The lawsuit seeks changes to the changes companies’ safety standards, with the plaintiffs calling the platforms “defective and unreasonably dangerous.”
Families of Buffalo massacre victims sue Meta, Reddit, and Google over conspiracy theories::The lawsuit seeks changes to the changes companies’ safety standards, with the plaintiffs calling the platforms “defective and unreasonably dangerous.”
Isn’t this doomed to fail in light of the SC’s guidance in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v Taamneh ??
Edit: "The platforms’ failure to remove such content, Justice Thomas wrote, was not enough to establish liability for aiding and abetting, which he said required plausible allegations that they ‘gave such knowing and substantial assistance to ISIS that they culpably participated in the Reina attack.’” (copied from a NYT article)
This seems unlikely to succeed. “He wouldn’t have killed those people if he hadn’t read that book with those weird ideas in it!” is unlikely to ever justify finding the publisher of that book liable, under plain First Amendment jurisprudence.
Not sure that’s the best analogy since publishers do have an onus not to publish certain materials (example How would that work out for someone publishing something like the anarchists cookbook?)
Conversely, its not considered feasible for content providers (who don’t generate or police the content BEFORE it’s public) to police the work of content generators (the users). That’s why s.230 of the CDA (imo) does more than the first amendment
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
God damnit this shit is a waste of time.
Isn’t this doomed to fail in light of the SC’s guidance in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v Taamneh ??
Edit: "The platforms’ failure to remove such content, Justice Thomas wrote, was not enough to establish liability for aiding and abetting, which he said required plausible allegations that they ‘gave such knowing and substantial assistance to ISIS that they culpably participated in the Reina attack.’” (copied from a NYT article)
That was my first thought. And it’s not like it was a 5-4 ruling that’s teetering on the edge of being reversed
This seems unlikely to succeed. “He wouldn’t have killed those people if he hadn’t read that book with those weird ideas in it!” is unlikely to ever justify finding the publisher of that book liable, under plain First Amendment jurisprudence.
And yet, somehow, I feel like the lawyers who took this unwinnable case are going to come out okay.
One of life’s truisms: everyone can lose except the lawyers involved
Not sure that’s the best analogy since publishers do have an onus not to publish certain materials (example How would that work out for someone publishing something like the anarchists cookbook?)
Conversely, its not considered feasible for content providers (who don’t generate or police the content BEFORE it’s public) to police the work of content generators (the users). That’s why s.230 of the CDA (imo) does more than the first amendment
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=the+anarchists+cookbook
It’s openly sold by the world’s biggest bookstore. (And so are the similarly-named books that are actual cookbooks …)
Oh is it not banned anymore? Then my bad for using that as an example, but publishers do censor the works of their authors to try and avoid liability