Is the legal status of the Internet giants, Google, Facebook and Twitter, about to undergo a revolution?
The US Supreme Court announced last week that it intends to hear an appeal filed, among others, on behalf of the Israeli organization Shurat Hadin. The appeal claims that international technology companies can no longer disclaim responsibility for terrorist content online.
The issue has been going on between different courts for seven years.
Now the conservative composition of the Supreme Court has decided to discuss the issue.
Unlike Israel, the Supreme Court in the USA hears every year only one hundred cases out of many thousands. The very decision shows that the judges intend to make a principled decision on the issue.
beheading videos on the networks
The beginnings of the cases in 2015. ISIS and Palestinian terrorist organizations then significantly utilized social media to spread their content.
The ISIS beheading videos were then distributed on the networks.
In Israel, Palestinians posted pictures of knives covered in Jewish blood with calls to continue the murders.
Following the acts, Shurat Hadin filed lawsuits in the US against Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. The lawsuits claim that the murders were made possible due to the freedom social networks gave to terrorists to spread their doctrine.
One case was filed on behalf of the American soldier who was murdered in Jaffa, Taylor Force.
Another lawsuit was filed on behalf of Naomi Gonzalez, an American student who was murdered in Paris in 2015 by a terrorist affiliated with ISIS.
Similar lawsuits were filed by families of other murdered victims.
Terrorist organizations will no longer be able to advertise on the networks, photo: Oren Ben Hakon
The internet giants claimed in the courts that they are actually just a "bulletin board" for content that others upload to the platforms, and that the law gives them immunity from liability for the problematic content.
Previous claims have been rejected
In the last seven years the position of the companies has been accepted.
According to "Law 230" from 1995, companies have immunity from liability for content, so the lawsuits were rejected.
However, last week the US Supreme Court announced that it would hear the Gonzalez case and eight other similar lawsuits.
Attorney Robert Tolchin, one of the attorneys in the Gonzalez case on behalf of the Shorat Hadin organization, told Israel Hayom that "the decision itself is a big deal.
Less than a percent of requests are granted.
An illogical situation has arisen, where according to the law, American companies are not allowed to supply pencils to the Hamas schools in Gaza, but they are allowed to supply Hamas, and other terrorist organizations, with digital infrastructure for free."
Attorney Tolchin explains that once the companies started creating a feed that pushes messages according to a certain line, it is no longer possible to claim that they are a passive "bulletin board". "Law 230 is interpreted in the courts more widely than the legislator intended.
Now there is a conservative court that will examine the issue from the ground up."
The liberal tendency will stand the test
The president of Shurat Hadin, attorney Nitsana Darshan Leitner, who is running for the Knesset on behalf of the Jewish Home, told Israel Hayom that the very decision to hear the appeal signals a legal revolution.
"In my opinion, the court wants to get into the issue to bring about change. Otherwise it would not have taken the case. The networks have a liberal tendency and this court is conservative. It can be estimated that the procedure will last about a year."
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us
