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.
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 U.S.
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.• Stephen Dinan contributed to this report.
Malaysia Latest News, Malaysia Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Abortion pill case moves to appeals court, on track for Supreme CourtA federal appeals court in New Orleans hears arguments Wednesday on whether a drug used in the most common method of abortion was properly approved by a government agency more than two decades ago
Read more »
Abortion pill case moves to appeals court, on track for Supreme CourtA federal appeals court in New Orleans hears arguments Wednesday on whether a drug used in the most common method of abortion was properly approved by a government agency more than two decades ago.
Read more »
Abortion pill case moves to appeals court, on track for Supreme CourtAt issue are the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone in 2000, and FDA actions making the drug more accessible in later years.
Read more »
Mifepristone abortion pill case moves to appeals court, on track for Supreme CourtA federal appeals court in New Orleans hears arguments Wednesday on whether a drug used in the most common method of abortion was properly approved by the FDA in 2000.
Read more »
Abortion pill case moves to appeals court, on track for Supreme CourtAt issue are the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone in 2000, and FDA actions making the drug more accessible in later years.
Read more »
Abortion pill case moves to appeals court, on track for Supreme CourtLegal arguments over women’s access to a drug used in the most common method of abortion move to a federal appeals court in New Orleans on Wednesday, in a case challenging a Food and Drug Administration decision made more than two decades ago
Read more »