The Daily Observer London Desk: Reporter- John Furner
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against families of victims of terrorist attacks, who sued three big tech companies after alleging they aided and abetted terrorists by allowing their videos and content on their platforms.
The high court — in a unanimous ruling — said the families failed to state a viable claim under an Anti-Terrorism Act for aiding and abetting the terrorist organization. The named defendant in that suit was Twitter.
The crux of the plaintiff’s claims was that by letting ISIS content remain on Twitter — as well as Google and Facebook — the big tech companies were aiding the terror group in recruiting new members.
“Plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient to establish that these defendants aided and abetted ISIS in carrying out the relevant attack,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas for the court.
A companion case weighed whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — which has been used as a legal liability shield for internet platforms — protected the companies from the claims they were promoting algorithms linked to ISIS terrorist accounts.
In that dispute, the high court also issued a unanimous decision against the families challenging the tech giants. The court again reasoned the families did not assert a viable claim against Google, the named plaintiff in that dispute.
In the case directly against Twitter concerning the Anti-Terrorism Act, the families of a person killed in an attack in Istanbul, Turkey, sued, arguing the company didn’t do enough to keep the terrorists from using the platforms, which fueled the terrorists’ power and reach.
The companies countered that they can’t be held liable for the general use of their services.
The U.S. relatives of Nawras Alassaf, a Jordanian killed in the 2017 Islamic State-inspired mass shooting in Istanbul, said Twitter, Facebook and Google aided and abetted ISIS by hosting its content and, in some cases, deriving ad revenue from it.
The case was the second heard in February before the high court that dealt with tech giants’ liability. The day before hearing the Alassaf family’s claims, the justices heard a challenge against Google, which owns YouTube.
That case was brought by relatives of Nohemi Gonzalez, an American killed in ISIS’ 2015 massacre in Paris. Her family said YouTube was liable for building the Islamic State through its algorithms that promote ISIS content to those who go searching for it.
The tech companies argued they are shielded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally extends immunity for content posted by third parties on their platforms.
The case against Twitter tried to take that one step further, treading into the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act’s aiding-and-abetting provisions, which let victims recover civil damages against people or entities that provide material support in connection to international acts of terrorism.
The court unanimously shut those claims down in both cases in its Thursday rulings.
