamneh and Gonzalez v. Google, the families of ISIS attack victims argued that the companies were "aiding and abetting" terrorists because their algorithms promoted extremist content to users who would have an interest in it. While there have been bipartisan efforts from lawmakers to limit the powers of Big Tech, others fear that doing so will inhibit free speech. FOX News Contributor and Law Professor at George Washington University Jonathan Turley joins the Rundown to weigh in on the arguments heard in the High Court, the role of social media companies in moderating their content, and the implications the arguments could have for free speech. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg arrives in East Palestine, Ohio, today, nearly three weeks after the destructive train derailment and subsequent chemical spill left residents in fear about the safety of the air and water in their town. Ohio Republican State Senator Michael Rulli represents a district that includes East Palestine and has been calling for the resignation of the Transportation Secretary, claiming the response to this issue from him and the Biden administration has been severely lacking. Senator Rulli joins the podcast to explain what action he would like to see taken by the federal government in regard to this disaster, the East Palestine community's sense of uncertainty given their potential chemical exposure, and what must be done to improve train safety and regulations. Plus, commentary by Fox & Friends co-host and host of The Brian Kilmeade Show, Brian Kilmeade. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In two big tech cases this week, the Supreme Court considers reinterpretations of Section 230, the heart of a “free” internet. Tech investor and Plexo Capital founding managing partner Lo Toney discusses the implications of Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh, as well as the next big tech revolution: AI. After over two years of pandemic-related shipping disruptions, the supply chain is still under pressure. Executive director of the Port of Los Angeles Gene Seroka paints the current picture of port traffic and cargo holdups. Plus, Elon Musk and California Governor Gavin Newsom have toured a new Tesla HQ, a proxy battle's brewing at Bath & Body Works, Baidu's taking on ChatGPT, and investors are worried about the Fed–still. In this episode:Lo Toney, @lo_toneyGene Seroka, @PortofLAJoe Kernen, @JoeSquawkAndrew Ross Sorkin, @andrewrsorkinMelissa Lee, @MelissaLeeCNBCKatie Kramer, @Kramer_Katie
On Feb. 22, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Twitter v. Taamneh, a case that deals with the liability of platforms that host or promote terrorist material. This case addresses the scope of the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, arguing that Twitter aided and abetted ISIS by hosting and promoting its content on its platform. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
This week, the Supreme Court heard two cases challenging Section 230, a telecommunications law that provides Big Tech giants with legal protections from the content users post on their platforms. In both Twitter v. Taamneh and Gonzalez v. Google, the families of ISIS attack victims argued that the companies were "aiding and abetting" terrorists because their algorithms promoted extremist content to users who would have an interest in it. While there have been bipartisan efforts from lawmakers to limit the powers of Big Tech, others fear that doing so will inhibit free speech. FOX News Contributor and Law Professor at George Washington University Jonathan Turley joins the Rundown to weigh in on the arguments heard in the High Court, the role of social media companies in moderating their content, and the implications the arguments could have for free speech. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg arrives in East Palestine, Ohio, today, nearly three weeks after the destructive train derailment and subsequent chemical spill left residents in fear about the safety of the air and water in their town. Ohio Republican State Senator Michael Rulli represents a district that includes East Palestine and has been calling for the resignation of the Transportation Secretary, claiming the response to this issue from him and the Biden administration has been severely lacking. Senator Rulli joins the podcast to explain what action he would like to see taken by the federal government in regard to this disaster, the East Palestine community's sense of uncertainty given their potential chemical exposure, and what must be done to improve train safety and regulations. Plus, commentary by Fox & Friends co-host and host of The Brian Kilmeade Show, Brian Kilmeade. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Issue(s): (1) Whether a defendant that provides generic, widely available services to all its numerous users and “regularly” works to detect and prevent terrorists from using those services “knowingly” provided substantial assistance under 18 U.S.C. § 2333 merely because it allegedly could have taken more “meaningful” or “aggressive” action to prevent such use; and (2) whether a defendant whose generic, widely available services were not used in connection with the specific “act of international terrorism” that injured the plaintiff may be liable for aiding and abetting under Section 2333. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★
This week, the Supreme Court heard two cases challenging Section 230, a telecommunications law that provides Big Tech giants with legal protections from the content users post on their platforms. In both Twitter v. Taamneh and Gonzalez v. Google, the families of ISIS attack victims argued that the companies were "aiding and abetting" terrorists because their algorithms promoted extremist content to users who would have an interest in it. While there have been bipartisan efforts from lawmakers to limit the powers of Big Tech, others fear that doing so will inhibit free speech. FOX News Contributor and Law Professor at George Washington University Jonathan Turley joins the Rundown to weigh in on the arguments heard in the High Court, the role of social media companies in moderating their content, and the implications the arguments could have for free speech. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg arrives in East Palestine, Ohio, today, nearly three weeks after the destructive train derailment and subsequent chemical spill left residents in fear about the safety of the air and water in their town. Ohio Republican State Senator Michael Rulli represents a district that includes East Palestine and has been calling for the resignation of the Transportation Secretary, claiming the response to this issue from him and the Biden administration has been severely lacking. Senator Rulli joins the podcast to explain what action he would like to see taken by the federal government in regard to this disaster, the East Palestine community's sense of uncertainty given their potential chemical exposure, and what must be done to improve train safety and regulations. Plus, commentary by Fox & Friends co-host and host of The Brian Kilmeade Show, Brian Kilmeade. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Social media companies might have to make significant changes to their platforms, depending on the outcomes of two Supreme Court cases.This week, the justices hear arguments in two cases that involve a federal law referred to as Section 230, which protects social media platforms from being held liable for the content users post.The high court heard arguments in Gonzalez v. Google LLC on Tuesday and will hear Twitter Inc. v. Taamneh on Wednesday. The rulings in these cases, expected sometime this summer, could affect how social media platforms operate.Under Section 230, platforms such as Facebook and Twitter are shielded from standards that, for example, newspapers are held to. While a news outlet can be sued for knowingly publishing false information, the same strict standards don't apply to social media sites, due to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.But some argue that tech platforms should be held accountable for false or dangerous information shared on the platforms. The two cases being brought before the Supreme Court this week "should be a very interesting debate, and it may not be one that divides cleanly along ideological lines, like we typically think of them, between the conservative and more liberal justices," says Zack Smith, manager of the Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program in The Heritage Foundation's Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)Smith, who is also co-host of the "SCOTUS 101" podcast, joins "The Daily Signal Podcast" to discuss how social media platforms could be affected by the cases being argued at the Supreme Court this week. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
A case in which the Court held an internet platform does not “knowingly” provide substantial assistance under 18 U.S.C. § 2333 merely because it allegedly could have taken more “meaningful” or “aggressive” action to prevent such use, and that an internet platform whose services were not used in connection with the specific “act of international terrorism” that injured the plaintiff cannot be liable for aiding and abetting under Section 2333.
A case in which the Court will decide whether an internet platform “knowingly” provides substantial assistance under 18 U.S.C. § 2333 merely because it allegedly could have taken more “meaningful” or “aggressive” action to prevent such use, and whether an internet platform whose services were not used in connection with the specific “act of international terrorism” that injured the plaintiff may still be liable for aiding and abetting under Section 2333.
Former President Donald Trump met with East Palestine, Ohio, residents and officials on Feb. 22 to provide bottled water and cleaning supplies as the village continues to recover from the aftermath of a recent train derailment and chemical spill. President Joe Biden addressed leaders of the NATO military alliance in Poland, pledging continued support for their security after Russia suspended a major nuclear arms control treaty. The Supreme Court heard Twitter v. Taamneh, which will decide whether social media companies can be sued for aiding and abetting a specific act of international terrorism when the platforms have hosted user content that expresses general support for the group behind the violence. ⭕️ Watch in-depth videos based on Truth & Tradition at Epoch TV
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
National Security: What must a plaintiff show to establish aiding and abetting liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act? - Argued: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 12:29:27 EDT
Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh | 02/22/23 | Docket #: 21-1496
Under Section 2333 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, as amended by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, U.S. nationals injured by "an act of international terrorism" that is "committed, planned, or authorized by" a designated foreign terrorist organization may sue any person who "aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires with the person who committed such an act of international terrorism," and recover treble damages. 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a), (d)(2). The questions presented are: 1. Whether a defendant that provides generic, widely available services to all its numerous users and "regularly" works to detect and prevent terrorists from using those services "knowingly" provided substantial assistance under Section 2333 merely because it allegedly could have taken more "meaningful" or "aggressive" action to prevent such use. 2. Whether a defendant whose generic, widely available services were not used in connection with the specific "act of international terrorism" that injured the plaintiff may be liable for aiding and abetting under Section 2333. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1496.html
Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh
-Biden's trip to the motherland - https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2023/feb/20/biden-visits-kyiv-ukraines-embattled-capital-as-ai/-Republicans are worthless too - https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/19/politics/mike-turner-mike-mccaul-ukraine-military-cnntv/index.html-Gonzalez v. Google - https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/gonzalez-v-google/?uuid=6lDmaQ5zfJnzKWNw5733-Twitter v. Taamneh - https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/twitter-inc-v-taamneh/-New Russian Sanctions - https://news.antiwar.com/2023/02/19/washington-plans-fresh-sanctions-on-russia-key-industries-targeted/-O'Keefe Out at Project Veritas - https://apnews.com/article/workplace-culture-florida-james-okeefe-business-1df6176308a14577ce9ba603fd227237 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
On February 14, the Brookings Institution hosted an event on the upcoming Supreme Court oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh—two cases that could potentially reshape the internet. The Court is set to hear arguments in both cases next week, on February 21 and 22. Depending on how the justices rule, Gonzalez could result in substantial changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the bedrock legal protection on which the internet is built. For today's podcast, we're bringing you audio of that discussion. Lawfare senior editor Quinta Jurecic moderated a panel that included Hany Farid, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, with a joint appointment in electrical engineering & computer sciences and the School of Information; Daphne Keller, the director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford University's Cyber Policy Center; Lawfare senior editor Alan Rozenshtein; and Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Deadly terror attacks behind a pair of cases set for argument at the Supreme Court could change the legal landscape for social media and other online companies. Families of victims in the violence abroad say in separate cases that tech giants are partly liable for abetting extremists for content posted on their platforms. The claim in Gonzalez v. Google to be heard Feb. 21 contends the company's YouTube site provided support for the Islamic State by allowing the posting of its videos and recommending those posts to users via algorithms. In Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh to be argued the next day, the question is whether the social media site violated anti-terrorism laws by failing to enforce policies against pro-terrorist content. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr discuss the broad liability protections for internet companies, particularly under Seciton 230 of the Communications Decency Act at play in the Google case. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
On February 21 2023 the US Supreme Court will hold oral hearings in two cases that might fundamentally change internet governance in the US and worldwide: Gonzalez v. Google LLC and Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh challenge the principle that platforms are not liable for users' content provided they have no actual knowledge of it. The Cases might lead to a fundamental reinterpretation of Section 230 of Title 47 of United States Code which currently reads as follows: ""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." (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)). We speak with Katerina Polychronopoulos. Katerina is a lawyer who received her Juris Doctorate in 2012 from the University of Illinois and has been working at the Department of Innovation and Digitalisation in Law since 2019. Links: https://id.univie.ac.at/en/team/univ-prof-dr-nikolaus-forgo/team/polychronopoulos-katerina/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzalez_v._Google_LLC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter,_Inc._v._Taamneh https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gonzalez-v-google-llc/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/twitter-inc-v-taamneh/
The Supreme Court is set to review a pair of cases that could significantly affect the power and responsibilities of social media platforms. On this episode, Tom will dive into more detail on both cases. The first case is Gonzalez v. Google, which argues that recommendations can count as their own form of content produced by the platform, removing them from the protection of Section 230. The second case is Twitter v. Taamneh, which questions when platforms are legally responsible for supporting terrorism under federal law.
What does the new year have in store for national security law and policy? This week host Elisa is joined by fellow committee members Bill Banks, Harvey Rishikof and Mary DeRosa to run through the big issues for the year ahead. Will this be a landmark year in the crackdown on tech? Will crypto policy steal the spotlight? What will happen with Title 42 and immigration law? Bill Banks is Chair of the ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security: https://securitypolicylaw.syr.edu/about_the_institute_for_security_policy_and_law/people/staff-2/william-c-banks/?_gl=1*u4himc*_ga*MjIyNjI4NTY2LjE2NjE1NDIxNjk.*_ga_QT13NN6N9S*MTY2MTU0MjE2OS4xLjAuMTY2MTU0MjE2OS42MC4wLjA. Harvey Rishikof is Senior Counselor of the ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security, and Director of Policy and Cyber Research at the University of Maryland Applied Research Lab for Intelligence and Security: https://law.temple.edu/contact/harvey-rishikof/ Mary DeRosa is Advisory Committee Chair of the ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/mary-b-derosa/ References: Gonzalez v. Google: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/18-16700/18-16700-2021-06-22.html Twitter v. Taamneh: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1496/226415/20220526180216120_21-xxxx%20-%20Twitter%20Inc.%20v.%20Taamneh%20-%20cert.%20petition.pdf "Congress Passes Justice for Victims of War Crimes Act." Just Security. December 22, 2022: https://www.justsecurity.org/84588/senate-passes-justice-for-victims-of-war-crimes-act/ U.S. Code Title 42: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 18 U.S. Code 2339D: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2339D
Stanford's Evelyn Douek and Alex Stamos weigh in on the latest online trust and safety news and developments:A bill that would ban TikTok in the U.S. and could be extended to other social media companies with ties to “foreign adversaries” was introduced in the House and Senate, but lacks Democratic co-sponsors in the upper chamber. - Lauren Feiner/ CNBC, Rebecca Shabad/ NBC NewsMeta released its annual report on “Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior Enforcements,” noting the milestone of 200 takedowns. - Ben Nimmo, David Agranovich/ Meta, Alexander Martin/ The Record by Recorded Future, @DavidAgranovich, @benimmoTech trade association NetChoice sued the state of California in an attempt to block the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act over First Amendment protections for content moderation. The law would go into effect next year with broad online privacy and safety components for children. - Natasha Singer/ The New York Times, Cat Zakrzewski/ The Washington Post, Rebecca Klar/ The Hill, Lauren Feiner/ CNBC, Rebecca Kern/ Politico ProThe Supreme Court schedule is set for hearings on Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh on February 21 and February 22. The cases are focused on content moderation and recommendation algorithms. - Adi Robertson/ The Verge, @GregStohr"Former President Trump said Thursday that he'd ban the U.S. government from labeling any domestic speech as ‘misinformation' or ‘disinformation' if he returns to the White House.” - Julia Mueller/ The HillMatt Taibbi named the Election Integrity Partnership in a Friday afternoon version of the Twitter Files. - @mtaibbiTwitter suspended over 25 accounts that track private planes and nine journalists — including CNN's Donie O'Sullivan, Ryan Mac of the New York Times, and Drew Harwell of The Washington Post — who shared links about the @elonjet account which posts public information about the location of Musk's private jet. Most reporter accounts have since been reinstated after Musk conducted a Twitter poll on whether to enforce his new policy against sharing flight trackers and similar information. - Jason Abbruzzese, Kevin Collier, Phil Helsel/ NBC News, Ashley Capoot/ CNBC, Ryan Mac/ The New York Times, Paul Farhi/ The Washington Post, Jordan Pearson/ ViceMusk banned linking out to other platforms… and then conducted a Twitter poll, subsequently reversing the decision, with 87% of voters opposed, and taking down the tweet announcement and blog page on the policy. Some users are still unable to post links to Mastodon and other social media sites in tweets. - Mack DeGeurin/ Gizmodo, @JuddLegumMusk conducted a scientific Twitter poll asking if he should step down as CEO. Nearly 58% of the more than 17 million respondents voted for him to step down. - Alexa Corse/ The Wall Street JournalIt was coincidentally just after he was at the World Cup with Jared Kushner and... a bunch of Emiratis. Eurasia Group President Ian Bremmer quipped that twitter's content moderation panel looks different these days. - @ianbremmerSports balls were kicked and a team scored more points than the other team after time was added, and then stopped, and then added, and then people lined up to kick more balls into the net than the other team. Congratulations to Argentina! - Ben Church/ CNNJoin the conversation and connect with Evelyn and Alex on Twitter at @evelyndouek and @alexstamos.Moderated Content is produced in partnership by Stanford Law School and the Cyber Policy Center. Special thanks to John Perrino for research and editorial assistance.Like what you heard? Don't forget to subscribe and share the podcast with friends!
We are joined this week by Caruso School of Law (Pepperdine) professor and constitutional law expert Barry McDonald to analyze the Supreme Court's fall docket. The Court is poised to hear a series of major cases this term, and Professor McDonald takes us through five of them: a free speech case (303 Creative LLC v. Elenis), a social media case (Gonzalez v. Google/Twitter v. Taamneh), an affirmative action case (Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard), a voting rights case (Moore v. Harper), and the independent state legislature case (Merrill v. Milligan).
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court granted cert in two cases concerning the scope of platform liability for content on their services: Gonzalez v. Google, about whether platforms lose section 230 immunity when they recommend content to users, and Twitter v. Taamneh, about whether platforms can be found to have aided and abetted terrorism if they are found to have been insufficiently aggressive in removing terrorist content from their sites. The cert grants were a surprise, and the cases are complicated. Evelyn sat down with Daphne Keller, the podcast's Supreme Court Correspondent, to dig into the details.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court granted cert in two cases concerning the scope of platform liability for content on their services: Gonzalez v. Google, about whether platforms lose section 230 immunity when they recommend content to users, and Twitter v. Taamneh, about whether platforms can be found to have aided and abetted terrorism if they are found to have been insufficiently aggressive in removing terrorist content from their sites. The cert grants were a surprise, and the cases are complicated. Evelyn sat down with Daphne Keller, the podcast's Supreme Court Correspondent, to dig into the details.
Stanford's Evelyn Douek and Alex Stamos weigh in on the latest online trust and safety news and developments:The Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases that could determine the scope of liability for websites and social media platforms that host and promote user content. - Rebecca Kern/ Politico, Rachel Lerman/ The Washington Post, David Ingram/ NBC NewsGonzalez v. Google is the case getting the most attention because somehow the words “Section 230” have become clickbait — quite an achievement for a random provision of federal law. The question in Gonzalez is whether platforms lose Section 230 protections for content that they promote. The family of a victim of the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks brought the suit.But we also really want to highlight Twitter Inc. v. Taamneh, which is about whether platforms can be found to have “aided and abetted” terrorism by having terrorist content on their services. The case was brought by the family of a victim of a 2017 terrorist attack in Istanbul which claims Twitter, Google, and Facebook aided and abetted terrorism by allowing the Islamic State on their platforms in violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act.Meta took down influence operations linked to China and Russia. The Chinese campaign was the first to target U.S. politics ahead of the midterms, but was clearly fake and had low engagement. The larger Russian network replicated media organizations to spread pro-Kremlin narratives about the war in Ukraine. - Steven Lee Myers/ The New York Times, Donie O'Sullivan/ CNN, Ben Nimmo/ Meta, Nika Aleksejeva, Roman Osadchuk, Sopo Gelava, Jean Le Roux, Mattia Caniglia, Daniel Suárez Pérez, Alyssa Kann/ DFRLabSpotify announced it is acquiring content moderation company Kinzen, bringing expertise and proprietary tools in house to improve trust and safety. - Sarah Perez/ TechCrunchPayPal is facing blowback after proposing rules that would have allowed it to fine users $2,500 for promoting misinformation — which the online payment service has since called an error. - Cristiano Lima/ The Washington PostCalifornia passed a “cyberflashing” law that allows recipients of unwanted sexual imagery to take legal action against the sender for up to $30,000 in civil damages. California is the third state to pass a law that provides legal recourse for this form of sexual harrassment and abuse. - Cristiano Lima/ The Washington PostMore: The dating app Bumble played a significant role pushing for the new law. The app requires women to send the first messages to matches in an attempt to create a better dating experience.Context: The new law may be a sign of a trend across state legislatures which are increasingly passing measures against online harms and abuse. A Bumble executive to The Washington Post the company plans to push for similar legislation in Maryland, New York and D.C.Join the conversation and connect with Evelyn and Alex on Twitter at @evelyndouek and @alexstamos.Moderated Content is produced in partnership by Stanford Law School and the Cyber Policy Center. Special thanks to John Perrino for research and editorial assistance.Like what you heard? Don't forget to subscribe and share the podcast with friends!
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases that concern whether tech platforms can be held liable for user generated content, as well as for content that users see because of a platform's algorithmic systems. In deciding to hear Gonzalez et al vs. Google and Taamneh, Mehier et al vs Twitter et al, the Court will broach the question of whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act should be narrowed, and whether it still immunizes the owners of websites when that algorithmically “recommend” third-party content into a user's feed. To learn more about these cases and the potential implications of the Court's decision, Tech Policy Press spoke to an expert on tech and internet law: Anupam Chander, the Scott K. Ginsberg Professor of Law and Technology at Georgetown University.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
