the protections of section 230, but they confront that different issue in today s case that is now under way. arguments started just a few minutes ago. the question today is whether a terrorist victim s family can sue social media for even allowing terrorist content on their site. guys, a lower court said yes that they can sue because of a federal anti-terrorism law, but a lot of court watchers are saying that the supreme court could possibly say no, you cannot sue for just the fact that these sites allowed content. in degree so, guys that would eliminate both of these cases without the supreme court having to decide any major issue. that s what court watchers are banking on especially given the reluctance that they saw from the justices about wading in big time here. not only reluctant and confusion coming from the justices. jessica schneider, thank you so much. joining us now is former legal analyst and former prosecutor jennifer rogers. jennifer, i d like to start
should clarify how much tech companies should be involved. it is unclear. on the other hand, we re a court. we really don t know about these things. you know, these are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet. isn t that something for congress to do, not the court? reporter: the led family has lost the case at the lower courts but they continue to search for justice after the death of their daughter at the hands of terrorists. it won t bring me back my daughter, but at least it is something good that will be accomplished. reporter: the supreme court will hear another case wednesday morning to determine if social media companies are responsible for terrorist content on their sites under an anti terrorism law. and that case does not involve section 230, but big tech is still bracing for the rulings by
extremists spread their message. it s what appears on youtube, search engines, et cetera. jessica schneider has been following the arguments. i wonder what you re hearing and a lot of it is reading tea leaves and how the tech companies are arguing this, but what are the headlines? the headlines are yesterday, jim, the supreme court really seemed hesitant to step in here and really rock the boat in the way that internet companies operate. when it comes to the tech companies side they continue to warn that any major changes to the laws that currently police the internet would really cascade would have a cascade of effects and disarray and chaos online and how things are sorted and delivered to content users as well as a threat of the wave of lawsuits. so today the court is actually confronting another case. this is a decision about whether social media companies could be held liable for allowing terrorist content on their site. that s all under a federal
difficulty of drawing lines in this area. and just because of the fact that once we go with you, all of the sudden, we are finding that google is not protected, and maybe congress should watch that system, and maybe that is something for congress to do and not the court. so there is a lot of uncertainty by the justices of whether to step in, and how much they should tweak section 230 which for decades has given the broad protection for the social media companies, and this is first of two cases heard by the supreme court to determine if the social media companies can be held liable for terrorist content posted on their site. so there is a lot at stake, and if the supreme court were to whittle down the protection, it would change the way that the internet companies deal with content and maybe they would have to restrict a lot more content, and so it would create uncertainty that the court is not sure they are ready to really create that uncertainty
succeeds, it would require social media sites to heavily police the content posted, and the justices also asked whether it s congress and not the courts who should clarify how much tech companies are protected. every other industry has to internalize the costs of this conduct. why is it that the tech industry gets a pass? a little bit unclear. on the other hand, we re a court. we really don t know about these things. these are not the nine greatest experts on the internet. is that sthng for congress to do, not the court? reporter: the gonzalez family lost the case at the lower courts, but they continue to search for justice after the death of their daughter at the hands of terrorists. nothing is going to give me back my daughter, but at least that something good is going to be accomplished. reporter: the supreme court will hear another related case tomorrow morning. that will determine if social media companies are responsible for the terrorist content on