WASHINGTON — Dozens of special interest groups and civil society organizations have filed amicus briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the high court to retain Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. A total of 49 amicus briefs support Google in the case Gonzalez v. Google. YNOT reported previously on this case, noting that it could upend Section 230 in its current form.

Google-owned YouTube and its algorithms are on trial. Gonzalez v. Google tests the immunity granted to online companies when dealing with potential liability from third-party user posts. Many legal experts consider algorithms protected under Section 230’s safe harbor language.

Nohemi Gonzalez, a U.S. resident was killed during the Islamic State 2015 Paris attacks, along with 130 other victims. The plaintiffs in the case, Nohemi’s father, her estate and other family members, accuse Google of promoting pro-Islamic State material, which disseminated the faction’s objective of a global caliphate and attracted new members. The plaintiffs allege that YouTube, the world’s most popular video-sharing service, gave material help and has contributed to the terrorist group’s activities by permitting ISIS recruiters and supporters to use the platform as a way of recruiting.

The Gonzalez family has raised the issue of whether Section 230’s third-party liability protection applies to Google’s algorithms and their functions, considering that YouTube allegedly enabled the circulation of the material by way of its video suggestions and recommendations.

Wow, I counted 49 amicus briefs in support of @Google in the #Gonzalez case, including one by @ACLU, @knightcolumbia, @Reddit. Going to be busy taking them all in. Many explain why the algorithmic recommendations should be within 230’s scope

— Pamela Samuelson (@PamelaSamuelson) January 20, 2023

According to the docket, 49 amicus curiae briefs in favor of Section 230 and the respondents (Google and its subsidiary YouTube) have been filed by individuals and organizations ranging across the political spectrum. All these organizations and individuals represent very different interests as they relate to Section 230 safe harbor protections, First Amendment rights on the internet and free expression.

For example, one of the recent amicus briefs filed by a class of organizations notes that algorithmic curation, a point of contention in the lawsuit, “is a critical component of content moderation for online platforms on the modern web.” The organizations behind this brief include the Chamber of Progress, Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, HONR Network, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, IP Justice, LGBT Tech Institute, the Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council, and the Stop Child Predators group.

All eight groups note in their amicus brief that “acknowledging that Section 230 protects the removal of content, as Petitioners do, thus requires recognition that Section 230 likewise protects its promotion. Petitioners’ proposal to bifurcate Section 230’s protections by stripping immunity from platforms that promote content thus makes no sense: on the Internet, publication is promotion.”

Social media companies have voiced support for Google too. Reddit corporate and its moderators filed an amicus brief with the high court voicing a similar position to that of the Chamber of Progress et al. Ars Technica pointed to how the Supreme Court allowed testimony in support of Google and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 from the platform’s community moderators, anonymously.

A spokesperson for Reddit told Ars Technica‘s Ashley Belanger, a senior tech policy reporter, that Section 230 “famously protects internet platforms from liability, yet what’s missing from the discussion is that it crucially protects internet users — everyday people— when they participate in moderation like removing unwanted content from their communities, or users upvoting and downvoting posts.”

Other organizations that filed amicus briefs in support of Google include a variety of right-wing civil society groups and think tanks. Of note, these groups include the Americans for Prosperity (AFP) Foundation, Illinois Policy, and the Idaho-based Mountain States Policy Center, among others. Anti-porn social conservative and former Republican U.S. senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania also filed an amicus brief with the libertarian-leaning Protect the 1st Foundation in support of Google, also citing potential negative implications on free expression.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and former Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Minn., also filed an amicus brief with the high court. Cox and Wyden are the authors of Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act of 1996. Wyden is a very staunch supporter of the law he helped create with Cox.

Organizations that also filed in support of Google include the American Civil Liberties Union, the Reason Foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, the Trust & Safety Foundation, and a variety of private for-profit companies (e.g., Craigslist, online dating giant Match Group, Roblox, etc.) and other charities, think tanks, social activists, and academics.

Gavel photo by Ekaterina Bolovtsova from Pexels