companies can be sued civilly for promoting content posted by others. this is all about section 230. jessica schneider, i think it s confusing for a lot of people, but this case and this family, the petitioners really bring it home for folks. yeah, they do, and they are putting the human spin on this, poppy, but tech companies are really bracing for the showdown at the supreme court. this will be a first-of-its-kind case. the justices will be deciding if the family of this american student killed in the 2015 paris terror attacks can sue youtube s parent company google because of the algorithms it used that the family says promoted terrorist content online. we continue in this fight because we re seeking justice. reporter: the gonzalez family s long legal fight started when their 23-year-old daughter was killed in paris in 2015.
Transcripts for CNN CNN Newsroom 20240604 18:29:30 archive.org - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from archive.org Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
so this is the family of that american student who was killed in paris in 2015. they want youtube and its parent company google held liable for her death at the hands of isis terrorists. they say that google not only allowed on youtube this terrorist content, these terrorist videos, but also that they recommended these videos to certain viewers. youtube is responding back saying, yes, we have these algorithms that make these certain recommendations but we re broadly protected under section 230 which does broadly protect internet companies. and these tech companies they re saying here now that if that protection gets chipped away it could really mean monumental changes for the internet. we continue in this fight because we re seeking justice. reporter: the gonzales family legal fight started when their daughter was killed in paris in 2015. she was at a bistro when isis
consequential case to come before the supreme court on the issue of internet governance. never before has it been a legal irk, but today we heard an oral argument that lasted more than two hours. a number of justices, conservative and liberal, sounding skeptical about the argument that google could be held liable for recommending videos that have terrorist content. listen to a bit of what the justices said today. i guess the question is how do you get yourself from a neutral algorithm to an aiding and abetting, an intent knowledge there has to be some intent to aid and abet. you have to have knowledge you re doing this. i don t understand how a neutral suggestion about something you ve expressed
a pass? a little bit 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? so the justices really struggled here to understand the issues in this case and to decide what to do here. abby, this won t be the last that they ll here on the issue. this is the first of two cases they ll hear the other one tomorrow. all of these cases will determine should social media companies be held liable for terrorist content posted on their sites. the big er question will be in the case tomorrow. big tech has been arguing here that they can t possibly patrol everything that s posted. they say they have these algorithms that recommend certain content and those are necessary to help users sort through a vast universe of content in all subject areas, not just terrorism. and the justices did take to