At the heart of the ongoing legal dispute between victims of terrorist attacks and major technology companies is a crucial question: can tech giants such as Twitter, Facebook, and Google be sued for allegedly aiding ISIS terrorism by providing their platforms and services to the extremist group? The Supreme Court is set to weigh in on the matter in the upcoming case of Gonzalez v. Twitter, Let’s check out the legal and ethical implications of the case and its potential impact on the tech industry and society at large.
Background
The case of Gonzalez v. Twitter, Inc. stems from a series of coordinated terrorist attacks that ISIS carried out in Jordan in 2015 that killed several American citizens and injured others. The victims and families sued Twitter, alleging Twitter had knowingly allowed ISIS to utilize the platform to recruit members, plan and coordinate attacks, and spread propaganda. They argued that Twitter had violated the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), a federal law prohibiting material support and/or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations, and that the company should be held liable for harm caused by ISIS.
Twitter of course has an answer, that it’s protected by the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which federal law shields online platforms from liability for user-generated content. Twitter claimed that it was not responsible for the actions of its users, including ISIS, and that any attempt to hold it liable would violate its free speech and due process rights.
Issues in Play
The legal issues are multifaceted. So on the one hand, plaintiffs argue that Twitter’s conduct falls within the scope of ATA, which defines “material support or resources” to include “any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who maybe or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.” That seems like a wide scope! Plaintiffs further contend that Twitter’s provision of its platform and services to ISIS constituted “expert advice or assistance” and thus rendered the company liable for the terrorist attacks.
Buuuut … Twitter argues that the CDA provides legal cover. The CDA states that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Twitter avers that it cannot be held liable for user-generated content, including ISIS propaganda, and to find Twitter liable to would violate its First Amendment free speech protections.
Ethical Implications
Beyond the legal issues involved i the Gonzalez case, there are important ethical considerations in play. It’s reasonable to believe that technology companies have a responsibility to prevent their platforms and services from being used to spread hate, violence, and extremism. And, in recent years, it’s become widely, publicly known that ISIS (and other groups) have leveraged social media and other online tools to recruit members, plan attacks, and disseminate propaganda. Criticism has been leveled at tech companies for failing to take sufficient action to combat this phenomenon, and have called for greater accountability and transparency.
Buuuut … it’s also important to recognize potential unintended consequences of holding tech companies liable for conduct of users. Couldn’t such a move have a chilling effect on free speech and innovation by forcing companies to monitor and censor user-generated content? Arguably.
One must also consider the global reach of tech companies, which makes it difficult to determine when and how liability should be assigned. After all, it can be tough to distinguish between legitimate speech and incitement to violence, or to determine whether a particular user is actually affiliated with a designated terrorist organization. And, such liability may disproportionately harm small and medium-sized businesses.
But, can’t “tech” companies develop the “tech” to prevent coordinated terrorist attacks? Tech!
